pdf of article published by j venture

19
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfdc20 Download by: [T&F Internal Users], [Yvette Kilian] Date: 26 October 2015, At: 02:55 Design and Culture The Journal of the Design Studies Forum ISSN: 1754-7075 (Print) 1754-7083 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfdc20 Exphrasis: Verbalizing Unexisting Objects in the World of Design Jonathan Ventura & Gal Ventura To cite this article: Jonathan Ventura & Gal Ventura (2015) Exphrasis: Verbalizing Unexisting Objects in the World of Design, Design and Culture, 7:2, 185-202, DOI: 10.1080/17547075.2015.1051826 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2015.1051826 Published online: 28 Sep 2015. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 31 View related articles View Crossmark data

Upload: jonathan-ventura

Post on 07-Apr-2017

245 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: PDF of article published by J Venture

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rfdc20

Download by: [T&F Internal Users], [Yvette Kilian] Date: 26 October 2015, At: 02:55

Design and CultureThe Journal of the Design Studies Forum

ISSN: 1754-7075 (Print) 1754-7083 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfdc20

Exphrasis: Verbalizing Unexisting Objects in theWorld of Design

Jonathan Ventura & Gal Ventura

To cite this article: Jonathan Ventura & Gal Ventura (2015) Exphrasis: VerbalizingUnexisting Objects in the World of Design, Design and Culture, 7:2, 185-202, DOI:10.1080/17547075.2015.1051826

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2015.1051826

Published online: 28 Sep 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 31

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Page 2: PDF of article published by J Venture

18

5D

esig

n an

d C

ultu

re

DO

I: 10

.108

0/17

5470

75.2

015.

1051

826

DESIGN AND CULTURE VOLUME 7, ISSUE 2 PP 185–202

REPRINTS AVAILABLE DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLISHERS

PHOTOCOPYING PERMITTED BY LICENSE ONLY

© TAYLOR & FRANCIS 2015 PRINTED IN THE UK

STATEMENT OF PRACTICEExphrasis: Verbalizing Unexisting Objects in the World of Design

Jonathan Ventura and Gal Ventura

ABSTRACT Ekphrasis is a well-known term alluding to the process of verbalizing a visual rep-resentation. However, as part of the design process, industrial designers conduct what we wish to call “exphrasis” – a process by which a written account (a “brief,” in designers’ “lingua”) is converted into a designed material object. We wish to introduce this concept as applied theoretical knowledge in the work of designers and visual researchers alike, claiming that it may enhance creativity stemming from a conscious process of reflection. Through a comprehensive analysis of the differences between the two terms, we will demonstrate the applicability of the term “exphrasis” as a creative and resource-ful industrial tool.

KEYWORDS: Ekphrasis, visual culture, industrial design, design theory

Dr Jonathan Ventura is a design anthropologist, currently teaching at

the Department of Inclusive Design at Hadassah Academic College,

Jerusalem, and at Bezalel Academy of Art and Design; he is also a research fellow at the

Helen Hamlyn Centre for Design, Royal College of Art, London. He

specializes in applied anthropology, design anthropology, and social and

medical design. [email protected]

Dr Gal Ventura is a Senior Lecturer in the Art History Department of

the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Recent publications include Crying

over Spilt Milk (The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2013; in Hebrew) and essays in Dress and

Ideology and the Journal of Social History. [email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 3: PDF of article published by J Venture

J. Ventura and G. Ventura

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture

186

What Is Ekphrasis? An Art Historical Perspective1 In a famous Midrash, Jewish scholars describe the act of creation. According to this description, God used the Torah as a map, guid-ing Him in creating the world: “The Torah was to God, when He created the world, what the plan is to an architect when he erects a building” (Genesis Rabbah A: a). In a somewhat less dramatic fash-ion, industrial designers’ act of creating a material object stems from their ability to convert a simple, textual description (a brief) into a visual–material representation. In this article, we will show how this unique ability enables the designer to function not only as an agent of visual and material culture, but also as a semiotic narrator, mediat-ing the needs and demands of both the client and the end-users. In other words, the relationship between text and visual image remains a somewhat Platonic perception of beauty; it is treated as an ideal truth, detached from the material world. After surveying the classical use of ekphrasis among poets, art historians, and cultural theoreti-cians, we will suggest a complementary term: “exphrasis.” Unlike ekphrasis, which gradually disappeared following the invention of photography, we will claim that exphrasis, as a mandatory technique among designers, has reestablished its vital relevance to contempo-rary culture and especially design studies.

