| S is for Schmuck（German） ｜
编 者 按：
德语“Schmuck"用英文诠释大致可译为”Decoration(裝饰）”, “Ornament（装饰/饰品/首饰）”，”Adornment（饰品）” 或 “Embellishment（点綴）”。现代语意中它也有Jewellery（珠宝首饰）之意。和英文译法相似，如用中文诠释”Schmuck”，大概也只可能译为“装饰”、“首饰”、”点缀物”等。但准确说德语”Schmuck”与上述任何一个英、中字意，或德英同源同意字”Ornament”都有所不同。
一个值得关注的现象：”Schmuck”作为一种“装饰”，但又有囿于一般“装饰”的特殊性，目下逐渐展现出一种趋势——英文世界可与“Jewellery”并用，甚至有取代之势。这一趋势，虽未形成广泛共识，但某些迹象不容漠视：如，在英文维基可觅见针对此德语字的英文解析词条:Schmuck(surname)；在Instagram平台，标注“#Schmuckdesign ”的德英混搭词组已超30万，足可见对该词的当代体认确有社群基础（跨越德语使用区）。事实上，回望距今不过百余年的现代艺术发展史，会发现对“Schmuck”深意的警觉，可追溯至上世纪初叶。
以下译文节选自对西方现代性研究有着极重要贡献的文献——英国建筑与艺术评论家Reyner Banham于1960年出版的专著《Theory and Design in The First Machine Age (第一机械时代的理论与设计)》。其中，第一章第七篇论及“阿道夫·路斯与装饰的问题（Adolf Loos and the problem of ornament）”（阿道夫·路斯：20世纪初奥地利著名建筑师，文化评论家）。文中不仅交代路斯如何通过一篇影响力深远的檄文——“装饰与罪恶”，走向反过渡装饰之路，同时也强调他是位传统主义者，一位真正的古典主义者（在建筑构建中表现为申克尔主义者 Schinkelist）。与他同时期的德意志制造联盟的理论家，虽首当其冲意识到德语“Schumck” 与"Ornament" 之间存有差异，但可惜的是，他们未能厘清或辨析差异所企及的程度。试想，如德语”Schmuck”完全等同另一个德语字：”Ornament”, 何必两两共存？Banham在文中虽没有直接尽书"Ornament"与“Schmuck”的差异。但字里行间，读者足以感知，路斯所器重的设计社会感与精神规范与“Schmuck”的深意保有一致：即通过反对过渡装饰以追求有着象征意味的无装饰的装饰。此种“装饰”，立足精神的纯粹性（purity of mind），而非绝对的“形式纯粹(purity of form)”。
需要说明的是，由于以下中译文为不完整的片段节选，为避免（或减少）因断篇引发的误读，现简要诠释全文梗概如下：
- 世纪之交，作为当时最先进文化的代表，在德意志制造联盟内部：从该组织的缔造者、实践者至理论家，已然认知在新艺术运动及维也纳分离派中备受推崇的“裝饰”手段是为累赘。制造联盟的理论家Karl Gross在一篇官方论述中指明建筑中的“Schumck（装饰/构筑）”与“Ornament（装饰）”有所区别。但可惜的是，以他局限的视界，在当时，非但沒有旗帜鲜明的对“冗饰/藻饰”提出异议，甚至期待这一手法在20世纪得以延续。由此，他对“装饰”的暧昧取态，被制造联盟內部的后来者所摒弃。
- 和Gross截然不同，同时代的阿道夫·路斯则表现出与建筑”Ornament（装饰）”决绝的姿态。他清醒的认识到”Ornament”与现代设计理念不相适宜。路斯在其个人重要论述“装饰与罪恶“中一针见血，对Ornament提出理性批判，并提供一种意识牵引——审美构建的基础是经由哲思明辨所引发的无装饰的装饰或寻求节制、适宜的裝饰（Schmuck)。相比较而言，Ornament或Decoration仅意味纯粹的堆砌，于现代文明而言这是一种对劳动力和金融资本的罪恶消耗。因此他强调：“文化的发展是人类随着消除有用物品中的装饰（Ornament)而推进的”。
- 历史证明，路斯的观点在后来得到广泛认同，且对现代意识形态产生深远影响。勒·柯布西耶甚至表示“装饰与罪恶”的论述是对建筑学的“荷马式清洗”（这也让路斯一度被后世误以为是位极端禁欲主义者），从而验证了路斯在这一问题上的前瞻。后世代的设计人，包括制造联盟內部的继承者，开始追随路斯路线，不但主动抛弃冗饰（多余的装饰），且开始学习像“工程师——一类对国际主义风格产生重要影响的'高贵的野蛮人'那样——用无装饰去构造/裝饰（Schmuck）”。
Banham同时也强调，在当时，路斯所反对的“装饰”仅指在他那个年代受过良好规训，却依旧难舍用一种繁琐、轻浮，原始性喷发的裝饰手段（在“装饰与罪恶”开篇，路斯即开宗明义，用人类学研究法阐释何为原始性喷发的装饰。）将利己的自负与靡烂的欲望相结合。Banham也因此提醒我们留意，路斯对史前文明，或农夫、劳工等草根阶层的装饰行为，则相当宽容。在他看来，他们的装饰活动保有一种缄默，体现了一种客观的内在文化根植（如森林里的土堆，形似金字塔，路人见它内心会涌起一种情感：“这里长眠着.....”——所以这不仅是土坟，在路斯看来这是一种富有人性的装饰、构筑——或建筑）因此，他本能且诚挚的对这一装饰手法抱以尊崇。
