This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]On: 16 October 2014, At: 23:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Visual SociologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rvst19

Iconicity, diagrammatics, and aesthetic preferencesElzbieta T. Kazmierczak aa Co‐ordinates an Illustration Program , State University , BuffaloPublished online: 03 Jul 2008.

To cite this article: Elzbieta T. Kazmierczak (2001) Iconicity, diagrammatics, and aesthetic preferences, Visual Sociology,16:1, 89-99, DOI: 10.1080/14725860108583828

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14725860108583828

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should notbe relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, andother liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relationto or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Visual Sociology 16(1), pp. 89-99 © International Visual Sociology Association, 2001 89

Iconicity, Diagrammatics, and Aesthetic PreferencesA Semiotic Perspective onVisual Literacy and Information Design

Elzbieta T. Kazmierczak

I begin with a semiotic view on the evolutionof the significatieon process, in order to ini-tiate a discussion about the notion of iconicityas related to the notion of likeness. I thencompare the paradigm of iconic representa-tion to the paradigm of diagrammatic repre-sentation in the context of aesthetic prefer-ences to analyze the structure of diagram-matic model as related to perception and themodes of learning. I refer to the results of theresearch on children's drawings from othercultures to support the discussion about therelationship between exposure, familiarity witha given representational convention, and theaesthetic expectations. Since familiarity withvisual conventions plays a vital role in shift-ing boundaries of visual literacy, I argue thatinformation design professionals are responsiblefor shifting the boundaries of visual literacy.

Modeling Instinctand Form DifferentiationFrom Indices to Icons and Symbols

Coming from semiotics, I share a point ofview that (1) humans are born to make

signs and (2) signs are expressions of themodeling instinct, which is a human way ofknowing (Danesi 1998). The concept of the"modeling instinct" can be viewed as a semioticextension of the Aristotelian "instinct of imita-tion." Anything we, as humans, know is com-prehended as a mental model (mental represen-tation) of relations among our thoughts about

something. In order to communicate and toexpand those models in some ways, we havedeveloped modes of representation; graphicmodeling systems are one of them. The twomodeling principles of dimensionality andinterconnectedness apply to all modes of repre-sentation, whether mental, acoustic, or graphic.That is to say, modeling systems are relations,of which representations are also relations. Assuch, they correspond to the internal mutualtranslatability of sign systems. In respect to thecommunicative function of modeling systems,they may be viewed as acts of semiosis, that is,acts of communicative processes during whichsomething is a sign to someone. In other words,semiosis is any sign process during which themeaning of a sign becomes manifested.

In his studies concerned with the relation-ship of perceptual code and graphic code,Rudolf Arnheim offers some explanations of theissue. The modeling instinct as expressed in agraphic mode through such activities as draw-ing, painting, or sculpting has its roots in anolder and more general kind of motor behavior,that is, in descriptive and expressive movement(Arnheim 1974:171). In respect to the handlingof the medium and to the type of signs ^model-ing forms) constituting a given stage, theevolution of graphic signification can be dividedinto two essential stages: the stage of uninten-tional signification and the stage of intentionalsignification (Figure 1). The unintentionalinvolvement with the graphic medium is consti-

Elzbieta Kazmierczak co-ordinates an Illustration Program at the State University at Buffalo. She obtained an MFA inGraphic Design and an MA in Art Education from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She authored abook on the origins and evolution of graphic forms and symbols "Glowne Choremy w Semiografii: Kolo, Kwadrat,Trojkat" (Main Choremes in Semiography: Circle, Square, and Triangle).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

90 Kazmierczak

stage

signification

modeling form

INDEXICAL

UNINTENTIONAL

INDEX

ICONIC-SYMBOLIC

INTENTIONAL

ICON, SYMBOL

Figure 1: Evolution of graphic signification.

tuted by indexical signs (=modeling forms). Theterm "index" stands for "a sign which refers tothe Object that it denotes merely by virtue ofbeing really affected by that Object" (Peirce §2.247). That is to say, an Object has directlycaused an appearance of its sign. For instance,smoke is an indexical sign of fire.