Ekphrasis as a Cultural Technique Ekphrasis, or the transference between image and text, links cultural studies, the arts, and poetry, but is less often associated with design studies. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word ekph-rasis (κφρασι) in Greek contains the words “ek,” meaning “out,” and “phrasis,” meaning “to describe.” Ryan Welsh, an English Professor at the University of Chicago, claims that in ancient Greece, ekphrasis was initially a rhetorical term with which teachers conveyed the expe-rience of an object to their students or readers through highly detailed descriptive writing (2007). The term has undergone numerous changes over the years, from a mere representation or description to a written report of a work of art, often relating to a lost object, which remains in the collective memory only through a written portrayal.

Mieke Bal and Joanne Morra, visual studies researchers, stress that, contrary to translating one language into another, ekphrasis symbolizes the stage at which the relation between image and text becomes infinite (2007: 7). Evidently, although ekphrasis is suppos-edly an illustration of a “verbal picture,” or a verbal representation of a visual representation (Heffernan 1991: 299), it always contains personal interpretations and elaboration (Talgam 2004). Therefore, during this process, one witnesses a pendulum oscillating between past and present via two levels of representation – both the verbal as well as that of the visual–material language.

Referring to the famous Plato–Aristotle debate regarding the term “mimesis,” we can describe their focal point as the meaning

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 4: PDF of article published by J Venture

Expharasis: Verbalizing Unexisting Objects in the World of Design

18

7D

esig

n an

d C

ultu

re

of translation. Plato stresses the need for a more precise approach to translation as the act of potentially mirroring the origin with its new representation (Plato 1992; Aristotle 1995). According to Plato, mimesis can be manifested in three major ways. The first is the mim-icry of ideals, which can never be perfect due to the inherent gap between an idea and its manifestation; the second is replication, in which the origin and its duplicate are identical; and the third is illusion, which is weaker than the first two – it resembles the origin, yet lacks any of its central traits (Lorand 1991). While the third is potentially harmful and delusive, the first two are a prerequisite to every society. Specifically, the second resembles our understanding of ekphrasis, since it tries to create a reliable replica of an existing object or painting. In other words, ekphrasis can be articulated in Plato’s terms as a translation of an existing source, contrary to Jean Baudrillard’s famous simulacrum, depicting a representation of an un-existing source (1995). We wish to stress that ekphrasis is not merely an act of imitation, but rather an active and conscious act of translation, stemming from a respectful stance toward the original. And this meaning has pertinence to design studies.

When focusing on ekphrasis as a tool for combining material, visual, and textual language, two major issues are formulated: first, representation (accuracy versus imagination) and second, tempo-rality (past versus future). American philosopher Nelson Goodman ponders the difference between resemblance and representa-tion. In essence, Goodman claims that “Resemblance, unlike rep-resentation, is reflexive. Again, unlike representation, resemblance is symmetric” (1976: 4). In other words, the main question lies in the accuracy of the said relation between the object or the picture and its textual equivalent. That said, while the resemblance alludes to Plato’s unfavorable depiction of art, representation better suits Aristotle’s view.

The second level of our understanding of ekphrasis lies in the temporality of daily life. Just like the difference between anthropol-ogy and design (more precisely, while anthropology looks to the past in order to better understand the future, designers look to the pres-ent in order to predict the future), so too do the temporal dimensions of ekphrasis function. Ekphrasis is a proven tool – it helps us try to capture the past in all its accuracy and richness. But therein it lacks another dimension, using the present as a platform for creat-ing something entirely new. This gap can be filled by what we term exphrasis.

While ekphrasis is highly popular among literary scholars and art historians, the term has lost some of its original uniqueness and con-temporary usability. Following the propagation of mechanical and technological reproductions of the visual arts, a wider and more flex-ible term is essential. Nowadays, in order to capture a moment for the benefit of future generations, one may just press a button on the screen of one’s iPhone. Our new term should demonstrate the ability

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 5: PDF of article published by J Venture

J. Ventura and G. Ventura

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture

188

to deal with new realities like this; it must translate both the visual and the material, as well as create a cultural and economic rep-resentation of an idea (for example, the industrial designer’s brief).

