珍妮弗·沃爾琪，馬庫斯·歐文斯/Jennifer Wolch, Marcus Owens

徐知蘭 譯/Translated by XU Zhilan

范路 校/Proofread by FAN Lu

動物在設(shè)計中起到什么作用？

為了回答這個問題，我們分析了一小部分當(dāng)代動物設(shè)計項目，既有來自于知名從業(yè)者的作品，也有各大設(shè)計文化媒體平臺報道的個別項目和競賽參賽作品。同時文章還思考了提出這一問題的意義，它處于關(guān)注人類與動物相互關(guān)系的人類與動物研究（HAS）領(lǐng)域，以及關(guān)注科技、材料與視覺文化的設(shè)計研究領(lǐng)域之間的交叉地帶。盡管馬修·富勒[1]已考察過有關(guān)動物的藝術(shù)，而迪薩爾沃和盧肯斯[2]也曾試圖厘清更廣義的“非人類中心的設(shè)計”；而考慮到生物科技領(lǐng)域在市場驅(qū)動下取得的進(jìn)步，以及設(shè)計與力求滿足人類欲望的后資本主義注意力經(jīng)濟(jì)、創(chuàng)造性經(jīng)濟(jì)和創(chuàng)新經(jīng)濟(jì)之間的關(guān)系，本文的研究更明確地遵循了斯勞特戴克ⅰ提出的“人類動物園規(guī)則”[3]，指出這些研究領(lǐng)域之間的交集地帶與人類政治日益相關(guān)。本研究認(rèn)為，設(shè)計的美學(xué)實踐為提出動物性的議題，以及探討與之相關(guān)的技術(shù)與技藝問題提供了理想的平臺。與之類似的是，設(shè)計的技術(shù)要素為我們提供了一種理解動物的新方法。該方法從綜合運動與感官表達(dá)以及環(huán)境流量ⅱ的行為學(xué)角度出發(fā)，讓我們能夠超越人類強(qiáng)加給動物的、將形態(tài)特征作為其本質(zhì)的認(rèn)識。[4]

已有證據(jù)表明，在動物研究和設(shè)計研究的案例中都出現(xiàn)了關(guān)注焦點彼此匯聚的趨勢?？紤]到人類與動物研究的專業(yè)植根于動物權(quán)利運動和動物解放運動，且這一研究在非人類的主體性方面也已獲得了越來越多的科學(xué)證據(jù)，因此，它與當(dāng)代社會的關(guān)系尤為獨特，而當(dāng)代社會的彈性政治與生態(tài)危機(jī)的觀念也支持了去人類中心主義的傾向。那些富于魅力的動物曾主導(dǎo)了20世紀(jì)的動物研究領(lǐng)域及其基于人權(quán)概念的研究方法。而更近期一些，則有人提出應(yīng)重新設(shè)定能動性和主體性的概念來適應(yīng)除此之外的其他動物的特征，其中包括菌類[5]、苔蘚植物[6]，甚至還包括宇宙中“不仁”的地質(zhì)物質(zhì)[7]。這些方法能綜合美學(xué)和符號學(xué)理論，用于闡述物質(zhì)的潛在政治能動性。這些文獻(xiàn)并不一定支持拉圖爾ⅲ召集的“物的議會”的號召ⅳ，但將物質(zhì)引入動物研究領(lǐng)域的方法也值得注意，這一方法以物質(zhì)實踐的方式與設(shè)計研究相聯(lián)系。雖然在某些問題上，例如，為了維護(hù)整體生物多樣性而使某些物種滅絕，動物權(quán)利提倡者可能會和生物中心主義的環(huán)保人士產(chǎn)生沖突。但在模棱兩可的情況下，提高人們對非人類他者的意識，則常常能成為秉持可持續(xù)發(fā)展理念的動物項目設(shè)計者的目標(biāo)。

為了確定動物在設(shè)計中的位置，我們必須首先理解設(shè)計與科技、物質(zhì)材料、視覺文化之間的歷史關(guān)系?？v觀從人類學(xué)[8]到哲學(xué)[9]、技術(shù)史[10]和藝術(shù)史[11]等領(lǐng)域的相關(guān)設(shè)計理論，設(shè)計一直都被認(rèn)為是人類進(jìn)行創(chuàng)作和制造的方式，它源自古希臘籠統(tǒng)的“技藝”一詞，與奴隸和農(nóng)夫的實踐和手工勞動密切相關(guān)。在這些學(xué)者看來，伴隨著泰勒主義ⅴ工業(yè)生產(chǎn)制度所產(chǎn)生的勞動分工現(xiàn)象，設(shè)計從技術(shù)和籠統(tǒng)的技藝概念中獨立了出來。英戈爾德描述了設(shè)計和其他類似的藝術(shù)或科學(xué)天賦等“人類自發(fā)想象工作”的出現(xiàn)，如何變成機(jī)械勞動興盛而手工業(yè)衰敗的另一種技術(shù)實踐[8]295。在物質(zhì)文化和技術(shù)研究領(lǐng)域的學(xué)者看來，設(shè)計意味著對物質(zhì)或技術(shù)的管理或美學(xué)操作[12]。由此，設(shè)計“工作”成為附加的管理或?qū)徝绖趧?，超越了與技術(shù)本身直接相關(guān)的物質(zhì)功能。

然而，設(shè)計與現(xiàn)代的關(guān)于藝術(shù)的概念也有差別，文藝復(fù)興時期出現(xiàn)的素描概念和朗西埃ⅵ提出的“藝術(shù)美學(xué)機(jī)制”或藝術(shù)的觀念就強(qiáng)調(diào)了這一點。在朗西埃“再現(xiàn)機(jī)制”定義的最后部分有這樣的闡述，素描或繪畫行為服務(wù)于藝術(shù)和技術(shù)之間的溝通界限，或現(xiàn)代社會中視覺創(chuàng)造和手工勞動[13]之間的界面。因此，設(shè)計必須、或至少應(yīng)該在理論上“有效”。根據(jù)預(yù)設(shè)產(chǎn)生結(jié)果所具備的技術(shù)意義，與在藝術(shù)美學(xué)機(jī)制下產(chǎn)生的自發(fā)行為形成對比，也定義了現(xiàn)代性的內(nèi)涵。人們期待設(shè)計能產(chǎn)生令人耳目一新、破除傳統(tǒng)、及（或）模棱兩可的情景或產(chǎn)品，而設(shè)計本身又要求在某些層面達(dá)成一定程度的共識，以及實現(xiàn)一些功能。

我們通過探討動物設(shè)計項目與其物質(zhì)功能和藝術(shù)審美之間關(guān)系來開展研究。許多項目來自學(xué)術(shù)工作室、概念方案競賽和藝術(shù)實踐的成果，刊登在BLDG博客及其旗下的“將來完成時”網(wǎng)站，而“拓展環(huán)境”網(wǎng)站等媒介上的項目也都天然地更具批判性和理論性。雖然這些項目通常是利用現(xiàn)有技術(shù)精心設(shè)計的成果——如“未來動物園”，但它們也采取了與傳統(tǒng)動物建筑類型不同的建筑形式，由此為全新的跨物種關(guān)系設(shè)計構(gòu)建了新奇的物質(zhì)形態(tài)。這些項目以各種方式模糊了藝術(shù)和設(shè)計的邊界?！芭行栽O(shè)計”[14]或“設(shè)計藝術(shù)”[11]的實踐形成了一些常常富于批判性或煽動性的“功能”對象，而不同于設(shè)計所包含的字面意義。誕生于學(xué)術(shù)工作室的思辨設(shè)計和智庫，借鑒了想象視覺化、另類現(xiàn)實、或批判現(xiàn)存事實的建筑學(xué)悠久傳統(tǒng)，是現(xiàn)代設(shè)計的象征標(biāo)志。最后，明星建筑師現(xiàn)象也同樣明確地來源于現(xiàn)代主義對藝術(shù)審美機(jī)制天才的崇拜，而不是一種自發(fā)的或進(jìn)化論式的觀點。許多建成項目的特色在于場地設(shè)計——尤其是動物園和水族館，這和當(dāng)代語境中建筑實踐作為品牌建設(shè)手段的理念聯(lián)系更多。許多在Archinect、Archdaily、Designboom和Dezeen等網(wǎng)站上報道的關(guān)于動物的建成設(shè)計作品，則傾向于對由行業(yè)規(guī)范所限定的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)建筑類型進(jìn)行新現(xiàn)代主義的重復(fù)美化，而不是出于“為動物而設(shè)計”本身的目的。

What are animals doing in design?

To answer this question, we analysed a small sample of contemporary animal design projects, taken both from the oeuvres of established practitioners as well as one-off projects and competition entries circulating on design culture media platforms. In doing so, this paper also considers what it means to pose such a question, located at the intersection of human-animal studies (HAS) with its attention to relations between humans and animals, and design studies, whose focus is on technology, material and visual culture. While Matthew Fuller[1]has examined art for animals, and DiSalvo and Lukens[2]attempt to make sense of a broader "non-anthropocentric design," this research more specifically follows Sloterdijk's[3]"rules for the human zoo," proposing the intersection between these domains as increasingly politically pertinent for humans, given market-driven advances in biotechnology and the relationship of design to the libidinal late-capitalist economies of attention, creativity, and innovation. This research suggests that the aesthetic practice of design provides an ideal forum for bringing up the question of animality and desire into studies of technics and technology. Likewise, technical aspects of design provide a means to understand animals beyond innate morphological essences assigned by humans, from an ethological perspective composed of expressions of movements, sensations, and environmental fl ows[4].

In the cases of both animal and design studies,there is already evidence of trajectories towards convergence. Given its roots in the animal rights and liberation movement, and predicated on growing scientific evidence of nonhuman subjectivity,HAS has particular relevance in the contemporary moment, in which resilience politics and the perception of ecological crisis underpin a de-centring of the human. More recently, some propose to recon fi gure the notions of agency and subjectivity to accommodate beings beyond the charismatic animals that have dominated animal studies in the 20th century and its humanist rights-based approaches,including fungi[5], mosses[6], and even the "inhuman"geologic matter of the cosmos[7]. These approaches may incorporate aesthetic and semiotic theory to expound upon the potential political agency of materials. Without necessarily committing to Latour's project of assembling a "parliament of things," these literatures are worth noting in the way that they bring materials into animal studies,providing a window to connect with design studies as a material practice. While animal advocates may clash with a bio-centric environmentalist outlook on issues such as the extermination of certain species for the sake of biodiversity metrics, the general,if at times ambiguous, goal of raising awareness of a nonhuman-other can often constitute the ends for sustainability-minded animal designers.

To begin to place animals in design, we must first understand design's historical relationship to technology, and to material and visual culture. Across theories of design in domains from anthropology[8],to philosophy[9], to histories of technology[10]and art[11], design is understood as a way of making and doing that emerges from the broader classical Greek techné associated with the practical, manual labour of slaves and peasants. For these scholars, design becomes distinct from technology and the broader techné with the division of labor associated with Taylorist industrial production. Ingold describes how the emergence of design and other "spontaneous work of the human imagination" such as artistic or scientific genius, act as an antipode to technical practices resulting from the rise of machinic labour and the decline of the artisan[8]295. For scholars of material culture and technology, design refers to the curatorial or aesthetic arrangement of materials or technologies[12]. In this way, the"work" of the designer is this added curatorial or aesthetic labour that extends beyond the immediate material functionality of the technology itself.