At the initial indexical stage of form devel-opment, the first marks are not intended toserve any denotative function; they are pureexpressions of motor activity (Arnheim1974:171), pure expressions of being. Likehandprints, footprints, or fingerprints, they areindices of one's presence, which precede thedevelopment of representational and spatialsignifying systems. "The child's own bodilymovements, the trail of the brush on paper, andthe movement of the imaginary objects are allcompressed into the visual-motor act of creatingcircular whirls" (Golomb 1992:11).

In the process of individuation that isparallel to the process of semiotization,1 anindividual recognizes itself as different from theenvironment. That, in turn, facilitates separationbetween bodily movements and graphic formsas conceived as forms of signification. Theprocess of the discovery of graphic form devel-ops in a progression toward higher complexityof both form and mental capacity: from simpleto complex, from open to closed. From theindexical motion of drawing continuous mean-ders, spirals, and circular whirls, the first closedfigure emerges. And that is a circle (Figure 2).

By the age of 3, children control the movinghand with an intention to close the swirl asopposed to uncontrolled swirling lines (Golomb1992:15).

As the direction of the discovery of graphicform progresses, the development of perceptualconcepts goes from general to particular and,subsequently, to higher graphic complexity.Whether it is children or adults acquiring graphiclanguage, the same process applies. Althoughthe primordial circle is an indexical result of thenatural progression of motor training in agraphic medium, the semiotic implications of itsappearance are enormous. This shape, by itsclosure, embraces and separates the inside areafrom the outside area. It provides a foundationfor recognition of a solid contour of a two-dimensional object, and it induces comprehen-sion of the simplest spatial relation of graphicshapes such as "containing" (Arnheim1974:175, 177).

Once the conceptual development of themind reaches semiotic comprehension ofgraphic representation, a deliberate pictorialrepresentation subsequently springs forth. Thisis an iconic-symbolic stage (as 1 call it) at whichthe mind recognizes the form as a carrier ofpossible meanings. At this stage a circle losesits sole indexical character and becomes anicon, that is, an intentional sign of representa-tion (Figure 2). As a signifier, it evolves fromrepresenting unspecified "thingness" throughrepresenting a specific thing. According to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Iconicity, Diagrammatics, and Aesthetic Preferences 91

Figure 2: Evolution of the representational function of a circle: from indices to icons;(A) 2-year-old girl (index),(B) 3-year-old girl (icon), (C) 4-year-old girl (icon), (D) 4.5-year-old girl (icon) (with the permission of the parents).

Arnheim, that is "because unknown shape orunknown spatial relations are represented in asimplest possible way" (1974:176). For in-stance, a circle denotes a whole figure, thenevolves into an icon of a torso of a tadpolefigure, until it represents only a head of a moredifferentiated iconic representation of a humanfigure. With the development of abstract think-ing, a circle gains the status of a symbolicrepresentation of such abstract notions assource, beginning, genesis, and fertility.

Iconicity, Diagrammatics,and Likeness

The Aristotelian tradition of the imitationalnature of images is echoed in the semioticwritings of C. S. Peirce, who defines the iconicrelationship between a sign and its object bylinking it to the notions of resemblance andlikeness. He distinguishes three types of iconsgiven in order of decreasing degree of iconicityor likeness: images, diagrams, and metaphors(§ 2.277). Images represent immediate visualqualities as in portraits, diagrams representstructural relations, and metaphors representsemantic (parallelisms) relations (Figure 3).

There is a whole bag of issues invitinginquiry related to the distinction between imagesand diagrams and the notion of likeness, suchas (1) natural versus conventional aspect ofrepresentation, (2) likeness as a matter ofnatural versus conventional signification, and

(3) degree of conventionality in imitational andschematic signification, to name only a few. Iwill not address them in this paper, since myintention is to focus on visual literacy in respectto visual modeling of information. Before Iproceed, I would like to address an issue oficonicity in relation to codification and aestheticexpectations.