Ekphrasis as a Design TechniqueWe wish to highlight the main differences between ekphrasis and exphrasis: while ekphrasis is embedded in the past, exphrasis leans toward the yet-unrealized future; therefore, while ekphrasis is an existing ontological object, exphrasis merely exists in the imagined world of the designer. This notion affects the level of freedom of both concepts, yet barely exists in the former and is infinite in the latter.2 Theoretically speaking, we can surmise that while ekphrasis reflects positivistic principles of a single and clear truth that has to be defined, exphrasis mirrors the postmodernist approach, highlighting its fluid and almost undefined nature.

Conversely, going back to the Plato–Aristotle debate, while ekph-rasis strives toward an ideal truth, exphrasis stands between truth and deceit and yet is neither; it remains a figment of the designer’s imagination. This debate resonates with both Benjamin’s theory of the aura, highlighting the pseudo-religious dimension of the authen-tic creation (2008), versus Baudrillard’s simulacrum, which depicts the postmodernistic phenomenon of a replica devoid of its origin (1995). Ekphrasis embodies Benjamin’s aura, since the originality and authenticity of the work of art is its first and foremost feature. But exphrasis echoes Baudrillard’s simulacrum in its ephemeral inexist-ence. This difference is highly relevant to another theoretical debate regarding the reader–writer relationship. While ekphrasis reflects a somewhat romantic approach accentuating the role of the author as the sole ruler of his domain (Kant 1951; Hume 1965), exphrasis resembles the postmodernist approach – stressing the importance of the reader, who overshadows or even supersedes the author in the process of interpretation (Barthes 1977; Gadamer 1977). Finally, the differences between ekphrasis and exphrasis reflect the funda-mental distinction between object and thing:

We can say that at the heart of design is the need to mobilize cooperation and imagination. The design process needs to be kept open to requirements that by necessity are evolving, as well as to be able to arrive at novel and sometimes unexpected solutions. Openness implies that decisions about possible design trajectories are not made too quickly, and requires that the various stakeholders involved present their work in a form that is open to the possibility of change. It puts emphasis on the dynamics of opening, expanding, fixing and constraining, and again opening. (Binder at al. 2011: 5)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 6: PDF of article published by J Venture

Expharasis: Verbalizing Unexisting Objects in the World of Design

18

9D

esig

n an

d C

ultu

re

Thomas Binder, Associate Professor at the Danish Design School, et al. stress an important point regarding contemporary design. They underscore the importance of designing rather than the designer, and the focus on complex sociocultural things, rather than the clas-sic material thing (object). A thing, therefore, is much more than a designed object, since it incorporates norms and sociocultural con-ventions (Binder et al. 2011). This approach correlates with our own thesis regarding the phenomenological aspects of design, stemming from the various design partners’ perception of the combination of practice and theory. The authors stress an architectural approach to the meaning of the designed object, highlighting its potential to influence the end user in an array of ways (Binder et al. 2011).

This short but precise description of the design process reso-nates with our own concept of exphrasis. Contrary to the classi-cal ekphrastic process of binding a visual image to the constraints of language, the opposite concept of exphrasis depends primarily on the designer’s imagination; ultimately, it lies in the creation of a lucid, yet flexible and ever-evolving, visual concept. This primary visual concept changes along the various stages of the design pro-cess, while gathering momentum through the input of other design partners (namely, the clients and end-users). In accordance with the authors’ exact surmise, Binder et al. state that: “design is a peculiar process in which the focus is on a thing that does not yet exist” (51). This view derives from Heidegger’s differentiation between an object (an “at hand” physical or virtual entity) and a thing (an object unfold-ing beyond human perception or understanding) (1971). The thing, therefore, is the culmination of sociocultural, linguistic, material, and visual skills enabling us to understand and use objects in their com-plex daily existence.

