실내디자인 스타일 유형화 및 특성에 관한 연구 = Classification of interior design style and corresponding characteristics

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The improvement in quality of the Interior design is becoming imperative as spaces are becoming more segmented and specialized, and designs that meet the function and maximize the space according to these changes can be said to be very essential. Such interior designs should be designed in regards to the individuality, taste, and preference of habitants that view their space as an environment that accommodates their lives. In addition, due to the abundance of information and experience, the desire for individuality and self-expression of modern-day consumers are increasing, and the demand for quality, quantitative design environment are becoming more diverse and specified thus emphasizing the importance of interior design. Therefore, the demand for various visual interior design reference materials is increasing as a result of consumers'' growing interest in interior design. Especially, residential space is a space type that isn''t dependent on variables such as space-type attributes and functions, and can be expressed in diverse designs that reflects the habitant''s taste and preference. The method of composition and expression varies according to the historical background and the period of time, and systematic categorization of each distinct interior design style type and classification of their qualities would make it possible to break free from present day''s fixed, designer based interior design and to achieve designs that are centered on consumer preferences and users. Thus, this study can be view as a tool development that can act as a communication material between the designer and the consumer in which they would be able to select interior design styles in accordance to their preference. For this, interior design style was typified through systematic design style classification method and the qualities of each style were analyzed through various methods. This research consists of analysis from past studies, two rounds of pilot test, and five-step surveys for all three rounds of main test. The subject analysis material for the research was comprised of photos of interior design works published in the five main interior magazines selected by designers that were printed during the last ten years. First of all, in the first rounds of pilot test, the interior design photos were grouped by style according to their image similarities for which collages were made, and in the second round, attributes of each style type was analyzed through adjective-study carried out on each type. Next, in the first round of main test, style type characteristics were drawn out through multiple range test based on ANOVA. Also, through adjective factor analysis adjective image factor was formed and then qualities of each style type were analyzed. In the second round of main test, each style type was defined through the process of naming of interior design style type. Finally, in the third round, statistic methods such as regression analysis, correlation analysis, and MDS was used to analyze the correlation between the ten composition factors and style image factors. The following is the results of this research based on analysis method mentioned above. First, in the first round of pilot test, in which expert designers with more than ten years experience in the field of the interior design were the subject, the two hundred interior design photos that were collected through the process of gathering analysis material were grouped according to the image similarities, and four to six main pictures were selected to make collages of each style type to represent each groups. Through such process all the photos of the analysis material were grouped in to ten types and so ten collages were produced. Second, in the style type naming process carried out by expert designers, various types of