Peircean discrimination between images,diagrams, and metaphors on the scale ofdecreasing likeness shows its attachment to theaesthetics of visual imitation. That is not surpris-ing, knowing that the Western popular culture isgoverned by such an aesthetics. Because of itscommonality, it is overlooked that any demon-stration of it provides a codified picture, whichrequires practice in its "reading." Because weare so familiar with the conventions, we take forgranted that there is no learning involved in therecognition of realistic artifacts. Even photo-

IMAGES (immediate visual qualities)

DIAGRAMS (structural relations)

METAPHORS (semantic relations)

Figure 3: Peircean types of icons ordered according tolikeness.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

92 Kazmierczak

graphs, which are considered as blueprints ofreality, are subject to a code and their realistic"feel" is acquired by exposure. That is not todeny their indexicality which makes them intosuch convincing documents of reality. Photo-graphic images are mechanical recordings oflight projected (indexed) onto a photo-sensitiveemulsion. That chemical reaction caused bymechanical projection constitutes their direct-ness. By virtue of being indexical, they areconsidered as true images of reality. First, onehas to ask in respect to what are they true?There is no such thing as one true image ofreality, because there is always a frame ofreference, according to which the truth value isto be determined. Yet there are many trueimages of reality, each satisfying differentcriteria.

Indexicality does not exclude the presenceof a code, nor does it guarantee an appropriatereading of an index. The basis for decodingindices is experiential, not conceptual. Forinstance, the knowledge about the connectionbetween smoke and fire derives from priorobservation. It is frequently overlooked that adimension has been lost in the process ofgraphic modeling and instead of three-dimen-sional reality we are facing its distorted two-dimensional projection on a picture plane. Thatimplies that, although the degree of codificationmay be low, it is always involved. Any mode ofgraphic representation is a translation from onemode of intelligibility to another. For instance,viewing photographic images involves at leastthree levels of coding; the retinal, the percep-tual, and the iconic. What is considered asnatural and direct is to a large degree a matterof familiarity with the code. As indices, photo-graphs are identical with the retinal image, "butbecause we do not see the world as it is pro-jected on the retina, or a camera, thephotograph(s) look(s) wrong" (Gregory1966:175) to an inexperienced eye. In the non-western cultures, people "make little or nothingof drawings or photographs of familiar objects,and this (is) also true of the (Western) blindman made to see" (Gregory 1966:163). Thisshows a discrepancy between mere indexicality

of a retinal image and the complexity of themodulatory function of a perceptual code, whichinvolves knowledge and expectations derivedfrom accumulated sensory experience from allthe senses (Gregory 1966:8). For instance,mechanical reproduction as in photographsdiffers from perceptual code. Due to size con-stancy, the proportions of the retinal image ofwhat we see in the world are adjusted in accor-dance to "visual scaling process" (Gregory1966:163). Finally, an impact of iconic conven-tions also has to be acknowledged. They influ-ence not only our aesthetic, but also perceptualexpectations. We do not fear experiencingtemporary color blindness when looking atblack and white photographs because we arefamiliar with the iconic code of black and whitephotography.

Genetically, the contemporary conceptionof resemblance slowly evolved from earlyrepresentations, being a result of the paralleldevelopment of concepts at three levels: mental,perceptual, and graphic. As a gradual differen-tiation of graphic form proceeds, the representa-tion of spatial relations and, thus, organizationof a plane evolves. Early phases are marked bya lack of spatial relations, or, one can say, theyare marked by a different kind of spatial andstructural codification. Thus, elements of ahuman body or a scene may be arranged alonga vertical or horizontal axis, or they may berandomly dispersed on a page or even drawn onthe back of the page when the back of an objectis to be shown. That suggests that the "illusory"consistency of an object is not an issue at theearly stages (Arnheim 1974:185). Instead,attention is paid to the structural characteristicsand structural relations of an object. Thus, earlyrepresentational forms are diagrams rather thanimages. Since iconic images appear at the laterstages, it is diagrams that have the longesttradition in modeling systems.

Consequently, the diagrammatic represen-tational systems can be considered as (1) theprimary modeling systems, (2) the systems ofthe highest familiarity across the cultures, and(3) the systems, which, if promoted and dis-seminated widely, can facilitate the shift of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Iconicity, Diagrammatics, and Aesthetic Preferences 93

aesthetic paradigm and, thus, the advancementof visual literacy. I will now look briefly at thestructure of the diagrammatic code.