此外，一点番外：作为建筑师、筑评人，路斯不仅造房子、写檄文。他也曾在其自创的短命文化杂志及其他场域畅谈对各类文化建构(家俬、服装、首饰、器皿，管道水暖、音乐、以及印刷等），特別是对服饰的看法。他将服饰剪裁与建筑构筑并列，对服饰的态度，可理解为他对“装饰(Schmuck)”的态度。“他认为，“服饰应当具有 ‘透明性’：藉由服饰的直接和简洁，可以体现一个人的纯净和真实。在穿着得体且能体现人的正直性的情况下，可以使用一些装饰元素，这些装饰不再是伪装和粉饰，而是社会文化基础的体现。”在这里，被现代性界定的核心”装饰（Schmuck)”事实上已构成一种相对于既定的、被广泛接受的认知学所无法制控的新图景。再次体认与回望这段思想交锋史，重识路期的灼见，当下的启示（或许也是警示）在于：反思与正视何为今天的“冗饰”“伪饰”与“粉饰”，以协助明辨各类实践中可能的过界与滥用；同时追问，何种创造在今日可被视为“无装饰的装饰（Schmuck）”？如这种裝饰意味着“节制”，那么“节制意识”可否被教化？百年过去，“Ornament”问题为何依旧是个问题？下世纪之交呢？假设这一问题终会终结，那么，明日的终结于今日又意味着什么？...
|
AMONG THE EFFECTIVE contributors to the body of ideas that supported the Modern Movement, one must certainly number Adolf Loos. Yet his contrubtion was sporadic, personal and not always very serious in tone. As an architect he appears as one of the first to build in a manner that really valued simplicity of form as a virtue in itself, yet usually spoiled that simplicity by usages that wilfully departed from it, or materials that concealed it. As a write he was prolific and usually well-informed, yet much of his influence depends upon one, or possibly two, of his most opinionated essays. As a person he was turbulent, combative, contradictory and capable of turning personal quarrels into public crusades, yet he was admired and courted, and people are still proud to claim his acquaintance, twenty or more years after his death.细数对现代运动思想体系作出卓越贡献的人，必不能忽视阿道夫·路斯（Adolf Loos）这号人物，哪怕他的贡献仅是零星、个人化的，且鲜有严肃性。（路斯给人的印象是以调侃的、不带脏字的挖苦、揶揄、甚至挑衅建构其立论与驳论-译注）作为一名建筑人，他似乎是最早一批建造者，能够真正重视且认识到形式”凝练”是为一种建造美德，但有时他也会在实际操作中故意偏离、或利用材质掩盖这种“凝练”。作为一名著述人，他多产且博识，但其中最具影响力的篇章不过一、两篇。作为一名普通人，他生性好斗、爱闹、爱抵触，能够将私下争执变成公开讨伐，但就是这样的一个人，依然受到恭维与拥戴，哪怕在他过世二十多年后，人们仍自豪地宣称和他的熟识度。
The subject of this essay – the status of architectural decoration – was not a new one, and in the early years of the century was a very live issue. But Loos’s attitude towards the subject goes far beyond that of any of his contemporaries, and directly contradicts that of some of the most influential bodies of opinion, notably the Werkbund...本文的主旨(“本文”是指路斯在1913年发表的重要评论：“装饰与罪恶”-译注)——建筑装饰的状态——并非一个全新的话题，在本世纪初（20世纪初-译注），这其实就是一个非常现实的问题。路斯对这个问题的态度（认知）远超他的同代人，且直接与当时某些最具影响力的观点、体系形成对峙，比如：德意志制造联盟...