in-depth discussions were held to argue the suitability and the credibility of the type naming. As a result, the defined names of the ten types are as follows: Romantic, Ethnic, Classic, Hi-Tech, Elegant, Country, Modern, Minimal, Natural, and Casual.Third, the adjectives that describe the image types were analyzed to study the qualities of each style. Forty-six adjectives were extracted, and style type characteristics were drawn out through rating of appropriateness between style type collages and adjectives on a five-point scale. First, according to the result of the adjective-word evaluation for the Romantic Style, image descriptions such as classy, cute, warm, bright, soft, cozy, relaxed, exotic, accessorized, colorful, gaudy, classical image showed a high score, and also showed a high negative score for the complicated image. In an Ethnic Style ambience, classy, antique, oriental, exotic, classical, folk, peculiar, warm, colorful, gaudy, and accessorized images showed a high score, but negative images such as stuffy, heavy, complicated, dizzy, disorderly, and dark also showed a high score. In a Classic Style atmosphere, images such as classy, antique, warm, soft, relaxed, comfortable, and cozy along with accessorized, gaudy, colorful, exotic, meditative images fared high, while complicated and heavy images were also found to be high. Images like compact, neat, clean, bright, cool, cold, linear, urban, sophisticated, minimal, modern, and unique showed a high score for the High-Tech Style. Next, as a result of the adjective assessment analysis, for the Elegant Style, images such as classy, bright, soft, sophisticated, serene, simple, clean, neat, compact, simple, urban, modern, relaxed, warm, comfortable, cozy, meditative, cool, white, and classical were highly rated. For the Country Style atmosphere, classy, antique, natural, pastoral, indigenous, exotic, comfortable, cozy, warm, unique, meditative adjectives were highly rated, whereas negative images such as complicated, stuffy, heavy, dark were also highly rated. In a Modern Style atmosphere, compact, neat, clean, simple, minimal, cool, composed, classy, bright, sophisticated, relaxed, urban, linear, comfortable, and white are images that were found to be highly rated. Simple, neat, neat, clean, linear, cool, cold, urban, composed, modern, bright, sophisticated, relaxed, white, and meditative are images that were highly rated for the Minimal Style. On the other hand, boring, and desolate were some highly rated negative images. And for the Natural Style atmosphere, natural, pastoral, indigenous, comfortable, cozy, soft, warm, clean, neat, relaxed and classy were some images that fared high. Last, in the adjective assessment analysis for the Casual Style, some of the images that were highly rated are cute, unique, fun, accessorized, colorful, gaudy, clean, orderly, urban, modern, sophisticated, and bright, while dizzy, and chaotic are some high rated negative images.Fourth, forty six interior design styles were compared according to the adjectives, and this was done by showing the average measurement of each adjective within the ten styles through profile analysis. Also, all ten styles were put through various verification methods so that characteristics of each style could be compared. And ANOVA was applied on the ten styles based on the adjective which was then put through the post-mortem analysis from Duncan method, executed at the validity index at about 0.05, to statistically confirm the styles with legitimate differences.Fifth, in order to better understand the image factor for each style type, factor analysis was carried out and as a result, 5 different factors were classified.Factor 1 was defined as simplicity, and since the adjectives in factor 2 were perceived negatively within the range of comfort, it was defined as having a negative image for comfort. Factor 3 was defined as ''bucolic'', factor 4 as ''classical,'' and factor 5 as ''gaiety'' image.Sixth, the