However, design is also distinct from the modern concept of art, underscored by Renaissance concept of disegno and Rancière's "aesthetic regime," or art.Formulated at the close of what Rancière terms the "representative regime," disegno, or the act of drawing, serves to negotiate the interface between art and technology, or creative vision and manual labour in the modern era[13]. In this way, design must, or at least should, theoretically "work." This technical sense of producing predetermined outcomes is in contrast to the autonomy afforded to art under the aesthetic regime that defines modernity. Design is expected to produce novel, iconoclastic, and/or destabilising scenarios or products, yet at the same time requires at least some level of consensus and functionality.

One way of discussing animal design projects in our survey is in terms of this relationship to material functionality and aesthetics. Largely resulting from academic studios, ideas competitions, and art practices, many projects featured on blogs such as BLDGBLG, its Future Perfect aきliates, and Expanded Environment, are more critical or speculative in nature. While they are sometimes elaborations on established typologies, such as a "future zoo,"they also feature forms other than traditional animal typologies, thereby imagining new material components for novel interspecies relations. These projects blur the boundaries between art and design in different ways. "Critical design"[14]or "design art"[11]practices create objects with "function" as critique or provocation oftentimes, something other than what is literally implied by design. Speculative designs,emerging from academic studios, and think tanks draw on a long tradition in architecture of imagining visionary, alternative realities or critiquing existing ones is a hallmark of modern design. Finally, the phenomenon of the starchitect is also clearly rooted in the modernist cult of genius associated with the aesthetic regime of art rather than an emergent or evolutionary perspective. Many of the built projects featured on design sites – especially zoos and aquaria –relate more to a conception of architectural practice as brand-building in the contemporary moment.Many of the built animal architecture projects on Archinect, Archdaily, Designboom, and Dezeen tend to be aestheticised neo-modernist iterations of these standardised typologies dictated by industry standard guidelines, rather than "designing for animals" per se.

無論表現(xiàn)形式如何，設(shè)計有限創(chuàng)新的特點清晰地呼應(yīng)了后資本主義的資本積累模式。如果說深時ⅶ、大氣科學(xué)和生態(tài)學(xué)的后平衡范式代表了人類從行星視角對環(huán)境觀念進(jìn)行重新定義，那么媒體理論家則通過類似生物媒體[15]或濕件[16]系統(tǒng)的概念主張化解生物和科技的分界。其中，濕件系統(tǒng)與軟件編碼、硬件設(shè)備三者共同形成了計算機(jī)系統(tǒng)。考慮到“有計劃地干預(yù)人類生命方法”[17]的動力機(jī)制，或設(shè)計中蘊含的“有效力的工程”[18,19]，“美感力量”的概念隨之產(chǎn)生，描述了在不斷產(chǎn)生新奇感、不斷創(chuàng)新和進(jìn)行品牌形象管理的過程中，有機(jī)體的感覺中樞如何成為設(shè)計的對象，這些過程則是在當(dāng)代注意力經(jīng)濟(jì)背景下，為吸引消費者關(guān)注所必須完成的[20]。如果說基因材料、活細(xì)胞和神經(jīng)元是新一輪“科技推動資本積累”[21]的浪潮前沿，那么審視動物在設(shè)計中所扮演角色的過程，能讓我們理解當(dāng)今社會為人類而做的設(shè)計具有的動物性機(jī)制。舉例來說，對動物和動物性的思考能如何幫助技術(shù)和設(shè)計領(lǐng)域的學(xué)者思考我們和機(jī)械智能的關(guān)系呢？例如土耳其機(jī)器人ⅷ、人工智能、或為了逃避面部識別軟件辨認(rèn)而進(jìn)行時尚和化妝的設(shè)計等。

設(shè)計中的動物研究：方法和資料

為了開始全面了解當(dāng)代與動物相關(guān)的設(shè)計，我們就設(shè)計文化媒體開展了動物相關(guān)項目的調(diào)查。調(diào)查大量依賴網(wǎng)絡(luò)信息，因為有許多建筑項目——無論是已建成還是概念性的，都未在書籍、同行評閱的期刊文獻(xiàn)甚至流行出版物中進(jìn)行報道。這可能和建筑師與業(yè)主不披露項目信息的協(xié)議有關(guān)，也可能是由于競賽、展覽、學(xué)術(shù)工作室、和其他短暫地出現(xiàn)過的思辨作品大量涌現(xiàn)，而它們以各種方式定義了當(dāng)今的建筑和設(shè)計文化。我們的調(diào)查也因此聚焦于由著名建筑博客網(wǎng)站所構(gòu)成的所謂“博客圈”，包括Archinect、Archdaily、Designboom、Dezeen、BLDG博客及其“將來完成時”網(wǎng)站。Inhabitat作為更為消費者導(dǎo)向的生態(tài)生活方式設(shè)計博客也同樣報道了一些動物主題的建筑項目。最后，“延展的環(huán)境”博客（原“動物建筑”）則完全致力于報道建筑和設(shè)計文化中的動物，并組織了若干屆“動物建筑獎”。后文針對研究中并未覆蓋的物種分布所進(jìn)行的探討也因此呼應(yīng)了更廣義的視覺和媒體研究，而這些研究針對廣受歡迎的數(shù)字動物（或受歡迎的明星建筑師品牌）[22-24]的算法領(lǐng)域進(jìn)行了探討。

1 “犬類度假酒店”（設(shè)計：范邁耶建筑師事務(wù)所）/"Canis Resort" (Designer: von Meier Architekten)

3 “犬舍”（設(shè)計：丘比克斯公司）/"Dog House" (Designer:Cubix)

2 “城市犬類冒險”（設(shè)計：瑪麗·德羅斯）/"City Dog Adventure" (Designer: Maartje Dros)

4 “鳥廈”（設(shè)計：黃中）/"Birdscraper" (Designer: Zhuong Huang)

物種代表性

總體而言，我們的研究覆蓋了從2000-2014年的一系列博客和傳統(tǒng)出版物，包括書籍、期刊文獻(xiàn)和展覽目錄。根據(jù)林奈生物分類法的專業(yè)術(shù)語，在進(jìn)行分析的86個項目里有2個項目與軟體動物有關(guān)，12個項目涉及節(jié)肢動物，還有72個項目則屬于脊椎動物（我們沒有找到任何明確涉及環(huán)節(jié)動物、海綿動物或水母的項目）。在12個節(jié)肢動物項目里，有7個是有關(guān)蜜蜂的項目，而蜜蜂與技術(shù)的關(guān)系也是無數(shù)學(xué)術(shù)研究的主題[4][25]。其中4個蜜蜂建筑項目是蜂巢的變體，在這里被歸為動物巢穴的裝飾性變體項目類型。其他的設(shè)計項目還包括一個旨在幫助蜜蜂授粉的生態(tài)學(xué)項目和2個利用蜜蜂的天性制造蜂窩結(jié)構(gòu)的項目。我們查到的2個軟體動物項目分別是娜塔莉·杰里米金科和克里斯·沃伯肯的“貽貝唱詩班”和SCAPE景觀建筑師事務(wù)所為紐約港設(shè)計的“牡蠣建筑”方案。

到目前為止，最大規(guī)模的一組建筑是為脊椎動物設(shè)計的，盡管脊椎動物門下屬的動物種類最少。在72個脊椎動物項目中，有12個涉及蝙蝠及（或）鳥類，而除了2個項目之外，其他所有項目都是為野生動物或家禽設(shè)計的。和設(shè)計蜂巢一樣，所有這些項目都在某種意義上重新定義了當(dāng)代生態(tài)學(xué)和城市環(huán)境中的野生動物相關(guān)設(shè)計，但它們通常表現(xiàn)得與其說是通過對動物感官能力的研究“為動物而設(shè)計”，不如說是對現(xiàn)有建筑類型進(jìn)行裝飾性的重復(fù)。與此類似，許多此類脊椎動物項目的設(shè)計都落入了現(xiàn)有建筑類型的窠臼，如獸醫(yī)院或動物園，每一種都有按照各自行業(yè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的最佳設(shè)計模式，后文將就此進(jìn)行探討。

在所有的脊椎動物項目中，為貓和狗之類的寵物做的設(shè)計最常見。共有12個項目涉及貓或狗，其中7個項目是寵物醫(yī)院，3個是寵物之家，還有2個犬類主題公園。有一個以實驗性金魚缸為特色的項目并未計入這些寵物項目類型，它被歸在6個水下、海底或水族館項目之列。這些寵物保育設(shè)施衍生出了一個超出標(biāo)準(zhǔn)獸醫(yī)院而變得奢侈、并成為人類社會地位標(biāo)志的分類，如范邁耶建筑師事務(wù)所設(shè)計的“犬類度假酒店”（圖1）。

考慮到犬類與人類情感、情緒和生活方式方面不斷進(jìn)化的協(xié)調(diào)關(guān)系，它們長久以來就是人類與動物關(guān)系研究的關(guān)注重點。這些研究范圍涉及從考古學(xué)和動物學(xué)[26]研究、到更偏民族志學(xué)[27,28]的人類與犬類關(guān)系分析，而地理學(xué)家海蒂·納斯特[29]也批評這些關(guān)系所體現(xiàn)的當(dāng)代物質(zhì)文化是“新自由主義異化”的癥候。這一設(shè)計類型的歷史可能要涵蓋在加利福尼亞伯克利地區(qū)于1979年建立的歐隆族人公園，它據(jù)稱是美國第一個犬類公園。其他未包含在我們網(wǎng)絡(luò)搜索調(diào)查中的項目還包括瑪麗·德羅斯在荷蘭設(shè)計的犬類游戲場地“城市犬類探險”（圖2），以及肯·史密斯在曼哈頓東河沿岸設(shè)計的犬類公園。此外，還有無數(shù)狗舍類型項目，包括明星建筑師的“為犬類設(shè)計建筑”和丘比克斯公司的“狗舍”（圖3）。在設(shè)計方面，這些項目似乎和裝飾性的蜂巢、鳥巢或蝙蝠巢穴更相似。有許多鳥類和蝙蝠的巢穴設(shè)計，也有從高端預(yù)制物件到各類奇思妙想的設(shè)計，如黃中的“鳥廈”（圖4）。

Whatever the form, this characteristic of design for controlled innovation neatly corresponds to late-capitalist modes of accumulation. If the deeptime, atmospheric-science, and post-equilibrium paradigms of ecology present a planetary reconfiguration of ideas about the environment,media theorists argue for a dissolution of the division between bios and techne through concepts such as bio-media[15]or wetware[16]systems that triangulate with software code and hardware devices.Considering the power dynamics of "designerly ways of intervening into people's lives"[17], or the"engineering of affect"[18,19]implicit in design, the notion of "atmospheric power" emerges to describe how the organism's sensorium becomes the subject of design in the constant production of novelty,innovation, and brand management required to capture consumer attention in the contemporary attention economy[20]. If genetic material, living cells, and neurons are the frontiers of a new wave of"techno-primitive accumulation"[21], examining the role of animals in design allows us to understand the dynamics of animality in contemporary designs for humans. For example, how might thinking about animals and animality help scholars of technology and design think about our relation to mechanic intelligence, such as the mechanical turk, artificial intelligence, or fashion and makeup design to avoid facial recognition software?