Adolf Loos: Ornament and Crime , 装 饰 与 罪 恶 - Adolf Loos 著 述 选 ...But what is most remarkable, in view of later developments, is to find within the line of descent from English Free architecture and the Deutscher Werkbund, no sense of impropriety in the ornamentation of machinery, engineering structures and machine products. The development of such a sense is a tribute to the revolution in taste effected by Loos himself and the abstract aesthetics of the war years…...但基于后来的发展，值得留意的是，在英国自由建筑运动和德意志制造联盟的建造谱系中，并没有发现机械结构与机械产品的装饰有不协调之感。而协调感之所以得以发展，可以说是对路斯本人以及战争年代抽象美学所引发的鉴赏力革命的致敬...More remarkable than this is the Werkbund`s only official pronunciation on the subject in the period, an article by Karl Gross in the fahrbuch for 1921. It is easy to suppose that Muthesius’s demands for the elimination of the nebensächlich refers to ornament specifically, but an examination of Werkbund products suggests that it only refers to ‘superfluous’ ornament, which is not the same thing. It is unlikely that Muthesius would have been able to hold together his heterogeneous organisation if he had deprived one whole wing of it – the artist-designers – of the only element they were trained in or capable of contributing, and he nowhere inveighs against ornament as such. Behrens likewise shows a divided attitude on the subject – his products for industrial users(e.g. arc lamps) are undecorated, but those for domestic use (e.g.electric ovens) are ornate, and Gropius shows himself a capable ornamentalist in his fabric designs, etc. 1913-1914.更值得关注的是，此阶段德意志制造联盟对装饰议题仅有的一份官方表述，是卡尔·格罗斯（Karl Gross, 德意志制造联盟理论家）于1921年发表在制造联盟年鉴上的一篇文章。这很容易让人以为，穆特修斯（Hermann Muthesius，德意志制造联盟的缔造者和精神领袖-译注）要求消除繁文缛节是针对具体的装饰物，但其实他对制造联盟设计的产品，仅要求剔除“多余的”(‘superfluous’ )装饰，此二者显然是两码事。试想，如穆特休斯取缔了整个组别中的一翼——艺术家设计人——只有他们受过规训且有能力做出贡献，那么穆氏就很难将风格迥异的组别团结一处 (当时制造联盟內部有三翼组成：艺术家设计人artist-designer、工业师和手工匠-译注），所以他也就不太可能过于反装饰。贝伦斯（Peter Behrens，德国现代设计之父, 制造联盟成员之一）在这个问题上也表现出区别对待的态度：他的工业设计（如：弧光灯）鲜有装饰，但是家用设计（如：电烤炉）却持有精饰，此外，格罗皮乌斯（Walter Gropius，建筑师，德国包豪斯艺术学院缔造者、精神领袖，也曾是制造联盟成员之一）在1913-1914年制作的织物设计中，也表现出成为一个装饰人的可能。But Karl Gross’s article also reveals a qualifying factor in Werkbund discussions that may be no more than a verbal quibble, or may be the touchstone that distinguishes justifiable ornament from superfluous ornament. It first appears as a question that can hardly be rendered into English
Muss Schmuck denn ohne weiteres Ornament sein?