characteristics of each style type were drawn out measuring the five adjective image factors on a five point scale. As a result, minimal style scored the highest for simplicity, Modern and Elegant Style also scoring relatively high, while Country Style and Romantic Style were found to be the lowest for the simplicity image. Country Style and Natural Style scored high for the comfort image factor, whereas High-Tech, Modern, Minimal, and Casual scored low. For the classical image factor, Classic Style scored the highest, Ethnic, Romantic, and Country Style also scoring relatively high. On the other hand, High-Tech, Casual, Minimal, and Modern Style scored low for the classical image. And for the gaiety image, Casual Style and High-Tech Style was found to be the highest, whereas Classic and Elegant Style scored the lowest.Seventh, in order to find out the effect of the interior composition elements on the style image, regression analysis, correlation analysis, and MDS were used and according to the evaluation of the result, the correlation of interior design style, the style image factor, and interior composition elements were made, which were then used to draw out the characteristic of each style.First, for the Romantic Style, the three image factors, simplicity, comfort, and gaiety, were found to be influenced by the interior composition elements, of which windows, walls, material, and floor were the elements that influenced the simplicity factor, walls, the comfort factor, and material, the gaiety factor.For the Ethnic Style, the image factors on which the interior composition elements had an effect were simplicity, comfort, bucolic, classical, and gaiety factors. Fabric had a negative effect on the simplicity perception, while a positive effect on the comfort factor. Material was found to have a negative effect on the comfort factor. The bucolic factor was negatively affected by the ceiling, and for the classical factor, furniture had a positive effect while the walls had a negative effect. The walls and props were the elements with positive effects on the gaiety factor, while the lighting and floor were found to have negative effects. In the Classic Style, four image factors, simplicity, comfort, classical, and gaiety, were found to be influences by the interior composition elements. Ceiling had a negative effect on the simplicity factor whereas props had a positive effect on the comfort factor. Furniture, props, and ceiling were found to have a positive effect, and the fabric, a negative effect for the classical factor, whereas color, material, and floor had a positive effect, but fabric, also a negative effect for the gaiety factor. In the High-Tech Style, two image factors, simplicity and comfort, were found to be influenced by interior composition elements. Floor had a positive effect on the simplicity factor, while fabric and floor had a negative effect on the comfort factor.Simplicity, comfort, bucolic, and gaiety were the four image factors in the Elegant Style that were influenced by the interior composition elements. The element which had a positive influence on the simplicity factor was color, and on comfort factor was walls. Floor had a positive influence on the bucolic factor while walls had a negative influence. As for the gaiety factor, material and walls were found to have a positive influence. For the Country Style, three factors, simplicity, comfort, and bucolic, were affected by the elements, of which material had a negative influence on the simplicity factor, props had a positive influence on the comfort factor, and material and fabric had a positive effect on the bucolic factor. In the Modern Style, only one image factor, gaiety, was found to be affected by the interior composition elements. Color and lighting were found to have a positive effect on the gaiety factor. Two image factors, classical and gaiety were found to be affected by the elements in the Minimal Style. For the