A study of animals in design: methods and materials

To begin to get an overview of contemporary design for animals, we conducted a targeted search of design-culture media for projects referencing animals. This search was largely web-based, as architecture projects, both built and speculative,are not published in ways comparable to books,peer reviewed journal articles, or even popular publications. This can be due to professional nondisclosure agreements with clients, as well as the vast array of competitions, exhibitions, academic studios, and other speculative work that circulates ephemerally in, and in many ways defines,architecture and design culture today. Our survey therefore focused on the so-called "blogosphere"of prominent architecture web-blogs, including Archinect, Archdaily, Designboom, Dezeen,BLDGBLG and its Future Perfect aきliates. Inhabitat,a more consumer-oriented eco-lifestyle design blog,also featured some animal architecture projects.Finally, the blog Expanded Environment (formerly Animal Architecture) is wholly devoted to animals in architecture and design culture, and has organised several "Animal Architecture Awards." The following discussion of the species distribution uncovered in our search therefore corresponds to a wider body of scholarship visual and media studies addressing the algorithm habitats of charismatic digital animals (or charismatic starchitect brands)[22-24].

Species representation

All in all, our search included a suite of weblogs and traditional publications, including books,journals, and exhibition catalogues dating from the year 2000 to 2014. In Linnean terms, of the 86 projects considered, two deal with mollusks,12 with arthropods, and 72 with vertebrates (we found no projects that explicitly dealt with annelids,sponges, or jelly fi sh). Of the 12 arthropod projects,seven are bee projects, concerned with an animal whose relation to technology is also subject to numerous scholarly investigations[4][25]. Four of these bee projects were variations on a bee hive,a type of project addressed here as a decorative variant of animal housing. Other designs included an ecological project that aims to assist bees in pollination, and two were projects that exploit the tendency of bees to produce honeycomb structures.The two mollusk projects found in our query were Natalie Jeremijenko and Chris Woebken's"mussel choir" and SCAPE Landscape Architect's"Oystertecture" proposal for New York Harbor.

By far the largest group is designs for vertebrates, despite being the phylum with the least number of individuals. Of the 72 vertebrate projects, 12 deal with bats and/or birds, and all but two of these are housing for either wild animals or domestic chickens. As with the designer beehives,while these projects in some sense prefigure contemporary ecological and urban wildlife designs,they often appear to be less "design for animals"that engage with animal sensory capacities than decorative iterations of existing typologies.Similarly, many of these designs for vertebrates also fell into established typologies, such as the veterinary facility or the zoo, each with its own set of industry-standard best practices, discussed later.

Of the vertebrate projects, designs for companion animals such as dogs and cats were very common. There were 12 projects for dogs or cats, seven companion-animal veterinary care facilities, three companion-animal housing schemes, and two dog parks. Not included in this companion-animal count was one project featuring experimental fish bowls, which joined a total of six underwater, marine, or aquarium projects.A subset of these care facilities for companion animals is a proliferation of designs for companion species that go beyond the threshold of standard veterinary care and into the realm of luxury,and signalling human social status such as in Meier Moh Architekten's "Canis Resort." (Fig.1)

Dogs have long been the focus of studies of human-animal relations, given their evolutionary attunement to human affect, emotion, and ways of life. This has ranged from archaeological and zoological[26]to more ethnographic[27,28]analyses of human-dog relationships, while geographer Heidi Nast[29]has criticised the contemporary material culture of these relationships as symptoms of"neoliberal alienation. A history of this genre of design might include Ohlone Park in Berkeley,California, which claims to be the home of the United States' first dog park, established in 1979.Other projects uncovered in our Internet search included the dog playground "City Dog Adventure"(Fig.2) in the Netherlands by Maarje Dros, and East River Waterfront dog park by Ken Smith.Additionally, there were numerous takes on the doghouse typology, including the starchitect exhibition"Architecture for Dogs," and Cubix's "Dog House."(Fig.3) Thought in terms of design, these projects may have more in common with the decorative beehives and bird and bat houses. There were many designerly bird and bat houses, ranging from highend fabricated objects to the wildly speculative,such as Zhong Huang's "Birdscraper." (Fig.4)

A variant on these companion-animal and animal-care projects is the wildlife rehabilitation facility, a typology associated with practices and technologies of restoration ecology or its more extreme variant, "rewilding." The ethics of wildlife reintroduction and behaviour modification are the subject of philosophical debate by environmental ethicists such as Clare Palmer[30]. Practical methods for wildlife reintroduction as part of restoration ecology are still emergent, subject to the formation of norms and best practices.They therefore provide more space for design intervention[31]. For the most part, projects found here were closer to refuges or veterinarian facilities.While many of these projects were nonetheless skilfully executed designs, intersections between the emerging fields of wildlife reintroduction and landscape restoration may be ripe for further innovation through the integration of technologies of rehabilitation, incubation, and behaviour conditioning with the broader landscape-scale restoration and corridor plans discussed previously.

這些寵物設(shè)施和動物看護(hù)設(shè)施項目的變種是野生動物的聚落設(shè)施，它與修復(fù)自然生態(tài)或其更極端的變化類型“再生野性”的實踐和技術(shù)有關(guān)。將野生動物放歸自然和行為重建的倫理學(xué)是克萊爾·帕爾馬[30]這樣的環(huán)境倫理學(xué)家的哲學(xué)議題。而野生動物放歸自然的實際做法作為修復(fù)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的一部分，受到常規(guī)形式和最佳實踐的影響，仍然十分緊迫。它們由此為設(shè)計的介入提供了更大的空間。[31]而本文涉及的大部分項目都更像是收容所或獸醫(yī)院。雖然在這些項目中有許多遠(yuǎn)談不上是技法嫻熟的設(shè)計，但野生動物放歸自然的新興領(lǐng)域和景觀修復(fù)之間的交叉地帶卻通過把康復(fù)、孵化和行為調(diào)控的各種技術(shù)和之前探討過的廣義景觀尺度空間修復(fù)和景觀廊道規(guī)劃結(jié)合在一起，由此可能為進(jìn)一步的創(chuàng)新提供成熟契機(jī)。

通過用林奈生物分類法的術(shù)語為這些項目建立框架，我們能看出哪些動物得到了來自人類設(shè)計師的最多關(guān)注。正如人們所預(yù)料到的，是脊椎動物，而不是種類數(shù)目更為龐大的節(jié)肢動物。有趣的是，那些通常被稱作與我們在進(jìn)化進(jìn)程中關(guān)系最密切的親屬——類人猿，卻絲毫不受關(guān)注，而如貓和狗之類的寵物則得到了相當(dāng)?shù)年P(guān)注度。與此類似的是，生產(chǎn)乳制品或直接為人類所消費的養(yǎng)殖牲畜也幾乎沒有獲得任何關(guān)注。

最佳實踐項目與思辨挑戰(zhàn)

研究采用的另一種分析方法是在建成與未建成作品之間作區(qū)分，或是在利用非人類動物提出挑釁和批判的項目、和更保守的動物建筑類型建成作品之間作區(qū)別。建筑博客網(wǎng)站報道的項目中有很大一部分都是對現(xiàn)有動物建筑類型的重復(fù)——動物園、水族館、獸醫(yī)院、收容所和野生動物放歸中心等。和許多人工設(shè)計的鳥巢和蜂巢一樣，這些建成作品的設(shè)計并未與動物本身產(chǎn)生聯(lián)系，而是更多地滿足了人類分類需要的不同功能。例如，為一座奢華的獸醫(yī)院或?qū)櫸飫游飯@采用的PR材料通常會模糊標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的箱籠、手術(shù)設(shè)備和其他非人類動物的要素。在很多情況下，還存在行業(yè)規(guī)范和專業(yè)機(jī)構(gòu)。例如美國國家建筑科學(xué)協(xié)會有一整套《實驗動物房整體建筑設(shè)計指南》；美國國家衛(wèi)生研究院的研究設(shè)施辦公室有針對動物研究設(shè)施的設(shè)計導(dǎo)則；世界動物園和水族館協(xié)會保留有動物展覽設(shè)計和施工項目的索引；而北美獸醫(yī)社團(tuán)則在最近的幾屆會議中都設(shè)有設(shè)計主題的分會場。這些行業(yè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和最佳實踐項目形成了傳統(tǒng)“日?！眲游锝ㄖ幕A(chǔ)，并經(jīng)常成為設(shè)計服務(wù)行業(yè)的獨立部門。例如，根據(jù)《整體建筑設(shè)計指南》，實驗動物的保育園——和非動物的研究設(shè)施一樣，必須包含高效的暖通空調(diào)系統(tǒng)（HVAC），推廣清潔理念，并推動確保生物安全的協(xié)定。此外，根據(jù)美國國家科學(xué)研究委員會的《實驗室動物豢養(yǎng)和使用指南》[32]，實驗動物房還必須配備適當(dāng)?shù)摹跋浠\尺寸和箱籠體系”，這份指南還進(jìn)一步給出了房間尺寸、環(huán)境和交通模式的要求。由于動物研究易于引起爭議的特點，額外的安全和保密也和設(shè)計有關(guān)。在我們對實驗動物房檔案進(jìn)行的研究中發(fā)現(xiàn)，它們顯然沒有出現(xiàn)在建筑事務(wù)所為那些杰出的生命科學(xué)高校研究機(jī)構(gòu)所設(shè)計的平面上。然而，如《實驗室設(shè)計要聞》之類的行業(yè)信息媒體則有許多為動物研究提供的實際設(shè)計項目報道，如美國庫爾波恩生物器材公司的“小型動物跑步機(jī)”，就十分“適合強(qiáng)迫運動訓(xùn)練和肌肉疲勞度研究”。由此，此類建筑設(shè)計的不透明與設(shè)計和銷售風(fēng)靡實驗室的產(chǎn)品所必須的可見度形成了對比。

5 屠宰場入口（設(shè)計：坦普·葛蘭?。?Slaughterhouse Gangway (Designer: Temple Grandin)

7 “豬市”（設(shè)計：MVRDV）/"Pig City" (Designer: MVRDV)

與實驗動物房罕為人知的情況相類似，屠宰場的建筑設(shè)計也模糊了人類的視野，反駁了蒂莫尼·帕奇拉[33]所形容的“異?？臻g”。雖然這種視野的模糊到了實驗動物房就表現(xiàn)為設(shè)計的缺失，在食品生產(chǎn)上與動物相關(guān)的項目卻具有相當(dāng)?shù)谋壤?。盡管許多項目屬于狹義的牲畜館舍和保育設(shè)施，卻幾乎沒有任何項目關(guān)注屠宰場和屠宰行為本身——也許最著名的反例就是坦普·葛蘭?、┑淖髌穂34]（圖5）。

6 農(nóng)場項目（設(shè)計：邁克·邁耶）/Farm Project (Designer: Mike Meire)

8 “農(nóng)田世界”（設(shè)計：設(shè)計伴隨公司）/"Farmland World"(Designer: Design With Company)