because no two English words (e.g. Decoration/Ornament) carry the distinction that Gross makes between Schmuck and Ornament. The general sense of Schmuck appear clearly enough in a later sentenceDer erste Schmuck eines Gebaüdes ist gute Massenverteilung (The prime ornament of a building is a good arrangement of the masses)which seems to be comparable to the implication of a passage from Lamprecht cited by Worringer…architecture, apart from its more or less ornamental accessories, such as the comprehension of space…但是，卡尔·格罗斯的文章却揭示了制造联盟讨论中的关键点，这不单单体现在词语语意上的小分歧，它极可能是区分合理装饰和多余装饰的试金石。首先，它显示为一个极难被译成英文的问题：Muss Schmuck denn ohen weiteres Ornament sein?Schmuck不得不是另一个 Ornament ？因为英文中没有两个单词（无论是Decoration还是Ornament）可以表达格罗斯所述的关于Schmuck与Ornament之间的区别。Schmuck 的大意在后面的这句话中倒是表达的非常清晰：
Der erste Schmuck eines Gebaüdes ist gute Massenverteilung
这似乎可以与沃林格（Whilhelm Worringer,德国艺术史家，抽象说代表人物）引用兰普雷希特的一段话相提并论。
...建筑，除去某些细微的装饰性辅助，更多是对空间的领会...
But, in any case, this is only the erste Schmuck, and he nowhere renders precise the point at which degrees of Schmuck begin to shade off towards Ornament. And beyond this, though he is clearly dissatisfied with some contemporary ornament (in his second sense), he dose not turn his back on it in general. In fact he looks forward to an Ornamentik of the twentieth century. His views about this suggest that, though the ornament may be in a new style, his main interest in it is one that had been declared outmoded at the Werkbund Congress of 1911. Thus, while he admits that
Beatufy of form is pleasing, even without ornament
and complains that industrial style consists of seeking to mislead, by means of worthless ornamental rubbish covering poorly conceived form ...his solution does not envisage those formal and intellectual disciplines proposed by Muthesius, nor the absolute anathema proposed already by Loos, but simply a call for Qualität
Decoration, even ornament in the technical sense, must remain quality work when we set out on the road to twentieth-century ornament. If ornament is to be again what it once was and must remain, a particular distinction that lifts an object out of the general mass, it must be quality work. The power of survival of the artistic handicrafts rests directly on this premise.
无论如何，这只是erste Schmuck (Schmuck的基本意涵)，而他（指卡尔·格罗斯-译注）无论在何地都无法精准说明，相对Ornament的共知，Schmuck 的意涵正逐渐模糊的程度。此外，尽管很显然（第二感告诉他）他并不满意当下的某些装饰手法，但总体来说，他对此并不抗拒。实际上，他期待着二十世纪的装饰。他的态度表明，对于在制造联盟1911年大会上被宣布过时的观点他依旧饶有兴趣, 尽管这种“装饰”可能已是截然不同的样式。虽然他也承认：“试图通过毫无价值的装饰垃圾，以覆盖拙劣的构思，是一种误入歧途...”但问题是他的解决方式，既没有正视穆特修斯提出的智性形式法则，也没有直视被路斯毅然决然抛弃的所在，他的方法是仅限于对品质的呼吁，他表示：
“在我们迈向20世纪装饰之路时，装饰，即便是技术意义上的装饰，也必须保持高水准。 如果装饰物要恢复它曾经的存在价值，且必须保留，那么让该物质从一般物质中脱颖而出的关键在于，产品的质量。艺术手工艺的生存力直接取决于这一前提。”
Here we have a writer belonging to the most progressive body in the field of design at the time, taking a line that was to be specifically rejected by the next generation of designers belonging to that body, who turned against ornament of any kind, and accepted Loos’s views on the subject so wholeheartedly that he had to complain of plagiarism. For him, the idea of a nineteenth-century Ornamentik, was insupportable, let alone an Ornamentik of the twentieth，and for him ornament was irretrievably connected with poor-quality goods.在这里，一位隶属当时最先进设计领域的艺术理论家，他的路线注定要被该群体中的下一代所摒弃，新一代设计人转而投向：反对任何形式的装饰（Ornament)，并全身心的接纳路斯对这一议题的看法，以至于他（指卡尔·格罗斯-译注）不得不抱怨挪用（或抄袭）。对他来说，十九世纪的装饰法是无法忍受的，更不用说二十世纪的了。所以，以他有限的视野，饰物只能无可奈何的与粗制滥造的商品联系在一起。