Iconic Versus Diagrammatic Modeling:From Likeness to Function

From the semiotic standpoint as related toinformation design, the fundamental aspect ofgraphic signs is their function as modelingforms. According to Susanne Langer "weapprehend everything which comes to us asimpact from the world by imposing some imageon it that stresses its salient features and shapesit for recognition and memory" (Langer1967:59). If we accept that image-making is notmaking copies of physical objects, but thegraphic "'realizing' of mental images," (Langer1967:95), then we should focus on the func-tional performance of icons, instead of likeness.Namely, on what they can and cannot do for usas tools for visualization.

Their different functions determine theirdifferent forms and their suitability for different"ways of looking" at the world. Since diagramsare designated to provide representations ofrelations, they represent only those featureswhich are constituents of those relations, insteadof an undiscriminated, holistic view of an object,which is usually the case for images. In thatregard, images can be considered as descriptivepictures, in opposition to diagrams being logicalpictures. A higher degree of intellectual dis-crimination in diagrammatic relations requires ahigher degree of schematization. On the con-trary, images are intended to inform about therichness of visual appearances of the sensuousworld around us and must carry as littleschematization as allowed by the medium andthe patience of a sign maker. It is tempting tosay that the more the diagrams exclude, themore the images include.

The proportion reverses when one consid-ers the level of intellectual elaboration of anObject. Seeing and thinking are interdependent,therefore criteria for discrimination of modelingtools can be selected in response to the degreeof intellectual elaboration of an Object. Produc-

tion of diagrams requires a high level of intellec-tual integration of an Object, while images donot. That implies that the depth of intellectualinsight about reality is more limited in case ofimages. Diagrammatic models are designated toreach beneath the visible surface. Thus, dia-grams are excellent tools for showing theinvisibles. By making the invisible structuralrelations apparent, diagrams can provide aninvaluable insight into the underlying structuresof the human conceptual world. In relation to thetypes of knowledge derived from the contactwith the world, images function as the bestagents of visual knowledge, while diagrams aremost suitable for visualizations of conceptualknowledge. In summary, images are the mosteffective modeling forms for representation ofreality as we see it, while diagrams are the mosteffective for representations of reality as weunderstand it. That encapsulates the essential,functional difference between diagrams andimages (Figure 4).

Diagrams as modeling forms applied ininformation design have a blend of pictorial andlinguistic elements. Pictorial discourse requireslinguistic support to gain a context to allocatethe meaning of the otherwise abstract andarbitrary formation of shapes with shiftingdifferentiation values and degrees of generaliza-tion. Points, lines, angles, open and closed

reality as weknow it

DIAGRAMS

Metaphors

IMAGESreality as we

see it

Figure 4: Images and diagrams according to differentmodeling functions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

94 Kazmierczak

figures may signify anything, since there aremany ways to represent a given conceptualstructure. In such a context, the linguisticdiscourse, as a highly standardized and com-mon means of communication, convenientlyhelps to determine the meanings of pictorialelements, which need an "outside imposition oflimitations of possible readings" (Turkovic1995:335). Without linguistically determinedreferences, pictorial forms are like syntaxwithout semantics, or like empty containerswhich must be filled. On the one hand, thesyntactic character of diagrammatic modelsframes the range of possible meanings to becontained by the pictorial forms. Namely, itdepends on a dynamic relation of mutualdetermination between the syntactic rules ofassembling them and their linguistic discourse.For instance, the range of possible meanings ofan arrangement with an arrow is narrowed downto those situations in which the syntax of anarrow is applicable. In short, an arrow alwayscontains information about (1) the relationalnature of a situation, (2) its motion, and (3) itsdirection.

On the other hand, the syntactic rules ofputting together the pictorial signs of diagram-matic models are the same as the principles ofthe geometric code of a sign-making process(Kazmierczak 1990). As such, they echo thesemantic values of the elements used for as-sembling a given shape. For instance, thesemantic aspect of a circle is ever-present evenin strictly syntactic use of this form. Conse-quently, the sense of an origin, center, source,and isolation is echoed in any diagrammaticapplication of that figure. It can be claimed thatthere is such a thing as the language of dia-grammatic models and that, to a certain degree,it is standard across cultures and disciplines.The rules of operation and the lexicon of dia-grammatic signification are acquired during theprocess of form differentiation (already dis-cussed). Thus, the language of diagrams isuniversal only to the degree of cultural relativityof and exposure to (1) the process of formdifferentiation, (2) geometric code, and (3)language acquisition.