在所有的牲畜館舍設(shè)計中——無論它們是思辨的還是（至少在理論上）具有可行性的設(shè)計，我們能大致區(qū)別出基于技術(shù)構(gòu)想的項目，以及尋求更多田園詩意和鼓勵攝取本土食物意味的項目。調(diào)查涉及的裝配式農(nóng)場保持了更多回歸土地的城市田園傾向，包括于2008年在“邁阿密設(shè)計”上展出的德國藝術(shù)家邁克·梅勒的“農(nóng)場項目”，70F在荷蘭阿爾梅勒設(shè)計的“寵物農(nóng)場”（圖6），以及設(shè)在新奧爾良的曲型工作室搭建的一系列城市田園項目。前者的案例中包括若干理論項目，如MVRDV建筑設(shè)計事務(wù)所的“豬城”（圖7），是一個為了盡可能滿足荷蘭市場的豬肉需求所提出的概念性設(shè)計。該項目乍看怪異可笑，實則有力地批判了肉食消費和國家的可持續(xù)發(fā)展政策。更近期的思辨設(shè)計項目則是芝加哥的設(shè)計伴隨公司提出的“農(nóng)田世界”（圖8），表現(xiàn)了對意大利建筑師安德烈·布蘭奇的“農(nóng)構(gòu)城市”ⅹ的技術(shù)未來主義的都市田園回憶，景觀設(shè)計理論家查爾斯·瓦爾德海姆[35]用這個項目來論證當(dāng)代設(shè)計與農(nóng)業(yè)的結(jié)合是設(shè)計師日益增強(qiáng)的環(huán)境素養(yǎng)所導(dǎo)致的成功。

瓦爾德海姆認(rèn)為這種益處既涵蓋了全球化背景下的食品生產(chǎn)和分配，也包含了前工業(yè)化時代農(nóng)業(yè)技術(shù)的優(yōu)點，如生物多樣性和生態(tài)可持續(xù)性。更廣義地說，瓦爾德海姆通過將生態(tài)學(xué)經(jīng)驗付諸實踐方法推廣了景觀都市主義的學(xué)科，這一經(jīng)驗以復(fù)雜的系統(tǒng)理論作為出發(fā)點，而景觀也成為了卓越的設(shè)計媒介。由此，這個研究里的許多動物設(shè)計項目都受到了這種超越農(nóng)業(yè)范疇的影響。

在人為設(shè)計的景觀中面對動物

By framing these projects in Linnean terms we are able to see which types of animals receive the most attention from human designers. As might perhaps be expected, it is the vertebrates, not the far more numerous arthropods. Interestingly,those animals often said to be our evolutionary closest relatives, great apes, received no attention,while companion animals such as cats and dogs receive a substantial amount. Similarly, livestock animals that produce milk or are consumed directly by humans also receive almost no attention.

Best practices and speculative provocation

Another way to parse these findings is to differentiate between built and unbuilt projects,or provocations and critiques made using nonhuman animals and realised projects of more conventional animal-building typologies. A large share of the projects featured on architecture blogs were iterations of established animal typologies:zoos, aquaria, veterinarian facilities, refuges, and wildlife rehabilitation centres. As with many of the designer birdhouses and beehives, in these built projects design does not engage with the animal her/himself, but rather functions as a means of human distinction. For example, PR materials for a luxurious veterinary facility or petting zoo usually obscure standard cages, operating equipment, and other nonhuman animal interfaces. In many cases,professional guidelines and affiliations exist. For example, the National Institute of Building Sciences has a Whole Building Design Guide for Vivaria; the National Institute of Health's Office of Research Facilities has guidelines for the design of animal research facilities; the World Association of Zoos and Aquariums maintains an index of animal exhibit design and construction projects; and the North American Veterinary Community features sessions on design in recent conferences. These professional protocols and best practices form the basis for conventional, "everyday" animal buildings, and often form a distinct sector of the design services industry.For example, according to the Whole Building Design Guide, vivaria, like non-animal research facilities,must contain high performance Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC), promote cleanliness,and facilitate biosecurity protocols. Additionally,vivaria must accommodate the appropriate "cage sizing and cage systems" according to the National Research Council's Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals[32], which in turn dictate room size, environment, and circulation patterns. Because of the controversial nature of animal research,extra security and con fi dentiality are also pertinent to design. In our search to find documentation of vivaria, we found they were conspicuously absent from the plans of prominent life-sciences university research facilities featured in architects' portfolios.However, industry sources such as Laboratory Design News feature practical design products for use in animal research, such as Coulbourn Instruments' "Small Animal Treadmill," "suitable for forced exercise training and muscle fatigue studies." In this way, the opacity of architectural design contrasts with the visibility necessary for design and sale of products that populate the lab.

Similar to the invisibility of vivaria, in the case of the slaughterhouse architectural design obscures human vision, countering what Timothy Pachirat[33]describes as "a space of exception." While the obscuring of vision translated to a dearth of designs for vivaria, projects engaging with animals through food production constituted a signi fi cant portion of projects. However, while many projects pertain to practices of con fi ned livestock housing and care, few focus on the design of slaughterhouses and the act of slaughter itself – perhaps the most notable exception being the work of Temple Grandin[34](Fig.5).

Among all the livestock design projects, both speculative and applicable (at least conceptually),one can make a broad differentiation between techno-visionary projects and those that seek a more pastoral, locavore sensibility. Fabricated farm projects in the survey that retain more of a back-to-the-land, urban homesteading orientation included Mike Meiré's "Farm Project," presented at Design Miami in 2008, 70F's "Petting Farm"(Fig.6) in Almere, Netherlands, and a host of objects for urban homesteading fabricated by New Orleans based Crooked Works. Examples of the former include theoretical projects such as the MVRDV "Pig City" (Fig.7) project, a conceptual design to produce enough pork to satisfy the Dutch Market as efficiently as possible. The project is at once grotesque and also an effective critique of meat consumption and national sustainability politics. A more recent speculative project, "Farmland World" (Fig.8) by Chicagobased Design With Company, presents a technofuturistic urban pastoral reminiscent of Andrea Branzi's "Agronica," a project that landscape theorist Charles Waldheim[35]references to argue that the contemporary convergence of design and agriculture is a result of increasing environmental literacy amongst designers.

Waldheim suggests that this interest encompasses the production and distribution of food in a globalised world, as well as the benefits of pre-industrial farming techniques such as biodiversity and ecological sustainability. More broadly, Waldheim promotes the discipline of landscape urbanism as a means to apply lessons from ecology informed by complex systems theory as a departure point, with landscape emerging as a preeminent medium for design. In this way,many of the animal-design projects in this study bear this in fl uence beyond the scope of agriculture.

Encountering animals in the designed landscape

While Frederick Law Olmsted deployed grazing livestock in projects like New York City's Central Park as part of the pastoral ambiance of the landscape garden movement, an "ecological turn"in the mid-1970s repositioned non-human animals in the landscape from a perspective informed by endangered-species legislation and biodiversitydriven conservation biology. Within North-American landscape and environmental design culture, these strategies are often associated with the use of the "overlay technique" and ecological assessment surveys in the design and planning process that reconfigure landscape as habitat. As outlined in their 1998 Animal Geographies[36],Wolch and Emel observe that the contemporary"greening" of architecture and design has occurred in tandem with the maturation of urban ecological science to incorporate human-impacted urban ecosystems, while emergent late-20th century urban morphologies seem to allow more and more large fauna to come into close contact with humans. Many of the projects highlighted below function to smooth out these points of contact within the urban fabric.

These larger scale projects are often calibrated around a metric of biodiversity, or with the goal of protecting or recreating habitat connectivity for large keystone predators. Derived from principles of applied conservation biology and restoration ecology practice, examples of these large-scale plans include the Florida Wildlife Conservation Corridor, the Dutch National Ecological Network,and the proposed Yellowstone-to-Yukon Wildlife Corridor. Within these larger regional plans are landscape-scale design interventions, such as wildlife crossings and habitat restoration. While designers are largely absent from the Florida plan, several high profile Dutch design firms have built wildlife overpasses in the Netherlands,and the ARC Wildlife Overpass in Vail, Colorado was the product of a large international competition, won by Michael Van Valkenburg Associates "Hypar-nature" proposal (Fig.9).

9 “鞍形拱自然”（設(shè)計：MVVA）/"Hypar-nature"(Designer: MVVA)

隨著弗雷德里克·勞·奧姆斯特德在像紐約城市中央公園這樣的項目里布置放牧牲畜，讓它們成為景觀花園運動中田園氣氛的構(gòu)成部分，1970年代中期開始的“生態(tài)學(xué)轉(zhuǎn)變”則從瀕危物種保護(hù)法和生物多樣性驅(qū)動的保護(hù)生物學(xué)角度入手，重新確定了非人類的動物在景觀中的位置。在北美的景觀和環(huán)境設(shè)計文化里，這些策略通常與把景觀轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)榫勐涞脑O(shè)計、規(guī)劃過程中使用的“疊圖法”和生態(tài)評價調(diào)查聯(lián)系在一起。正如沃爾琪和埃姆爾在其著作《動物地理學(xué)》[36]中表述的一樣，他們觀察到繼城市生態(tài)學(xué)成熟之后，出現(xiàn)了當(dāng)代建筑和設(shè)計的“綠化”過程，把在人類影響下的各種城市生態(tài)系統(tǒng)組合為整體。與此同時，誕生于20世紀(jì)后期的城市形態(tài)學(xué)也似乎推動了更多的大型動物種群與人類更近距離的接觸。許多項目在其功能背后強(qiáng)調(diào)了在城市肌理中撫平這些接觸地點的目標(biāo)。

這類大尺度的項目通常圍繞生物多樣性進(jìn)行設(shè)計，或以保護(hù)大型關(guān)鍵捕食者、為它們重新建立棲息地的連通性作為目標(biāo)。從實際的生物保護(hù)和生態(tài)修復(fù)項目設(shè)計原則出發(fā)產(chǎn)生的大型規(guī)劃案例包括：美國佛羅里達(dá)野生動物保護(hù)廊道、荷蘭國家生態(tài)網(wǎng)絡(luò)、美國黃石至加拿大育空地區(qū)的野生動物廊道等。這些大尺度的區(qū)域規(guī)劃部署了一些景觀設(shè)計尺度的干預(yù)措施，如野生動物過境通道的設(shè)置和棲息地的修復(fù)設(shè)計。在設(shè)計師們大規(guī)模缺席美國佛羅里達(dá)規(guī)劃的同時，一些高姿態(tài)的荷蘭設(shè)計公司則已在荷蘭建成了一些野生動物過境天橋的項目，而美國科羅拉多州韋爾隸屬動物公路通道項目（ARC）下的野生動物天橋設(shè)計則是一次大型國際競賽的成果，由邁克爾·范瓦爾肯堡合伙人公司的“鞍形拱自然”方案（圖9）摘得桂冠。

其他不一定屬于更大區(qū)域聯(lián)通設(shè)計組成部分的景觀規(guī)劃和設(shè)計仍可能包含為某類物種修復(fù)棲息地的內(nèi)容作為設(shè)計的關(guān)鍵組成部分。隨著復(fù)雜理論的關(guān)注焦點由平衡的自然轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)橥ㄟ^一種機(jī)制使能量的流動達(dá)到最佳狀態(tài)，棲息地的修復(fù)和農(nóng)業(yè)之間的邊界也可能變得模糊。SCAPE景觀設(shè)計事務(wù)所參加紐約現(xiàn)代美術(shù)館“上升的洋流”展覽的作品（圖10）由一系列能同時去除海水污染、緩和氣候變化導(dǎo)致海平面上升問題的牡蠣養(yǎng)殖場組成。除了SCAPE公司的多功能基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項目，Kyunglin Hong的“都市季節(jié)性遷移放牧”（圖11）則是另一個值得注意的景觀尺度食品生產(chǎn)項目，該項目獲得了2012年“動物建筑獎”提名。這些項目和保護(hù)生物學(xué)驅(qū)動的生態(tài)修復(fù)項目之間存在一處顯著的不同，就是對本地物種的去中心化和有利于新陳代謝機(jī)能的生物多樣性指標(biāo)。