classical factor, floor had a positive effect, whereas for the gaiety factor, color and floor had a positive effect while ceiling had a negative effect. Simplicity, comfort, and gaiety were the three factors affected by the interior composition elements. Material had a positive effect on simplicity, whereas props had a positive effect on comfort, and lighting a positive effect on gaiety. For the Casual Style, simplicity, comfort, bucolic, and classical factors were found to be affected by the elements. Windows had a positive effect on simplicity perception, while walls, a positive effect, but windows, a negative effect for the comfort perception. For both the bucolic and classical perception, color was found to have a negative effect.Eighth, the correlation between adjective image factors and interior composition elements were analyzes using the MDS and through this, the characteristics for each style were better understood.In the Romantic Style, classical and bucolic are similarly perceived, while comfort is seen with furniture, material, walls, simplicity with ceiling and floor, and gaiety with window, and lighting. And thus, the correlation between the image factors and the composition elements can be seen.Classical and comfort are portrayed with furniture, and color, while bucolic is portrayed with lighting and window, and gaiety with fabric, material, props and walls in the Ethnic Style. In the Classic Style, classical is seen in the close vicinity of the props, fabric, and furniture, whereas comfort is found in the close vicinity of material and lighting, bucolic, found with windows and walls, and gaiety, found with ceiling and floors. In the High-Tech Style, lighting, color, and props are found in the same range as simplicity, and material, windows, ceiling, and walls are found in the range of gaiety.In the Elegant Style, gaiety is found in the same vicinity as walls, simplicity in close range with colors and windows, whereas elements such as furniture, props, lighting, and material didn''t clearly fall under any categories of the image factors. For the Country Style, comfort and bucolic were found in close range of ceiling, walls, props, and material, which also went to show that bucolic image could be correlated with an uncomfortable image. On the other hand, simplicity had really not much to do with any of the composition elements. In the Modern Style, bucolic, comfort, and classical factors were found to be in the same area, and these images seemed to show no clear correlation to the composition elements. However, gaiety was found in close proximity with windows, fabric, color, furniture, material, and walls, and simplicity with lighting, props, and floor which went on to show that the various composition elements of a modern style, are correlated to gaiety and simplicity. In the Minimal Style, comfort and classical were found to be in the same range and they have no clear correlation to the style interior composition elements. Bucolic is portrayed in the same range as fabric, and gaiety was found close to lighting, material, furniture, and props, while simplicity found close to the floor and walls. It can be concluded that in the Minimal Style, gaiety, simplicity, and bucolic images are strong. In the Natural Style, simplicity is found in the same range as ceiling, and floor, while classical was found close to the ceiling, gaiety close to fabric, and bucolic close to windows, furniture, and props. This showed that the elements of the Natural Style portrayed various images. After analyzing the Casual Style, it was found that gaiety had a close connection to colors, props, furniture, material, and lighting, comfort to walls an ceiling, and simplicity to windows. However, neither the classical nor the bucolic image showed any clear connection to any of the elements.Last, the result of the MDS analysis of the ten styles the five adjective image factors can be divided into four domains on an image map. First, in the modern and simple image domain Minimal, Modern, High-Tech, and Elegant Style can be found whereas Classic, Ethnic, Romantic, and Country Style can be found in the classical and complicated image domain. Minimal, Elegant, Natural, and Classic Style can be found in the calm and meditative image domain, and Casual, Ethnic, High-Tech, Romantic, and Country Style can be found in a dynamic and fun image domain. Therefore, the domain characteristic of each style can be used as reference material in the consumer''s style selection communication according to taste or preference.