As far as topology of diagrams is con-cerned, a common usage by information de-signers is the functional topology of the follow-ing types of diagrams: maps, charts, diagrams,tables, and graphs. On the one hand, such adivision is helpful in determining the differentrange of applications and the production skillrequirement. On the other hand, it is immedi-ately noticeable that it has a problem withterminology since "diagrams" appears in boththe subject and in its subcategory. Such atopology fails in its discriminatory function.Such a situation signals a need for cooperationbetween information theorists and informationpractitioners in respect to the classification ofvisual models.

Exposure, Cross-cultural Differences,and Aesthetic Education

The degree of likeness depends on the followingfactors: (1) the level of graphic differentiation,(2) the medium, and (3) the intention of a signmaker (Arnheim 1974:168). In respect to thelatter, early representational forms are asdetailed icons as they are realistically renderedportraits. That is because children and "primi-tives" draw generalities, and mature draftsmenrender particularities. Dealing with the theoriesof graphic form development, one has to notethat as much as the stages of the processappear universal, they are also culturally biased.The results of the cross-cultural research in arteducation, such as the study of the drawings ofthe Egyptian village children, show that thedrawings of children lacking exposure to graphicmodels result in much less creativity in agraphic mode of representation (Wilson1988:504). On the other hand, graphic sophisti-cation, such as the sequential narratives ofJapanese children, demonstrates that exposureto culture-specific graphic modeling systems,even as sophisticated as sequential narratives,enriches not only the visual, but also the con-ceptual repertoire of a child (Wilson 1988:498).Consequently, it is the exposure to and, thus,the familiarity with graphic conventions thatdetermine aesthetic preferences. 1 therefore

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Iconicity, Diagrammatics, and Aesthetic Preferences 95

argue that it is realistic (within the attainablerange) to expect that upon exposure to ad-vanced and to new modes of representation theboundaries of visual literacy can be shifted.

In the Poetics we learn about the imitationalfunction of art. There, Aristotle explains,

There are objects which in themselves weview with pain, but we delight to contem-plate when reproduced with minute fidelity... Therefore, we contemplate images withdelight when we are able to recognize anddetermine what has been represented, e.g.,that a given image represents this or that. Ifwe happen not to have seen the original, ourpleasure will be due not to the imitation assuch, but to the minute execution, thecoloring, or some other cause. (Aristotle1988:319)

The Aristotelian tradition of imitation(=mimesis) has strongly influenced aesthetictheories, and thus, aesthetic preferences. At thepragmatic level of image consumers, the aes-thetics of realistic rendering (=mimesis, imita-tion) dominates the media and governs theexpectations of a general audience, shaping theimage of mass culture.

The popularity of visual imitation providesan aesthetic paradigm, which results in tremen-dous axiologic consequences—namely, in theWestern preoccupation with appearance and theperception of "an image" as a measure ofquality. It is the surface, not the hidden qualities,that counts in the assessment of value. That iswhy 1 call aesthetics of imitation a "thoughtless"aesthetics. Conversely, the diagrammatictradition, which is geared toward revealingstructural relations, requires logic in the deter-mination of relevant features that are to bemutually related. The diagrammatic assessmentshifts attention to inner qualities in the determi-nation of the value. That is why I call aestheticsof diagrammatic modeling a "thoughtful"aesthetics.

The importance of open-minded aestheticeducation in the development of visual literacycannot be overlooked. The focus on a mimeticfunction of visual models, as expressed throughthe overpowering presence of such graphic

codes as realism, geometric perspective, andphotography, may limit the growth of visualcreativity. That is when art educators fail toencourage the exploration of other forms ofrepresentation. Although the history of one-point perspective and photography is relativelyshort-lived (fifteenth century) in relation to thehistory of image-making, it dominates Westernaesthetic expectations. It is due to the coexist-ence of Aristotelian tradition of imitation and theGreek Logos that a strong need for ultimatevisual exactness was developed in Europe. One-point perspective embodies the idealized geo-metric exactness, while photography fulfils thedemand for mechanical exactness (Arnheim1974:284).

