CMF 디자인과 텍스타일 디자인의 관계 연구 -물질 경험 설계와 물질 생성을 중심으로-

This study aims to theoretically examine the differences in how CMF (Color, Material, Finish) design and textile design approach materials at different dimensions, despite both fields dealing with ‘materials’ as their common subject, and to systematically elucidate the complementary relationship between the two disciplines. Although both fields treat materials as their core subject, they possess distinct histories, objectives, working philosophies, and design processes that make it difficult to categorize them under the same framework. Recently, as research on materials has expanded extensively across various design specializations dealing with material properties, the two fields have developed in parallel. Nevertheless, academic discourse on their fundamental differences remains insufficient. This study adopts a two-layer concept derived from discussions on materiality—‘the way materials exist’ and ‘the way materials are experienced’—as an analytical framework, conducting literature review and conceptual analysis. The findings reveal that CMF design operates at the ‘Material Experience Design Level,’ identified as a field concerned with how already-formed materials are perceived and experienced by users. In contrast, textile design operates at the ‘Material Creation Level,’ confirmed as a field that constitutes and creates materials themselves through fiber, yarn, weave structures, and pattern systems. Furthermore, through comparative analysis of the planning and design processes of both fields, this study clarified that CMF design focuses on designing ‘how a product will look and feel,’ while textile design approaches by forming the material properties themselves. Additionally, the core common logic derived from the formative and cultural foundations shared by both fields was systematized. The main contributions of this study are as follows. First, through the two-layer concept, CMF design and textile design are redefined not as a simple parallel relationship, but as a complementary relationship constituting different layers. Second, by clarifying each field’s unique expertise and potential contributions, their academic identities are established. Third, a theoretical foundation is laid for effective collaboration between the two fields in the rapidly expanding domain of future material design. By establishing an academic framework for materialcentered design fields, this study can serve as a foundational discussion for developing convergent design methodologies in the future.