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

실내디자인은 공간의 세분화와 전문화에 따라 질적인 향상이 요구되며 그에 따라 기능에 부응되고 공간의 효과를 극대화할 수 있는 실내디자인의 설계는 매우 중요하다고 볼 수 있다. 또한 현대사회에서 소비자들의 개성과 자기의사표현의 욕구가 다양한 정보와 경험으로 인해 증가되고 따라서 디자인 환경에 대한 질적, 양적 요구가 다양화, 개성화되고 있으므로 인해 실내디자인에 대한 중요도는 더욱 부각되고 있다. 이러한 실내디자인은 인간의 삶을 수용하는 환경으로서 공간에 거주하는 거주자의 관점으로 개성과 취향, 기호에 맞는 디자인을 반영하여 설계되어야할 것이다. 이에 따라 소비자들의 실내디자인에 대한 관심이 높아지며 실내디자인에 관한 다양한 시각적 자료의 필요성이 증가되고 있다. 특히 실내디자인의 공간 유형 중 주거공간은 공간유형의 특성과 기능 등의 변인에 종속되지 않고 거주자의 취향과 선호에 따라 자신의 이미지를 반영한 다양한 실내디자인의 스타일이 표현될 수 있다. 따라서 역사적인 배경과 시대적 흐름에 따라 구성방식이나 표현방법이 다양하며 각각의 고유한 특징을 갖는 실내디자인의 스타일의 유형을 체계적으로 분류하고 그에 대한 특성을 정리한 자료가 제공된다면 현대의 획일적이고 디자이너 중심의 실내디자인에서 탈피하여 소비자 선호와 사용자 중심의 디자인으로서 소비자와 디자이너가 만족하는 디자인의 실현에 중요한 역할을 한다고 볼 수 있다. 이를 위해 본 연구는 소비자들이 실내디자인 스타일의 선호 취향에 따라 디자인을 선택할 수 있는 디자이너와 소비자 간의 커뮤니케이션 자료로 활용될 수 있는 자료개발을 목표로 한다. 본 연구는 체계적인 실내디자인 스타일의 분류 방법을 통하여 실내디자인 스타일을 유형화하고 다양한 방법론을 통해 스타일별 특성을 파악하였다. 연구의 진행은 선행연구를 통한 문헌조사와 1,2차 예비조사, 1,2,3차 본조사의 5단계 실증조사 과정을 통해 이루어졌다. 연구를 위한 분석 대상 자료는 최근 10년간 발행된 실내디자인 관련 전문잡지에 게재된 실내디자인 작품사진으로 정하였으며 전문지는 디자이너들에 의해 국내외 대표성을 갖는 5개의 잡지를 선정하여 진행하였다. 연구방법은 1차 예비조사에서 실내디자인사진자료의 이미지 유사성에 따라 스타일별군집화를 하였고 스타일별 꼴라쥬 사진을 작성하였으며 2차 예비조사에서는 각 스타일 유형에 대한 형용사 표현어휘조사를 통해 스타일 유형별 특성을 파악하였다. 다음으로 1차 본조사에서는 변량분석에 의한 다중범위검증을 실시하였으며 또한 형용사 요인분석을 통해 스타일별 형용사 이미지 요인을 추출하여 스타일 유형별 특성을 파악하였다. 2차 본조사에서는 스타일유형에 대한 명명화 과정을 통해 각 스타일유형을 정의하였다. 마지막으로 3차 본조사에서는 회귀분석, 상관관계분석, MDS 등의 통계방법을 통해 스타일유형별 실내공간을 구성하는 10가지의 구성요소와 스타일 이미지요인과의 상관성을 분석하여 스타일 유형별 특성을 파악하였다. 본 연구의 내용을 살펴보면 먼저 실내디자인분야에서 10년 이상의 경력을 지닌 전문 디자이너들을 대상으로 실시된 본 연구의 1차 예비조사에서는 분석대상 자료의 수집과정을 거쳐 수집된 200개의 실내디자인 사진을 이미지의 유사성과 특성에 따라 스타일별로 군집화하였고, 이렇게 유형화된 군집들을 대표할 수 있는 스타일 유형별 꼴라쥬 사진을 만들기 위해 각 범주 별 4-6개의 대표사진을 선정하였다. 이러한 과정을 통하여 전체 분석대상 자료의 사진은 총 10개의 유형으로 분류되었으며 이에 따라 10개의 꼴라쥬 사진이 구성되었다. 다음으로 전문 디자이너를 통해 진행된 스타일 유형별 명명화 과정에서는 다양한 의견 개진과 심층토론을 거친 단계별 진행을 통해 유형명칭에 대한 타당성과 신뢰성을 논의 한 결과 각각 로맨틱, 에스닉, 클래식, 하이테크, 엘리건트, 컨트리, 모던, 미니멀, 내츄럴, 캐쥬얼 스타일로 10개 유형에 대한 명칭을 정하였다. 스타일의 특징을 파악하기 위해서는 유형별 이미지를 표현하는 형용사 어휘를 조사하여 46개의 형용사어휘를 추출하였고 10개의 스타일유형의 꼴라쥬 이미지와 형용사어휘와의 적합성에 대한 5점 척도 평가를 통해 스타일유형별 특징을 도출하였다. 또한 46개의 형용사어휘별 실내디자인스타일을 비교하여 각각의 형용사가 10개 스타일에서 어떠한 측정평균치를 갖는지 프로파일 분석을 통해 제시하였으며 변량분석을 통해 각각의 형용사에 대한 10개의 스타일별 다중범위 검증으로 유형별 특징을 비교할 수 있도록 하였다. 다음으로 스타일유형에 대한 이미지요인을 파악하기위해 형용사 어휘를 이용한 요인분석을 실시한 결과 단순성, 편안성, 목가성, 고전성, 유희성의 5가지 요인으로 분류되었다. 이러한 5가지요인에 대해 각 스타일 유형이 갖는 적합성을 5점 척도로 평가하여 스타일의 특성을 도출하였다. 또한 회귀분석과 상관관계분석, 다차원척도법(MDS)을 이용하여 실내구성요소가 스타일이미지에 미치는 영향을 파악하고 실내디자인스타일과 스타일의 이미지요인, 실내구성요소들과의 상관성을 통하여 스타일 유형별 특징을 도출하였다. 마지막으로 5가지 형용사 이미지요인을 기준으로 10가지 스타일유형의 MDS 분석 결과를 이미지 맵으로 표현하여 4가지의 영역으로 분류하였다. 먼저 현대적이고 단순한 이미지의 영역에는 미니멀, 모던, 하이테크, 엘리건트 스타일 등이 포함되며 반면 고전적이고 복잡한 이미지의 영역에는 클래식, 에스닉, 로맨틱, 컨트리 스타일 등이 포함된다. 또한 정적이고 명상적인 이미지의 영역에는 미니멀, 엘리건트, 내츄럴, 클래식 스타일 등이 포함되며 동적이고 유희적인 이미지 영역에는 캐쥬얼, 에스닉, 하이테크, 로맨틱, 컨트리 스타일 등이 포함되는 것을 알 수 있다. 이러한 스타일의 영역 별 특성은 소비자의 취향이나 선호에 따른 스타일 선택의 참고 자료로 활용될 수 있다. 본 연구는 분석에 사용될 조사대상 자료의 선정에서부터 매우 객관적이고 합리적인 방법을 통해 자료선정의 타당성을 가지도록 하였다. 또한 본 연구결과에서 제시된 실내디자인 스타일의 유형화 작업을 통한 특성 분석은 기존의 다양한 실내디자인 이미지를 다단계 분석프로세스를 통해 여러 측면에서 종합적으로 제시하고 있으므로 연구 결과에 대한 신뢰성을 높이고 있다. 그러므로 본 연구는 학계에서는 물론 디자인 관련 연구를 수행할 시 기반 자료로 이용되어질 가능성을 갖으며 응용학문으로서의 실내디자인학 연구발전을 위한 필수적인 자료로서의 활용 가치를 갖는다. 또한 생활양식 및 가치관의 변화로 인해 자신의 개성과 취향, 기호에 맞는 디자인을 선택하고 자신의 이미지를 반영하는 실내공간을 실현하고자하는 소비자들에게 실내디자인 스타일에 대한 종합적인 이해에 도움이 되는 자료가 필요함에 따라 직접적이고 다양한 자료의 제공으로 실내디자인 프로세스에서 디자이너와 소비자 간의 커뮤니케이션 자료로 활용가능하다는 점에 연구의 의의를 갖는다.