10 “牡蠣建筑”（設(shè)計：SCAPE景觀設(shè)計事務(wù)所）/"Oystertechture" (Designer: SCAPE)

在非景觀尺度的項目中，能讓動物與城市開發(fā)基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施無縫銜接的、最實用的項目可能是用鋼框架結(jié)構(gòu)搭建玻璃幕墻來消除撞擊導(dǎo)致鳥類死亡的項目[37]。建筑師珍妮·甘在設(shè)計保護(hù)鳥類的高層建筑方面有極為豐富的成果，如她在芝加哥設(shè)計的“水塔”（圖12）。珍妮·甘在坐落于芝加哥去工業(yè)化的南部地區(qū)的福特卡柳梅特環(huán)境中心（圖13）也采用了類似的設(shè)計策略。然而，這個環(huán)境中心最值得注意的也許是它的功能。在保護(hù)生物多樣性、維護(hù)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)功能和在地區(qū)或景觀尺度上生產(chǎn)食物的各類設(shè)計之間，是無數(shù)諸如卡柳梅特環(huán)境中心這樣的設(shè)施，這些設(shè)施的設(shè)計讓人能在城市環(huán)境下觀賞野生動物，或至少安全地和它們接觸。這些項目介于旨在重塑或重新構(gòu)想整個景觀環(huán)境的項目、和在現(xiàn)存景觀中布置各種提示說明、標(biāo)識、觀景平臺等設(shè)施或建構(gòu)的干預(yù)措施來設(shè)計空間體驗的項目之間。在海角建筑事務(wù)所設(shè)計的“莫拉河水族館”（圖14）項目中，在野生環(huán)境下觀察動物的理念也同樣延伸到了水下，而珍妮·甘為“巴蒂摩爾水族館”設(shè)計的改造方案也同樣是類似于庇護(hù)所的設(shè)計。

在某種意義上，用于觀察野生動物的建筑可以認(rèn)為和裝飾性的鳥巢類似。許多項目依賴自然主義相關(guān)的審美理念，試圖在遠(yuǎn)離自然的現(xiàn)代主義隱喻內(nèi)部進(jìn)行設(shè)計，對常見的、作為人類組成部分的物種間的相互作用視而不見，并執(zhí)著于與一種有魅力的動物他者、或“本地物種”進(jìn)行接觸，作為更廣義的人類之外本體論的替身。這些項目通常都伴有在理論上促進(jìn)跨物種保育的生態(tài)學(xué)使命的表述，盡管許多項目只是更多地表現(xiàn)在形態(tài)或姿態(tài)上，但卻不具有可行性。為各類設(shè)計雙年展和展覽所搭建的項目讓為城市中的野生動物“創(chuàng)造棲息地”的目標(biāo)看起來十分可疑。與自然主義相關(guān)的美學(xué)通常需要利用科學(xué)的語匯——如“本地物種”——作為審美形式的組成部分，或作為吹噓如何與野生動物專家開展“對話”合作的依據(jù)。然而，在采用保護(hù)生物學(xué)的語言和特權(quán)的項目中最拙劣的那些案例則進(jìn)一步使科學(xué)知識的生產(chǎn)過程變得十分隱晦，從而成為與政治毫無關(guān)系的“黑匣子”。這一點在緊緊抓住本地物種概念不放的項目中尤為明顯，有人認(rèn)為他們是可疑的實用設(shè)施被種族化的歷史概念。

11 “城市季節(jié)性遷移放牧”（設(shè)計：Kyunglin Hong）/"Urban Transhumance" (Designer: Kyunglin Hong)

但是，這些讓我們觀察和面對其他動物的方式還是值得我們認(rèn)真思考。和實驗動物房與屠宰場的案例一樣，設(shè)計作為審美或感官的實踐方式與政治上的可見度直接相關(guān)。由這個框架出發(fā)，有一個有趣的野生動物館舍建設(shè)和與動物接觸的設(shè)計項目——它不是裝飾性的象征——就是奧斯汀的蝙蝠之橋。世界上最大的城市蝙蝠群落——有150萬養(yǎng)殖蝙蝠，都盤踞于德克薩斯州奧斯汀市區(qū)的國會大道橋的下方。它們每晚要消耗1萬～2萬磅的昆蟲。蝙蝠在夜間飛行的景象成為重要的旅游景致，大約有10萬人訪問了臨近的政治家蝙蝠觀賞中心去欣賞這些蝙蝠（www.batcon.org）。在這里，人們并不需要專門為蝙蝠建設(shè)巢穴（它們已在橋下安營扎寨）。而是把專注于自己且略具侵略性的蝙蝠重新設(shè)計為品牌推廣的方式，成為景點和地方認(rèn)同的來源，而不是一種需要消滅的有害動物。

當(dāng)然，提到觀賞動物，有一類設(shè)計卓越的建筑類型是動物園和水族館。在建筑和設(shè)計領(lǐng)域內(nèi)，動物園可能是擁有最多批判性著作和歷史研究文獻(xiàn)的建筑類型。動物歷史學(xué)家針對19世紀(jì)作為帝國的國家建筑、現(xiàn)代化和城市開發(fā)的一部分[38,39]的動物園、獸籠、馬廄等撰寫了大量的作品，而其他研究則聚焦于動物園作為哲學(xué)分析對象[40,41]，尤其針對美國的動物園設(shè)計歷史撰寫了許多文獻(xiàn)。在一些地點，如倫敦動物園的某些部分，屬于更廣義的設(shè)計歷史的一部分[42]，而塞德里克·普賴斯在倫敦動物園設(shè)計的作品則是哈達(dá)斯·斯坦納關(guān)注的焦點[43]。

Other landscape plans and designs not necessarily part of a larger regional connectivity scheme may nevertheless include habitat restoration for speci fi c species as a key part of the design. With complexity theory shifting focus from a balance of nature to optimising energetic flows through a system, lines between habitat restoration and agriculture can blur. SCAPE Landscape Architecture's entry into MOMA's Rising Currents exhibition consisted of a series of oyster beds to detoxify seawater and mitigate rising sea levels associated with climate change (Fig.10). In addition to SCAPE's multi-functional infrastructure project, Hung's honourable mention "Urban Transhumance" (Fig.11)in the 2012 Animal Architecture Awards is another notable food-producing landscape-scale project. One notable difference between these and restoration ecology projects driven by conservation biology is the de-centring of a native species and biodiversity metrics in favor of metabolic performance.

While not on the landscape scale, among the most practical developments in smoothing out animal encounters with the infrastructures of urban development may be mitigating bird-kill collisions that come with steel-frame glass-curtain wall construction[37]. Architect Jeanie Gang has been especially prolific at designing bird-friendly high rises, such as her "Aquatower" (Fig.12) in Chicago.Similar tactics are employed at her Ford Calumet Environmental Centre (Fig.13) on Chicago's deindustrialising south side. However, what is perhaps most notable about the Environmental Centre is its function. Between designs that preserve biodiversity, maintain ecosystem services, and produce food on the regional or landscape scale, are numerous designs for facilities such as the Calumet Environmental Centre, which enable people to watch or otherwise safely encounter urban wildlife.These projects tend to oscillate between those that seek to recon fi gure or reimagine entire landscapes,versus those that deploy positioning devices or architectonic interventions such as a variety of prompts, signs, viewing platforms and other tactics to design the experience of an existing landscape.The notion of seeing animals in the wild also extends underwater in Promontorio Architecture's More River Aquarium in Portugal (Fig.14), as well as Jeanne Gang's plans to recon fi gure the Baltimore Aquarium as something more akin to a sanctuary.

12 “水塔”（設(shè)計：甘氏工作室）/"Aquatower" (Designer:Studio Gang)

13 卡柳梅特湖環(huán)境中心（設(shè)計：甘氏工作室）/Lake Calumet Environmental Center (Designer: Studio Gang)

14 莫拉河水族館（設(shè)計：海角建筑事務(wù)所）/Mora River Aquarium (Designer: Promontorio Architecture)

15 吉夫斯庫動物園（設(shè)計：BIG建筑事務(wù)所）/Givskund Zoo (Designer: BIG)

我們的研究讓步于許多建成的動物園，以及思辨設(shè)計。需要特別注意的是BIG建筑事務(wù)所的丹麥“瘋狂動物城”（圖15）規(guī)劃，這個項目當(dāng)前正在建設(shè)中?！隘偪駝游锍恰钡男问綀D形和不屈不撓的破壞偶像主義的設(shè)計手法是典型的BIG設(shè)計，而值得注意的是對烏托邦語言的應(yīng)用，他們試圖把動物園重塑為一種景觀體驗。然而，盡管BIG建筑事務(wù)所出于品牌營銷的要求大肆炒作破壞偶像主義的設(shè)計手法，他們的方案中仍有很大部分在理念上符合標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的動物園設(shè)計規(guī)范，并已在丹麥“吉夫斯庫動物園”通過“狩獵”的平面展現(xiàn)過同樣的設(shè)計手法。這些設(shè)計策略的先鋒是20世紀(jì)中期瑞士動物行為學(xué)家和實際上的動物園設(shè)計者艾尼·黑迪格爾針對讓動物在完全囚禁的狀態(tài)下進(jìn)行繁殖和度過終生的方式討論其社會性、批判性和出逃距離的著作。這些策略已對建筑和環(huán)境設(shè)計產(chǎn)生了深遠(yuǎn)的影響，我們至今仍能感受到，而空間日益被設(shè)計為能通過預(yù)先設(shè)定的認(rèn)知成果在類似購物和用戶互動或體驗設(shè)計的方面產(chǎn)生價值的形式[44,45]?？梢源_定的是，BIG建筑事務(wù)所正以前所未有的方式加速推廣這些技術(shù)，但BIG建筑事務(wù)所與我們的討論最相關(guān)的是吉夫斯庫動物園設(shè)計中的機(jī)制，表達(dá)生態(tài)學(xué)觀點的形式通過對構(gòu)成動物軀體的運動、感覺和環(huán)境流量得到表現(xiàn)。

控制環(huán)境界：動物模擬

這一動物行為學(xué)觀念來源于雅可布·馮·烏克斯庫爾的《環(huán)境界理論》和隨后的生物符號學(xué)或生態(tài)符號學(xué)研究領(lǐng)域。在烏克斯庫爾及其追隨者看來，環(huán)境界描述了一個物種或某個有機(jī)體根據(jù)其生物感官不同所體會到的世界模型。

這一理念被生態(tài)學(xué)重新改造為保護(hù)實踐中的“連續(xù)體”概念。在這里，景觀的連通性是從基于生態(tài)學(xué)物種特異適應(yīng)性的“環(huán)境界”角度來看待的，而不是簡單地從通過遠(yuǎn)距離感受的“鳥瞰”進(jìn)行棲息地修復(fù)的角度來理解，這就是戰(zhàn)后景觀生態(tài)學(xué)的理念[46]。這一角度把我們引向最后一種為動物而設(shè)計的類型，與其說是一種尺度或平面的類型，不如說是一種設(shè)計策略或設(shè)計產(chǎn)生的模式。在每一個同類項目里，設(shè)計都在克斯庫爾式的符號功能學(xué)、或有機(jī)體和環(huán)境之間的“功能圈”里對非人類動物的肢體、能力、或習(xí)性進(jìn)行管理。