In the environment of the dominance ofone modeling convention, it is necessary to payattention to education about other graphicconventions in order to expand a child's image-making possibilities. Unfortunately, in the West,art education is underestimated. There aremany ill-prepared, unqualified educators whoteach art according to the aesthetic paradigm ofmass culture. They do it at the expense of othermodeling possibilities, limiting a child's graphicdevelopment. Typically, a child is required notonly to abandon other codes of representation,to focus on one-point perspective, but also torush through some stages in the evolutionaryprocess of form development. Such a demandproves harmful to the child's image-makingability and graphic creativity. When "the skillsneeded to produce like images are not devel-oped, then the unresolved discrepancy betweenmodel and production will usually result in acessation of world(image) making" (Wilson1988:498). It is a sad realization that the major-ity of Western children lose the enchantingsense of form development and the fascinationwith the medium and by the fifth grade give upimage making all together. "We do not usuallykeep working at something when repeatedcomparison to cultural models informs us thatwe are failing" (Wilson 1988:501). As aresult, early forms of graphic representationand the aesthetics of early diagrammaticmodeling are forgotten.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

96 Kazmierczak

While the paradigm of imitation governsthe West, the East can be linked to the aesthet-ics of diagrammatic representation, which, inturn, brings it closer to the early forms of repre-sentation. Since the diagrammatic aestheticssprings from concentration on relationshipsinstead of on appearance, it leads to an aesthet-ics based on a premise other than immediatelikeness. For instance, it may lead to the searchfor the essence of the totality of life, as seen inthe aesthetics of Zen Buddhism. In Zen Bud-dhism the "likeness" (of appearance) becomesirrelevant, while it is the relations and theessence that are granted the highest value. Thesearch for an essence of things and their rela-tions implies elimination of irrelevant elements,resulting in simplicity. That, in turn, requiresabsence of the aesthetics of mere decorative-ness. The Zen Buddhist aesthetic rule of "theless, the better" clearly contradicts the Westernrule "the more, the better." This is not to saythat diagrammatic thinking entirely overlapswith the Zen Buddhist aesthetic paradigm. Thediscussion of the logic of diagrams and the"logic" of Zen Buddhist intuitiveness along withtheir aesthetic consequences requires spacesolely devoted to that issue. My intention in thisparagraph is to emphasize the correspondencebetween aesthetic preferences and philosophy inorder (1) to show the relative nature of aestheticvalues, with its grounding in philosophy, (2) tostress that it is a cultural shift of the focus fromappearance onto the relationships that deter-mines different semiotic functions of graphicmodeling forms, and (3) to promote aestheticopenness and flexibility, which are highlydesired in making choices regarding means ofvisualization of information.

Memory and PicturesVersus Language

It is Aristotle's ideas concerning inspiration andimitation that initiated a multitude of aestheticsystems as well as originated views that im-ages—as opposed to the linguistic discourse—make comprehension and remembering of

conceptual structures easier. Yet it was therediscovery of hieroglyphic pictures in thefifteenth century that brought to question therelationship between pictographic forms ofgraphic notation and Ietterforms used in writingto represent words separated into sounds. Sincepictorial representations were more ancient thanlinguistic ones, "Neo-platonism of that timeoffered an explanation that ideas were imagesand only imperfect human logic turned theminto linguistic statements" (Szonyi 1993:289). Inthe modern era, it is claimed that pictures showstructural relationships, and as such, theycorrespond to the nature of mental mapping andretrieval of information, which is neither linearnor sequential, but synchronic and quasi-pictorial, while the nature of linguistic discourseis linear.

According to Stephen Kosslyn, whoseresearch is concerned with the function oflanguage in perception and remembering,mental imagery "is likely to be one of the firsthigher cognitive functions" and "an integral partof how perception works" (1996:1, 21). Inaccordance with the theory of memory as aconstruction rather than reproduction (Kosslyn1996), a mental image is created by an interac-tion among surface, literal, and propositionalrepresentations. We use those mental images toretrieve information from the memory. Thesurface representation has a quasi-pictorialform, which results in the experience of "havingan image." This representation contains infor-mation about the spatial extent of a mentalimage and informs about the structure anddelineation of the borders of that image. Thus,the iconic-diagrammatic nature of pictures canbe related to the surface representations of amental image and to the literal representationsof mental images. Deep representation storesinformation in long-term memory. At this level,representations are subdivided into literal andpropositional. Literal representations have aformat of an image-skeleton (=scheme), whichstarts with polar coordinates. Each point has anindex that allows the execution of changes insize, the rotation and the translation of images.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Iconicity, Diagrammatics, and Aesthetic Preferences 97