The reason why Loos`s ideas prevailed over a more cautious attitude lies largely in three factors. Firstly, his absolute anathema on ornament solved Gross`s problem (and everyone else`s) by a swift and surgical means. Secondly, he was timely and specific. At a time when Art Nouveau was falling into discredit, his attack on ornament was launched aganist named Art Nouveau designers, as well as more generally. And thridly, his mode of expression gave his argument unwonted force. Both argument and style are effectively summed up in the opening paragraphs of Ornament and Crime.路斯的观点之所以比这种谨小慎微的论调显得高明，主要归因于三个要素。首先，他与装饰决绝的姿态以迅雷不及掩耳的、外科手术般的方式解决了格罗斯一派的纠结。其次，他的论述及时且具体，在新艺术运动陷入声名狼藉的一刻，展开攻击，并针对性的指向新艺术运动、或范畴更广的设计师。再次，他的表述方式使得他的论据显出不同寻常的力度美，在他的檄文“装饰与罪恶”的行文之初，已呈现对这一问题的陈情，无论是文法亦或文风。Loos, in fact, is quite permissive to the ornamental activities of those whom he regards as culturally lagging-earlier civilisations, primitive persons, even the labouring poor of Vienna. It is only sophisticated decoration by trained artists of his own time that he attacks, and he himself is fully prepared to use, e.g. the Doric order, when he feels that the situation requires it.事实上，路斯对那些被多数人认为象征着落后文明的早期史前装饰，以及维也纳劳工阶层的草根装饰，都相当的宽容。他攻击的对象只针对在他那个时代，受过严格规训的艺术家所制造的“冗饰”，而他本人对于：比如多立克柱式（古希腊建筑三大经典立柱装饰手法之一，相对于另两种柱式，多立克柱式的装饰特点为：精准、富含力度美的适度雕饰。希腊雅典卫城的帕提农神庙即使用这种柱式-译注）的态度是为：当他觉得必要，已做好充分的使用准备。Also, like many reformers, he was a Traditionalist and tended to look backward, not forward. One does not find him attacking Ruskin, as Marinetti was to do. In spite of his inevitable distrust for the Deutscher Werkbund (which he seems to regard as a plot of artist to batten on classes of production that ought to be unornamented, the imposition of a false style) he thanked Muthesius in print for Das Englische Haus, and was attached to the English cottage tradition as epitomised in the English Free architecture. He took tradition-bound English tailoring as a model of reticent good taste. Though he admired some consequences of American industry and the whole of American plumbing, he had none of the Futurists` sense of machinery as an aid to personal expression, and he mocked the ideas of a high-obsolescence, scrapping economy, such as was already appearing in the U.S.,and was accepted enthusiastically by the Futurists in the next five year. He tends to see furniture and utensils as a class of possessions whose market value must be maintained, not as a class of equipment to be discarded when outmoded.而且，像众多改革家一样，路斯是个传统主义者，倾向回望，而非眺望。从来没有一个人见过他像马里内蒂（Filippo Tommaso Marinetti，意大利诗人、理论家、未来主义运动奠基人，著有《几何机械之美和对数字的感性》-译注）那样攻击拉斯金（John Ruskin，英国维多利亚时代重要作家、艺评家、哲学家、业余地质学家。有学者甚至认为路斯在“装饰与罪恶”中的某些观点是对约翰.拉斯金《建筑的七盏明灯》中“真理之灯”的“铠装与镀层/Cladding Builds”、即有守护之意-译注）。尽管他对德意志制造联盟有着必不可免的不信任感（他认为，企图用强加的虚饰以控制那些本应素简的产品，是艺术家的阴谋），但他依旧欣赏穆特休斯出版了像《英国住宅》这样的专著，当中视英国农舍营造传统为英国自由建筑运动的集大成者。他视囿于传统英国的“专门定制”为表征良好审美的范式。尽管他也欣赏某些美国式的工业化手段，比如他们的水暖业，但他却没有像任何未来派主义者那样，用机械意识助力个人表达。此外，他也会挖苦那些已出现在美国，并在后续五年中备受未来派主义者青睐的：高报废率、无视经济效益的做法。他个人倾向将家具和餐具视为必须保有市场价值的一类资产，而非过时即弃的一种设备。上 图：路 斯 为 自 己 设 计 的 坟 冢 与 墓 碑... In spite of the apparent contradiction of his insistence on the plan in Roman architecture, it seems doubtful if , for Loos, the seeming Abstract was ever completely so, whether the purity of Pure Form ever really interested him as anything other than a symbol of purity of mind....尽管他对自己所坚持的罗马建筑规划存有明显的否定，但对于路斯来说，表面上看似抽象的东西是否真就如此“抽象”，“Pure Form（形式纯粹）”的纯净性是否真就比他事物更足以表征精神的纯粹，因此引发了他的兴致，这似乎值得怀疑。In the style of his own time, can only mean, in Loos`s view of the evolution of ornament and culture, in an undecorated style. Freedom from ornament is the symbol of an uncorrupted mind, a mind which he only attributes to peasants and engineers. In this view succeeding generations were to follow him, thus laying further foundations to the idea of engineers as noble savages (to which Maritnetti also contributed) and also - and this is vital in the creation of the International Style - laying further foundations to the idea that build without decoration is to build like an engineer, and thus in a manner proper to Machine Age.