這些設(shè)計通過引入動物的認(rèn)知能力把動物放入表述行為的角色。首先，由一系列經(jīng)過設(shè)計的物體美化了這種以不同于建立巢穴的方式與城市中的野生動物進(jìn)行接觸和互動的方式。這些項目在具體的互動層面進(jìn)行運作，而不是更廣義卻更粗放的建筑或景觀最佳實踐原則的層面。娜塔莉·杰里米金科和克里斯·沃伯肯，既作為合作者、又相互獨立地設(shè)計了許多符合此類型定義的跨物種作品。其中最著名的是他們的“兩棲建筑”項目（圖16），這個項目試圖讓紐約東河里的魚群與岸邊的人類進(jìn)行溝通。

為“蝙蝠廣告牌”做的設(shè)計，以及安妮·加洛韋的“數(shù)綿羊”項目，都提出了通過數(shù)碼感應(yīng)器讓非人類生物向人類傳達(dá)信息的類似設(shè)計。盡管克里斯·沃伯肯的“動物超能力”設(shè)計，以及西蒙奈·法雷齊納獲得2011年“動物建筑獎”的項目“獸形半機(jī)器人”都不涉及動物本身，卻重新借鑒了烏克斯庫爾旨在推動人類對非人類動物所感受到的其他世界進(jìn)行思考的思想。然而，其中許多項目作為“批判性設(shè)計”或“設(shè)計藝術(shù)”，都在更接近藝術(shù)實踐的范圍內(nèi)開展，缺乏對物質(zhì)功能的清晰表達(dá)。顯然，預(yù)設(shè)的批判性正是這些設(shè)計想要激起的表達(dá)效果，由此帶來的功能問題則把它們移出了我們所關(guān)注的建筑和景觀設(shè)計領(lǐng)域。

盡管圍繞批判性進(jìn)行功能或行為表述能力的探討已超出本文的研究范圍，這些項目出于人類的審美需求，試圖從動物“環(huán)境界”提取信息的做法，與控制這些感知模式服務(wù)于生產(chǎn)的另一類設(shè)計有何不同，仍然值得關(guān)注。由此，我們提出動物模擬的概念來描述這些設(shè)計要素。這一概念產(chǎn)生自考古學(xué)，原用于表述不具備實際功能的要素模仿早期設(shè)計中具有實際功能要素的表達(dá)方式；一個經(jīng)典的模擬設(shè)計案例就是陶罐上的蝕刻紋樣是對編織籃子的模擬。史蒂夫·喬布斯和蘋果產(chǎn)品以杰出的方式把模擬設(shè)計概念引入用戶界面設(shè)計（UIX）中，模擬時鐘的數(shù)字化表達(dá)就是著名的例子。在用戶界面設(shè)計的語境下，模擬設(shè)計加快了人類理解掌握新設(shè)計的速度。在非人類的動物方面，我們用這個術(shù)語來形容為了產(chǎn)生人類設(shè)計師想要的效果調(diào)動動物的知覺和行為的過程。

麻省理工學(xué)院媒體實驗室介導(dǎo)物質(zhì)研究組于2013年設(shè)計的“蠶絲小亭”就是一個重要案例（圖17）。它是5個非蜜蜂的節(jié)肢動物項目之一，由一個機(jī)械臂圍繞網(wǎng)格狀球頂結(jié)構(gòu)用纖維來回編織形成網(wǎng)格。隨后在編織的網(wǎng)格上放置桑蠶來完成整個穹頂，這些桑蠶在其生命周期延續(xù)期間會沿著形成網(wǎng)格的纖維吐絲。最終，桑蠶在不知不覺中為整個穹頂織出了輕盈的絲綢表面。

盡管這個穹頂被BLDB博客的杰夫·馬諾格稱為“動物打印頭”，它在某種程度上仍然更像是一個漂亮的概念性美學(xué)實踐項目（它被放置在麻省理工學(xué)院的一處門廊中），而不是一項真實的建造技術(shù)，其價值在于材料的制造，而不（僅僅）是其批判性特質(zhì)。

盡管這些技術(shù)因為和新興科技知識產(chǎn)生關(guān)聯(lián)顯得十分新奇，卡爾霍恩[47]還是提醒我們， 技術(shù)通常只能讓我們簡化已經(jīng)在做的事情。由此看來，這些動物信息技術(shù)的設(shè)計代表了更悠久的人類與動物關(guān)系歷史的另一端，這一關(guān)系最初則是人類對其他動物的追逐。把相機(jī)系在鴿子身上，或把魚類或蝙蝠的行為翻譯為文字信息等，它們在某種程度上都是對早期原始人類為在自然環(huán)境中找到水源或食物，必須對其他動物的行為進(jìn)行解讀的策略最基本的類比。這些策略最終產(chǎn)生了人類的“追蹤藝術(shù)”[48]，桑福德·克溫特[49]把這種伴隨著腦化過程出現(xiàn)的、日益成熟的、在自然景觀中解讀其他生物留下信號的手法描述為建筑師和設(shè)計師不斷從中汲取靈感的環(huán)境科學(xué)的源泉。由此看來，我們可以開始相信古生物學(xué)者安德烈·勒魯瓦-古爾漢[50]所提出的觀點，即技術(shù)是伴隨進(jìn)化過程必然共同出現(xiàn)的現(xiàn)象。

結(jié)論

無論是批判性的還是具有實際功能的，無論是在成熟的科技手段還是傳統(tǒng)設(shè)計手法，人類通過訴諸其他動物生理學(xué)能力的某些方面為它們所做的設(shè)計把非人類生物變得工具化，有一些設(shè)計則比其他項目更具生產(chǎn)力。除了把這些符號關(guān)系分離出來，并以符號學(xué)或烏克斯庫爾的方式進(jìn)行表述之外，我們還可以對這些項目的經(jīng)濟(jì)性質(zhì)進(jìn)行分析，同時考慮動物參與其中的政治意味，和違背動物自身意愿、甚至自身意識將它們投身勞作的方式。從這個角度看，由于這些設(shè)計都服務(wù)于人類，我們只能假設(shè)其目的是根據(jù)人類的價值觀和政治態(tài)度來設(shè)置的。對于把動物的物質(zhì)生產(chǎn)資本化的設(shè)計來說，什么設(shè)計是“優(yōu)秀”“有趣”或“創(chuàng)新”的設(shè)計？由此看來，最成功的動物項目設(shè)計師是能夠認(rèn)可我們生活中日常平凡的動物生命，并將動物的主觀性與當(dāng)代建筑實踐相結(jié)合，并同時實現(xiàn)了新奇技術(shù)成果的設(shè)計師。其中一個重要案例應(yīng)該是珍妮·甘在“水塔”項目對保護(hù)鳥類的建筑表皮技術(shù)的應(yīng)用，以及該項目許多其他的創(chuàng)新特色。

In one sense, wildlife-observation structures may be seen as somewhat analogous to the decorative birdhouse. Adhering to a sort of naturalist-relational aesthetics, many tend to operate within the modernist metaphor of alienation from nature, ignoring the constant interspecies becoming that is part of being human,and fixating on an encounter with a charismatic animal other or "native species" as a stand-in for broader more-than-human ontology. These projects are often accompanied by ecologically informed theoretical mission statements about facilitating cross-species care, though many are more sculptural and gestural than practical. Projects fabricated for design biennales and exhibitions can make the goal of "creating habitat" for urban wildlife seem dubious. Naturalist-relational aesthetics often entails the use of scienti fi c language, such as"native species," as part of the aesthetic form, or the boast of collaboration "in dialog" with wildlife experts. However, in the worst cases adopting the language and prerogatives of conservation biology can further obscure the production of scientific knowledge as an apolitical "black box." This is especially evident in projects that fi xate on the idea of native species, which some consider a racialised historical concept of questionable practical utility.

However, it is worth taking seriously the means through which we watch and encounter other animals. Just as in the case of vivaria and the slaughterhouse, design as an aesthetic or sensory practice directly engages with the politics of visibility. From this frame, rather than decorative symbolic objects, an example of interesting wildlife housing and designs for encountering animals is Austin's bat bridge. The world's largest urban bat colony, with 1.5 million roosting bats, is tucked under the Congress Avenue Bridge in downtown Austin, Texas. Each night they eat from 10,000 to 20,000 pounds of insects. The evening bat flights have become a major tourist draw, with an estimated 100,000 people visiting the adjacent Statesman Bat Observation Centre to observe the bats (www.batcon.org). Here, it is not presumed that the bats need housing constructed for them(they found the bridge). Rather, the invasive bats,minding their own business, are re-branded and designed as a site of interest and a source of local identity, rather than a pest to be exterminated.

16 “兩棲建筑”（設(shè)計：娜塔莉·杰里米金科與克里斯·沃伯肯）/"Amphibious Architecture" (Designer: Natalie Jeremijenko & Chris Woebken)

Of course, when it comes to watching animals the preeminent architectural types are the zoo and the aquarium. Within the domains of architecture and design, zoos may be the typology with the most established body of critical and historical literature. Animal historians have written extensively on 19th-century zoos, menageries,and stables, as part of imperial nation-building,modernisation, and urban development[38,39], while others have focused on the zoo as a philosophical project[40,41]has written specifically on this history of zoo design in America. Some spaces, such as elements of the London Zoo, are part of broader design histories[42], while Cedric Price's work in the London zoo has been the focus of Hadas Steiner[43].

Our research yielded many built zoos, as well as speculative ones. Of particular note are the plans for BIG Architect's "Zootopia," (Fig.15)which is under construction in Denmark. The diagrammatic visuals and unrelenting iconoclasm for "Zootopia" are classic BIG, and what is notable is the utopian language that attempts to rework the zoo as a landscape experience. However,despite the requisite iconoclastic hype that comes with BIG's branding, much of what they propose,conceptually, are standard protocols for zoo design,and already in play at the Givskud Zoo, with its"Safari" layout. These tactics were pioneered by midcentury Swiss ethologist and de facto zoo designer Heini Hediger's work on social, critical, and flight distance in getting animals to reproduce and live full lives in captivity. These strategies have had a lasting impact on architecture and environmental design that is still felt today, as space is increasingly designed to produce value through predetermined cognitive outcomes in domains such as shopping and user interface or experience design[44,45].Surely, BIG is accelerating these techniques in innovative ways, but most pertinent to BIG's design for the sake of our discussion is the dynamics at play in the Givskund Zoo, the sort of ethological perspective whose form is produced by expressions of movements, sensations, and environmental flows that constitute the animal body.

Operationalising umwelt: animal skeuomorphs

This ethological perspective on the animal has roots in proto-ecologist Jakob von Uexküll's Umwelt Theorie and the subsequent field of bioor eco-semiotics. For Uexküll and his followers,Umwelt describes a species or organism-specific model of the world, corresponding to a given creature's sensorium. This understanding has been adapted in ecology as the idea of "continua" in conservation practice. Here, landscape connectivity is seen from an "umwelt" perspective based on species-specific affordances, rather than simply in terms of habitat restoration based on a remotely sensed "view from above," as in post-war landscape ecology[46]. This perspective leads us to a final category of design for animals that is less of a scalar or programmatic typology than design tactics or a mode of design production. In each of these projects, designs harness nonhuman animal bodies, abilities, or behavioural tendencies in an Uxeküllian semiotic Functionskries, or "functional circle" between organism and environment.