Propositional representations consist of lists,which are built like scenes or parts of an object.They can be ordered hierarchically or in a graphstructure. The lists are searched in a serial waystarting from the top. All these lists consist ofnames that contain abstract encoding figures.These figures indicate how and when the partshave to be placed in an image (Kosslyn1996:1019-1045). In the other words, we storediagrammatic models in our heads.

Correspondingly, in pedagogy it has beenacknowledged that there are different modes oflearning, that is, linguistic and nonlinguistic,which in turn relate to the conceptual separationbetween functions of the left and right hemi-spheres of the brain. Thus, it is recommendedthat a blending of linguistic and nonlinguisticteaching aids should be used in instructionaldesign, as together they meet the needs of thosedifferent modes of learning. Such a recommen-dation of providing a blend of both iconic-diagrammatic and linguistic instructional aidscan be extended into any application of model-ing systems, including social sciences. Needlessto say, it implies opening of the gate towardmore interdisciplinary cooperation betweenscientists and information design specialists. Bythe virtue of exposure, it also opens the gate tothe advancement of visual literacy.

Instructional Modeling Systems orWhy Do We Need Information Designers?

There is a long tradition of using images fordidactic and instructional purposes that reachesback at least to the Middle Ages. The didacticillustrated books such as the Biblia pauperwnmade biblical teachings available to the illiterateand to those priests who were not well educated.Bestiaries and lapidaries, as the encyclopedicexplanations of things, delivered information ina mode of iconographic representation, integrat-ing mythology with medieval world visionthrough symbolic and allegorical interpretations(Szonyi 1993:288). In the fifteenth century thereemerged emblems as new iconographic genres,which provided reinterpretation of classical and

medieval traditions. The structure of emblemsintegrated the three following elements: a Latinmotto, a picture, and a poem. Those elementstogether conveyed a homogenous meaning.Along with the shift of the epistemologicalparadigm toward pragmatic rationality firstadvocated by Francis Bacon and ReneDescartes, the mode of explanatory discoursewas stripped from metaphors for the sake ofclear-cut rational discourse.

Whether an interpretation was delivered ina mythological, allegorical, or rational andscientific mode, the mixing of the verbal andnonverbal elements proved to be the bestmedium for explanatory representation ofconceptual structures. Leonardo da Vinci writesthe following about the advantages of usingimages for explanation of scientific information:"picturing of anatomic parts of the neck fromdifferent viewpoints gives truthful informationabout the forms of it, and it is impossible thatthe writer can ever achieve it without enormous,boring, and muddled delaying in writing and intime" (Leonardo da Vinci 1981:42).

Dealing with the visual representation ofconceptual structures and scientific data inparticular, one cannot underestimate the impor-tance of the design of information and its impacton the meaning of information. It is due to theintelligibility of the design that information ismade either comprehensible or incomprehen-sible. Ultimately, it is due to the intelligibility ofthe design that the same content of informationcan lead either to safety or to the sacrifice ofhuman lives. In support of this, let me recallEdward Tufte's commentary of the drama thatcaused global mourning in 1986—namely, hisreport on the cause of the death of the crewmembers of the space shuttle Challenger."Seven astronauts died because two rubber O-rings leaked. These rings had lost their resil-iency because the shuttle was launched on avery cold day" (Tufte 1997:39). In his VisualExplanations, Tufte concludes: "Regardless ofthe indirect cultural causes of the accident, therewas a clear proximate cause: an inability toassess the link between cool temperature and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

98 Kazmierczak

O-ring damage on earlier flights" (1997:40).Consequently, it was due to the lack of intelligi-bility of the design of information that the rightdecision of not launching failed to be made. Itwas also due to the lack of information designqualifications that visual understanding washindered and it was "impossible to learn whatwas going on" (Tufte 1997:47). If there was anintelligible demonstration of the relevant datadelivered, the lives of the seven astronautsmight have been saved. We can choose to learnor not to learn from that lesson, but we cannotdeny that "there are displays that reveal thetruth and displays that do not" (Tufte 1997:45).Although it is easy to turn information of thehighest importance into an incomprehensiblestammer, it is difficult to turn it into a jewel ofclarity.