路斯认为，在其所处的时代，装饰和文化的衍绎，理当呈现无装饰的样式。免于装饰的束缚是一种令思想免受腐化的象征，他将这种想法的产生归功于农夫与工程师。在这一观念影响下（当然马里内蒂也为此做出了贡献）后世代的追随者开始学习像工程师——一类对国际主义风格产生重要影响的“高贵的野蛮人”那样——用无装饰去构造（装饰），并以 “机器时代” 的方式推进这一思潮的发展。1. Ornament Ohne Ornament- Franz Bette:Schmuck（ISBN: 9783882701128）2. Form Ohne Ornament / Form Without Ornament（ISBN: 978-3875848755）
3. Ornament and Crime - Selected Essays (ISBN: 978014139298）4. 装饰与罪恶 - 尽管如此 1900-1930（ISBN: 9787568040006）Ornament Ohne Ornament : Franz Bette-Schmuck
Ornament Without Ornament : Franz Bette -Schmuck（无装饰的装饰 : FranzBette - Schmuck)本书为艺术家同名个展之德英双语专辑，专辑平面视觉由：第14届德国卡塞尔文献展平面设计团队Vier5操刀，出版社：Arnoldsche Verlagsan，内文理论撰写：
Sabine Runde 博士 - 德国艺评家，Schmuck2019 总策划 ， Christiane Weber-Stöber 博士 - 德国哈瑙首饰金工博物馆馆长注：「三声」在此声明的原创，仅为上述中译文的译作权。留意到该书在2009年已有中译本问世（ISBN: 9787534429040），在仔细对照英文原本与09版中译本之后，鉴于不能完全苟同该译本的某些译法与表述（比如：文中将 “high-obsolescence” 译为“极度陈旧的”，我们的理解是“高报废率或高淘汰率的”，和后一句的 “economy/ 经济实用”形成对应）。同时, 基于对知识传播精准性的考量，特节选该书第一章第7节（P88-97）中的小部分自译。因此上述译本是「三声」反复研习上下文，斟字酌句的自译所得。如对我们的中译本有任何异议，恳请批评、指正。若有意引用我们的译文，也请务必注明出处（标注原文链接与其他相关信息）。全文转载需后台接洽，感谢留意！
往昔聚焦 之【饰品与绘画】：
关 于 「三 声」
ABOUT 「THIRD VOICE」
![]()
「三声 | 饰品与文化略记簿」：一间独立媒体公众号。以笔记体方式纪录、解析、讨论与饰品相关的文化议题、文化观念及文化事件。除在线传播，线下实践拓展至: 设计、出版、实验室、展览等。为便于归档与查阅，「笔记薄」以英文 26 个字母为母题，逐一发声。始于2020，全球穴居期。
Third Voice | Notes on Jewellery & Culture, is an indie blog/vlog/...where the jewellery-related issues, notions & events would be recorded and interpreted widely on. Apart from online podcasting, the offline approaches: design, publishing, laboratory and exhibition are also synthesized as one in practice. All notes, in that sense, serves in alphabetical order for archiving and checking to voice out. Starting from 2020 - a year of global homing.
「三 声」有 声
部分图文来自网络，文字版权归原作者所有，转载请联络
「三 声」会 客
THIRDVOICE2020@gmail.com
转 发 订 阅 | 友 爱 三 声
艺 道 薪 传 | 普 惠 他 人
![]()
籍 论 饰 | 见 未 来
「三 声」有 幸！