These designs cast animals in performative roles through engaging with an animal's perceptual capabilities. First, a suite of designed objects aestheticise engagement and interaction with urban wildlife in ways other than housing.These projects operate on the level of specific interactions rather than the broader, coarse grain of principles for architectural or landscape best practices. Natalie Jeremijenko and Chris Woebken,both as collaborators and independently, have produced a wide variety of transspecies work that fits this category. Most famous perhaps is their "Amphibious Architecture" project (Fig.16),which attempts to enable fishes in New York's East River to communicate with humans ashore.

Their designs for a "Bat Billboard," as well as Anne Galloway's "Counting Sheep," propose a similar broadcasting of information from nonhuman-to-human, via digital sensors. While not involving animals per se, Chris Woebken's"Animal Superpowers" design, as well as Simone Farrecina's 2011 Animal Architecture Awards Winning "Theriomorphous Cyborg," both draw on the resurgence of Uexküll's work in prompting humans to speculate on the other worlds sensed by nonhuman animals. However, as "critical design"or "design art," many of these designs operate in a sphere closer to art practice, where material functionality is less clearly articulated. Clearly, the pre fi x critical pertains to the way these designs are meant to provoke, bringing the issue of functionality into question in a way that sets them apart from our focus on architectural and landscape designs.

對這些非人類生物設(shè)計的回顧帶來了對該類型設(shè)計所蘊含的人類政治和設(shè)計權(quán)力的洞察。用BIG建筑師事務(wù)所的吉夫斯庫動物園設(shè)計和他們遠(yuǎn)離籠養(yǎng)動物的案例可以說明，設(shè)計在開始融入背景環(huán)境的同時，微妙控制著動物的感受和行為，把它們導(dǎo)向具體的功能性結(jié)果。這樣一個隱形的動物園似乎又重新回到了前文討論的城市環(huán)境下野生動物項目類型的起點，遍及全球的城市化進(jìn)程把整個地球轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)榭煽氐沫h(huán)境，而野生動物的遷徙路線也成為需要設(shè)計的對象。如果說現(xiàn)代屠宰場的項目呼應(yīng)了資本積累的工業(yè)模式和由工廠平面和牢房設(shè)計規(guī)范所形成的資本主義勞動關(guān)系，那么最成熟的當(dāng)代動物相關(guān)設(shè)計則傾向于在“環(huán)境界”的指定范圍內(nèi)開展，或是在新興野生動物放歸技術(shù)所反映的知覺和感情相結(jié)合的范疇內(nèi)開展——如麻省理工學(xué)院的模擬設(shè)計蠶絲小亭，或升華為市場驅(qū)動的生物信息認(rèn)知技術(shù)。在更極端的程度上，我們在“改造地形1號”設(shè)計工作室的生物工程項目中就能看出這一邏輯，例如其現(xiàn)存的“體外肉類棲息地”（圖18）概念。

因此，對當(dāng)代設(shè)計中動物控制制度和動物的生產(chǎn)能力的思考可以借鑒女權(quán)主義的情感勞動概念和自治主義馬克思主義理論豐富的深刻見解，來理解注意力經(jīng)濟(jì)的機(jī)制和“新資本主義精神”，以及創(chuàng)造力（或創(chuàng)造行為）在這一背景下成為設(shè)計產(chǎn)生的功能性成果[51,52]。在這方面，對設(shè)計的動物主題進(jìn)行的研究提出，設(shè)計者應(yīng)對其設(shè)計對象懷有悲憫之心，因為它們的世界也是通過設(shè)計所管理和控制的對象。此外，隨著整個世界日益為設(shè)計所改變，有人認(rèn)為當(dāng)前創(chuàng)造出人意料的可替代用途的能力將伴隨著技術(shù)指定先決結(jié)果的現(xiàn)象逐漸消失[53]。我們正身處地球歷史上第6次物種大量滅絕的時代，這一事實也印證了這一變化和設(shè)計大量涌現(xiàn)的現(xiàn)象。在創(chuàng)造力和創(chuàng)造行為被設(shè)計所規(guī)定的時代，思考我們?yōu)槠渌麆游镞M(jìn)行設(shè)計的方式能夠解釋生物進(jìn)化進(jìn)程和科技進(jìn)步過程之間更廣泛的相互作用。由此看來，我們不妨認(rèn)真思考獲得設(shè)計關(guān)注的對象是什么，其程度如何，目標(biāo)又是什么?！酰ū疚氖状纬霭嬗贖umanimalia在線雜志2017年春季刊）

17 “蠶絲小亭”（設(shè)計：麻省理工學(xué)院介導(dǎo)物質(zhì)研究組）/"Silk Pavilion" (Designer: MIT Mediated Matter Group)

18“體外肉類棲息地”（設(shè)計："改造地形1號"設(shè)計工作室）/"In-vitro Meat Habitat" (Designer: Terraform 1)（1-18 ?Humanimalia）

注釋/Note

1）通過谷歌提供的對每個博客內(nèi)部搜索特征的方法，也應(yīng)該認(rèn)為與羅杰斯[54]和其他學(xué)者所提出的“搜索政治”有關(guān)。雖然已超出本文的討論范疇，搜索的政治也和設(shè)計實踐牽扯其中的具有影響力的工程有直接聯(lián)系。/Using the internal search feature on each blog powered by Google should also be considered in relation to the"politics of the search" outlined by Rogers[54]and others. While beyond the scope of this discussion,the politics of the search is directly related to the engineering of affect in which design practice is implicated.

譯注/Notes from Translator

ⅰ 彼得·斯洛特戴克（Peter Sloterdijk, 1947-），德國當(dāng)代哲學(xué)家，代表作《犬儒理性批判》（Kritik der zynischen Vernunft）是最暢銷的德國當(dāng)代哲學(xué)著作之一。

ⅱ 環(huán)境流量是指維持淡水供應(yīng)、河口生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，及依靠這些生態(tài)系統(tǒng)所維系的人類生活環(huán)境和健康狀態(tài)所要求的水量、時機(jī)和水質(zhì)。

ⅲ 布魯諾·拉圖爾（Bruno Latour, 1947-），法國哲學(xué)家、人類學(xué)家和社會學(xué)家，以科學(xué)技術(shù)與社會（Science, technology and society, STS）的研究聞名于世，是行動者網(wǎng)絡(luò)理論（Actor-network theory,ANT）的主要開創(chuàng)者之一。

ⅳ 拉圖爾認(rèn)為，傳統(tǒng)所認(rèn)為的科學(xué)與社會之間界線越清晰科學(xué)就越進(jìn)步的觀點是虛假的，甚至近代哲學(xué)所塑造出來的客體與主體也都是虛假的。進(jìn)步是一個自然與社會的雜合過程，拉圖爾稱之為“集體實驗”萬維實驗室“物的議會”或“雜合論壇”。實驗室的范圍越廣，人類和非人類因素被征募到集體內(nèi)的數(shù)量就越多，集體也就越進(jìn)步。這種進(jìn)步當(dāng)然有方向，它指向在更廣范圍內(nèi)將人類與非人類動員起來、將各種"行動者""聯(lián)結(jié)"起來的能力。（劉鵬，蔡仲. 法國科學(xué)哲學(xué)中的進(jìn)步性問題. 哲學(xué)研究，2017(7):116-122.）

ⅴ 泰勒主義于20世紀(jì)初期誕生在美國，是在現(xiàn)代管理實踐中一直被廣泛應(yīng)用并深具影響力的科學(xué)管理理論，由被譽(yù)為“科學(xué)管理之父”的弗萊德里克?泰勒（Fredrick W. Taylor，1856-1915）創(chuàng)立，他對管理方法和管理理論的貢獻(xiàn)為20世紀(jì)工業(yè)國家的發(fā)展帶來了深遠(yuǎn)的影響。

ⅵ 雅克·朗西埃（Jacques Rancière, 1940-），法國哲學(xué)家，主要研究領(lǐng)域包括存在學(xué)、知識論、倫理學(xué)、美學(xué)、藝術(shù)哲學(xué)、政治哲學(xué)。

ⅶ “深時”是地質(zhì)學(xué)的時間概念。這一現(xiàn)代哲學(xué)理念由18世紀(jì)蘇格蘭地理學(xué)家詹姆斯·哈頓（James Hutton, 1726-1797）提出，表示遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超出人類歷史的地球和宇宙的存在時間。

ⅷ “亞馬遜土耳其機(jī)器人”是一種眾包網(wǎng)絡(luò)集市，能讓計算機(jī)程序員調(diào)用人類智能來執(zhí)行目前計算機(jī)還不能勝任的任務(wù)。

ⅸ 坦普·葛蘭?。═emple Grandin, 1947-），動物學(xué)家，動物福利事業(yè)的積極倡導(dǎo)者和實踐者。

ⅹ “農(nóng)構(gòu)城市”是意大利建筑師安德烈·布蘭奇提出的概念，指在農(nóng)業(yè)中綜合應(yīng)用信息技術(shù)和電子產(chǎn)品的方式。

While it is beyond the scope of this paper to enter a debate around the functionality or performative capacities of critique, it is worth noting how projects that attempt to extract information from the animal Umwelt for aesthetic consideration by humans are distinct from a class of designs that harness these modes of perception as a means of production. Here, we propose the use of the concept of the animal skeuomorph to describe the design elements at play. This concept originates in archaeology to describe representations of non-functional elements derived from functional elements of a previous design iteration; one classic example of a skeuomorph being etchings on a clay pot that refer to a woven basket. Steve Jobs and Apple brought the skeuomorph concept to prominence in user interface design (UIX) with a famous example being digital representations of analogical clocks. In this context of UIX, skeuomorphs accelerate human comprehension of new designs. In the case of nonhuman animals, we use the term to describe the mobilisation of animal perception and behavior to produce results desired by human designers.

A prime example of this is the MIT Media Lab's Mediated Matter Research Group's recent 2013 "Silk Pavilion." (Fig.17) One of five nonbee arthropod projects, a robotic arm creates a lattice by weaving a thread around a geodesic dome framing structure. Silk worms are then placed on the thread to complete the fabrication of the dome,as they produce silk fi bres along the thread as part of their life cycle. The result, unbeknownst to the worms, is an ethereal, silk cover for the dome.

Heralded by Geoff Manaugh of BLDBLG as"Animal Printheads," the dome is still somewhat of a conceptual aesthetic practice (the dome is displayed in a lobby at MIT) rather than an actual building technique, but its value is located in material production, not (only) critique.

While such techniques may be considered novel in their relation to emergent technologies and scientific knowledge, Calhoun[47]reminds us that technology often serves simply to allow us to do things we already do a bit more easily. In this sense, these animal-informational designs represent an end point of a much longer history of humananimal relations defined by tracking and following other animals. Strapping cameras onto pigeons or translating fish or bat behavior into text messages are in some ways fundamentally analogous to the early hominid strategies of reading the behavior of other animals in the landscape to aid in the search of water or food. As this eventually developed into the human "art of tracking"[48], Sanford Kwinter[49]describes these increasingly sophisticated tactics of reading signs of other organisms in the landscape,accompanied by encephalation, as the origins of a science of the environment from which architects and designers continue to draw. From this perspective, we can begin to see technology as bound-up in evolutionary processes as suggested by palaeontologist Andrei Leroi-Gourhan[50].