ConclusionsContent without form is invisible and inacces-sible; this is why the use of visual models canenhance the learning and comprehension ofconceptual structures. As graphic developmentis a gradual process of growing sophistication inan acquisition of visual vocabulary, (1) peopletrained and experienced in form developmentand familiar with visual perception should be theones who translate scientific structures intocomprehensive visual models; (2) by the virtueof exposure, it is possible to educate the audi-ence of visual models, and shift the boundariesof visual literacy. In order to achieve the goal ofclimbing to the higher level of graphic sophisti-cation, it is vital that (1) comprehensive andwell-designed modeling systems are produced;(2) information designers collaborate with theoriginators of ideas (e.g. scientists); and (3)information designers are appropriately trainedto deliver only the "high art" of intelligible visualmodeling.

Regardless of the growing demand forinterdisciplinary affairs, it is still not a commonpractice for scientists to collaborate with design-ers. This is due to the mistaken conviction thatthe same force that leads to the development ofan idea also facilitates its best visual display.Scientists, as non-professionals in visualization

strategies, are more likely to use imagerywithout much reflection on whether an adequatecodification resulting in an adequate de-codifi-cation of information has been accomplished.

Although it is scientists' responsibility toallow the best access to their information, it isthe designers' responsibility to shape wisely theaccess to that information, by making it intelli-gible. The great responsibility of the professionthat lies heavily on the shoulders of both scien-tists and information designers cannot beoverlooked. After all it is they who are capableof making a "rabbit fly or die."

Endnote1 Semiotization process: (1) process of a gradual

development of semiotic modeling; (2) process of agradual development of representational function ofsigns. Individuation process: (1) process of a gradualdevelopment of a mature individual.

References

Aristotle. 1988. Poetics. Trans, by Henryk Podbielski,Biblioteka Klasykow Filozofii. Warszawa:Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.

Arnheim, Rudolf. 1974. Art and Visual Perception: APsychology of the Creative Eye. Berkeley: Univer-sity of California Press.

Danesi, Marcel. 1998. Visual Modeling Systems. Un-published lecture presented during the AnnualMeeting of the Semiotic Society of America, Uni-versity of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Golomb, Claire. 1992. The Child's Creation of a Picto-rial World. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Kazmierczak, Elzbieta. 1990. Glowne Choremy wSemiografii: kolo, kwadrat trojkat. (Main Choremesin Semiography: Circle, Square, and Triangle), 2ndedn. Warszawa: Instutut WzornictwaPrzemyslowego.

Kosslyn, Stephen M. 1996. Image and Brain: The Reso-lution of the Imagery Debate. First published 1994.Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book, The MIT Press.

Langer, Susanne K. 1967. Mind: An Essay on HumanFeeling, Vol. 1. Baltimore, MD: The Johns HopkinsPress.

Leonardo da Vinci. 1981. Quadrifolium. Zagreb: GZH.Peirce, Charles S. 1931-58. Collected Papers, Ch.

Hartshorne and P. Weiss, eds, Vols 2 and 4. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014

Iconicity, Diagrammatics, and Aesthetic Preferences 99

Szönyi, György E. 1993. "Semiotics and hermeneu-tics of iconographical systems." SemiotischeBerichte, Vols 1-4, Bildsprache, Visualisierung,Diagrammatik, 1995, 283-312.

Tufte, Edward R. 1997. Visual Explanations: Imagesand Quantities, Evidence and Narrative, 2nd rev.edn. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Turkovic, Hrvoje. 1995. "Pictorial into conceptual andreverse." Semiotische Berichte, Vols 1-4,Bildsprache, Visualisierung, Diagrammatik, 1995,325-336.

Wilson, Brent. 1988. "The artistic tower of Babel: in-extricable links between culture and graphic de-velopment." in Zernich, Theodore and George W.Hardiman, eds. Discerning Art: Concepts and Is-sues. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co., 488-505 (first published in 1985).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Aga

Kha

n U

nive

rsity

] at

23:

06 1

6 O

ctob

er 2

014