Conclusion

Critical or functional, technologically sophisticated or traditional, humans' designs for other animals instrumentalise nonhumans by appealing to specific aspects of their physiological capacities, some in more productive ways than others. In addition to isolating these sign relations and describing them in semiotic or Uexküllian fashion, we can also analyze the economy of these projects, considering the politics of animal participation and the ways animals are cast as unwilling, and perhaps unaware, labour. From one perspective, because designs are for human purposes, we can only assume ends are calibrated to human values and politics. What qualifies as a"good," "interesting," or "innovative" design that capitalises on the physical exertion of animals? In this light, the most successful animal designers are those that acknowledge the lives of the common and quotidian animals in our midst, and integrate animal subjectivity into contemporary practices, while also executing a novel technical outcome. A prime example might include Jeanne Gang's integration of bird friendly building skin technology as one of many innovative features in her "Aquatower."

Reviewing these designs for nonhumans yields insights into human politics and the power of design therein. Using the example of BIG's Givskund Zoo and their move away from the caged animal,design begins to fade into the background, while subtly managing animal affect and behavior towards speci fi c, functional outcomes. Such an invisible zoo seems to come full circle to urban wildlife projects discussed earlier, where the planetary scale of urbanisation transforms the globe into a managed sphere, and wildlife migration routes are subject to design. If the modern slaughterhouse corresponds to industrial modes of accumulation and labour relations characterised by the discipline of the factory fl oor and the jail cell, the most sophisticated contemporary designs for animals tend to operate in the register of Umwelt, or a functional combination of perception and affect reflected in emerging technologies of wildlife reintroduction, the skeuomorphic MIT silkworm pavilion, or distilled into market driven bio-info-cogno-technologies. To a more extreme extent, one can see this logic at play in bio-engineering projects of Terraform 1, such as the ongoing "In-vitro Meat Habitat" (Fig.18) concept.

In this way, thinking about the regimes of control and productive capacities of animals in contemporary design may fi nd fruitful insights from feminist notions of affective labour and autonomist Marxist theory deployed to understands the dynamics of the attention economy and the "new spirit of capitalism," where creativity (or creation)becomes a functional outcome of design[51,52]. In this regard, a study of animals in design suggests designers ought to treat their subjects with compassion, as their worlds are also subject to management through design. Moreover, as the world becomes increasingly designed, some argue the capacity for alternative and unforeseen uses diminishes as technology specifies pre-determined outcomes[53]. The fact that we are living through the sixth great extinction in the earth's history attests to this dynamics, and proliferation of design.When creativity and creation become specified by design, thinking about the way we design for other animals reveals the interplay between biological and technological evolution more broadly. In this regard,we might think carefully about who receives design attention, how much, and for what ends.□ (First Publication in Humanimalia, Volume 8, Number 2 –Spring 2017）

參考文獻(xiàn)/References

[1] Fuller, Matthew. Art for Animals[J]. Journal of Visual Art Practice 9.1 (January 1, 2010):17-33.

[2] DiSalvo, Carl, and Jonathan Lukens.Nonanthropocentrism and the Nonhuman in Design:Possibilities for Designing New Forms of Engagement with and through Technology. From Social Butterfly to Engaged Citizen. Eds. Marcus Foth, Laura Forlano,Christine Satchell, and Martin Gibbs. MIT, 2012:421-435.

[3] Sloterdijk, Peter. Rules for the Human Zoo: A Response to the Letter on Humanism[J]. Environment and Planning D, Society and Space 27.1 (2009):12-28.[4] Parikka, Jussi. Insect Media: An Archaeology of Animals and Technology. U of Minnesota P, 2010.

[5] Tsing, Anna. Unruly Edges: Mushrooms as Companion Species[J]. Environmental Humanities 1(2012):141-54.

[6] Gabrys, Jennifer. Becoming Urban: Sitework from a Moss-Eye View[J]. Environment and Planning-Part A 44.12 (2012):2922-39.

[7] Barad, Karen. Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter[J].Signs 40.1 (2014):801-31.

[8] Ingold, Tim. The Perception of the Environment:Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Psychology Press, 2000.

[9] Flusser, Vilem, and John Cullars. On the Word Design: An Etymological Essay[J]. Design Issues 11.3(Autumn 1995):50-53.

[10] Marx, Leo. Technology: The Emergence of a Hazardous Concept[J]. Social Research 64.3 (Fall 1997):965-88.

[11] Coles, Alex. Design and Art[M]. MIT Press, 2008

[12] Bijker, Wiebe E., Thomas P. Hughes, Trevor Pinch,and Deborah G. Douglas. The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology[M]. MIT press,2012.

[13] Ross, Toni. Linkages Between Aesthetic Autonomy And Discipline Hybridity In The Art Of Andrea Zittel[J]. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Art 8.1 (2007):108-24.

[14] Malpass, Matt. Between Wit and Reason: De fi ning Associative, Speculative, and Critical Design in Practice[J]. Design and Culture 5.3 (2013):333-56.

[15] Thacker, Eugene. Biomedia. U of Minnesota P,2004.

[16] Winthrop-Young, Geoffrey. Hardware/software/wetware. Critical Terms for Media Studies[J]. W.J.T.Mitchell and Mark B.N. Hansen, Ed. U of Chicago P 2010:186-96.

[17] Markussen, Thomas. The Disruptive Aesthetics of Design Activism: Enacting Design Between Art and Politics[J]. Design Issues 29.1 (December 12,2012):38–50. doi:10.1162/DESI_a_00195.

[18] Julier, Guy. From Visual Culture to Design Culture[J]. Design Issues 22.1 (2006):64-76.(1990):120-28.

[19] Thrift, Nigel. Non-Representational Theory: Space,Politics, Affect[M]. Routledge, 2008.

[20] Borch, Christian, Gernot B?hme, Olafur Eliasson,and Juhani Pallasmaa. Architectural Atmospheres: On the Experience and Politics of Architecture[M]. Walter de Gruyter, 2014.

[21] Preciado, Beatriz. Architecture as a Practice of Biopolitical Disobedience[J]. Log 25 (Summer 2012):121-134.

[22] Lorimer, Jamie. Nonhuman Charisma[J].Environment and Planning D 25.5 (2007):911.

[23] Rothfels, Nigel. Representing Animals[M]. Indiana UP, 2002.

[24] Lippit, Akira Mizuta. Electric Animal: Toward a Rhetoric of Wildlife[M]. U of Minnesota Press, 2000.

[25] Kosek, Jake. Ecologies of Empire: On the New Uses of the Honeybee[J]. Cultural Anthropology 25.4(2010):650-78.

[26] Serpell, James. The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution,Behaviour and Interactions with People[M]. Cambridge UP, 1995.

[27] Haraway, Donna J. When Species Meet[M]. U of Minnesota P, 2008.

[28] Thomas, Elizabeth Marshall. The Hidden Life of Dogs[M]. Houghton Miラin Harcourt, 2010.

[29] Nast, Heidi J. Loving…. Whatever: Alienation,Neoliberalism and Pet-Love in the Twenty-First Century[J]. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 5.2 (2006):300-327.

[30] Palmer, Clare. Animal Ethics in Context[M].Columbia UP, 2010.

[31] Harrington, Lauren A., Axel Moehrenschlager,Merryl Gelling, Rob PD Atkinson, Joelene Hughes, and David W. Macdonald. Con fl icting and Complementary Ethics of Animal Welfare Considerations in Reintroductions[J]. Conservation Biology 27.3(2013):486-500.

[32] National Research Council. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals[M]. The National Academies Press, 2011.

[33] Pachirat, Timothy. Every Twelve Seconds:Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight[M].Yale UP, 2013.

[34] Grandin, Temple with Mark Deesing. Humane Animal Handling: Understanding Animal Behavior and Building Facilities for Healthier Animals[M]. Storey Publishing, 2008.

[35] Waldheim, Charles. Notes toward a History of Agrarian Urbanism[M]. Design Observer 11.04.2010.

[36] Wolch, Jennifer R., and Jody Emel. Animal Geographies: Place, Politics, and Identity in the Nature-Culture Borderlands[M]. Verso, 1998.

[37] Klem, Daniel Jr. Collisions between Birds and Windows: Mortality and Prevention (Colisiones de Pájaros Con Ventanas: Mortalidad Y Prevención)[J].Journal of Field Ornithology 61.1.

[38] Ritvo, Harriet. The Order of Nature: Constructing the Collections of Victorian Zoos. New Worlds, New Animals: From Menagerie to Zoological Park in the Nineteenth Century. R. J. Hoage and William A. Deiss,Ed. Johns Hopkins UP, 1996:43-50.

[39] Anderson, Kay. Animal Domestication in Geographic Perspective[J]. Society & Animals 6.2(1998):119-35.

[40] Acampora, Ralph R. Metamorphoses of the Zoo:Animal Encounter after Noah[M]. Lexington Books,2010.

[41] Hyson, Jeffrey. Jungles of Eden: The Design of American Zoos. Environmentalism in Landscape Architecture. Michel Conan, Ed. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 2000. http://scholarship.sju.edu/hist_fac/1/.

[42] Anker, Peder. Science in Culture: Bauhaus at the Zoo[J]. Nature 439.7079 (2006):916-916.

[43] Steiner, Hadas A. For the Birds[J]. Grey Room 13(2003):5-31.

[44] Pine, B. Joseph II, and James H. Gilmore.Welcome to the Experience Economy[J]. Harvard Business Review 76 (1998):97-105.

[45] Underhill, Paco. Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping – Updated and Revised for the Internet,the Global Consumer, and Beyond[M]. Simon and Schuster, 2009.

[46] Manning, Adrian D., David B. Lindenmayer,and Henry A. Nix. Continua and Umwelt: Novel Perspectives on Viewing Landscapes[J]. Oikos 104. 3(2004):621-28.

[47] Calhoun, Craig. Community without Propinquity Revisited: Communications Technology and the Transformation of the Urban Public Sphere[J].Sociological Inquiry 68.3 (1998):373-97.

[48] Liebenberg, Louis. The Art of Tracking,the Origin of Science. International Publishers Marketing, Inc., 1990. http://ir.nmu.org.ua/handle/123456789/133244.

[49] Kwinter, Sanford. Combustible Landscape.Projective Ecologies. Chris Reed & Nina-Marie Lister,Ed. Actar, 2014:336-53.

[50] Leroi-Gourhan, Andrei. Gesture and Speech.Trans. A. Bostock Berger. MIT Press, 1993.

[51] Boltanski, Luc, and Eve Chiapello. The New Spirit of Capitalism[J]. International Journal of Politics,Culture, and Society 18.3–4 (2005):161-88.

[52] Lordon, Frédéric. Willing Slaves of Capital:Spinoza and Marx on Desire. Verso Books, 2014.

[53] Redstr?m, Johan. Towards User Design? On the Shift from Object to User as the Subject of Design[J].Design Studies 27.2 (2006):123-39.

[54] Rogers, Richard. Digital Methods[M]. MIT UP,2013.