Giorgio De Michelis, professor at the University of Milan–Bicocca, follows the same thought process as Binder et al., striving to rede-fine the somewhat ephemeral concept of design:

As an experience, design is characterized by the fact that the people participating in it deal with something that does not yet exist, but the future existence of it is their principal concern. The not yet existing thing that will be its outcome takes form in the design process through the actions and interactions of its participants, but it is absent during the design process. […] On the one hand, the thing being the outcome of the design process will be the embodiment of the design object, but it can’t be reduced to it […] on the other hand, the object of design is not just a thing: it is constituted by all the (inscribed) things the participants create, import and/or modify during the design process. Its constituents are all interrelated: they form a web characterizing them as different representations, versions, views and details of the object of design. […] The creative process characterizing design is well reflected by the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 7: PDF of article published by J Venture

J. Ventura and G. Ventura

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture

190

continuous change of the web of things constituting its object. (De Michelis 2008: 152)

Our concept of exphrasis manifests the same logic, stressing that the interlocking experiences of the designer, as well as those of the client and the end-user, culminate in a human phenomeno-logical experience materialized in the final thing. Furthermore, the ever-changing aspects of the designed object, which, during most of the design process, exist solely in the mind of the designer, ever-changing and influenced by the design partners, illustrate the difference between classic ekphrasis and exphrasis. The designed object’s phenomenological existence, then, is manifested in the multilayered interpretation of its usage, function, and aesthetics through the complex web of design partners. John Seely Brown and Paul Duguid3 echo De Michelis’ perspective and urge designers to look beyond the object toward its contextual sociocultural aspects, created and maintained by its various design partners (Brown and Duguid 1994).

To illustrate this point, we wish to turn to the work One and Three Chairs (1965) by the conceptual American artist Joseph Kosuth (born 1945). In his famous essay, “Art after Philosophy,” he claims that:

Figure 1

Joseph Kosuth, One and Three Chairs, 1965. “Kosuth OneAnd ThreeChairs” by Joseph Kosuth – Tony Godfrey, Conceptual Art,

London: 1998. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kosuth_OneAndThreeChairs.jpg#media-

viewer/File:Kosuth_OneAndThreeChairs.jpg

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 8: PDF of article published by J Venture

Expharasis: Verbalizing Unexisting Objects in the World of Design

19

1D

esig

n an

d C

ultu

re

When objects are presented within the context of art (and until recently objects always have been used) they are as eligible for aesthetic consideration as are any objects in the world, and an aesthetic consideration of an object existing in the realm of art means that the object’s existence or functioning in an art con-text is irrelevant to the aesthetic judgment. (Kosuth 1969: 11)

Based on Plato’s conceptions, Kosuth claims that while the mate-rial object offers just one possible interpretation which is culturally and aesthetically specific, and the pictorial object merely imitates the material object while eliminating its basic function, the textual description offers an endless array of possibilities. Despite the numerous differences between works of art and objects of design, this seemingly uncommon logic is reflected in many designers’ descriptions of working within the brief’s well-defined objectives. This is clearly manifested in Kosuth’s One and Three Chairs (Figure 1), in the constant strife between the flexibility of the written word and the rigidity of the object and its visual reproduction. Designers claim to find freedom in the set boundaries of a well-written brief. Adopting Kosuth’s model may present us with the pedagogical opportunity to broaden our perspective of visual and textual interpretation in an ever-evolving world.

Between Brief and Designed Object: Exphrasis and Industrial Design Ian Woodward, a material culture researcher, describes the three dimensions of the profound relationship between narrative descrip-tion and material culture (2009: 61):

1. Narrating Objects: The individual (on a micro-level) or society (on a macro-level) endlessly creates a narrative describing the various attributes of material objects. Individuals use material objects to narrate their life stories, relationships with other individuals, or societal norms and conventions. A poignant example lies in the need felt by hosts to describe to their guests the impor-tant principles and ways of life stemming from an object situated in their living room.

2. Objects and Cultural Narratives: Social or ideological narratives serve not only to create interactions between individuals; narratives, in general, serve as one of our culture’s foundations (Klapproth 2004) and serve efficiently to promulgate valued norms and behavio-ral conventions. To borrow Barthes’ (2012) concepts, some objects create a cultural–mythical world, such as the Citroën DS (phonetically read as Déesse or “the Goddess”), reflecting French culture, the VW Beetle as the German equivalent, or the VW Van attributed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 9: PDF of article published by J Venture

J. Ventura and G. Ventura

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture

192

to American hippie culture and the way of life of the 1960s.

3. Objects That Narrate: Technological products produce “functional” narratives, such as GPS positions, elec-tronic texts and books, etc.

Following a visual language approach,4 the art critic or historian uses verbal concepts, such as imagining, form and shape, imper-sonation, and others, to describe an image. Similarly, claims Wil-liam John Thomas Mitchell, we can describe the act of painting or creating a visual representation as “writing” (1994). In the context of this paper as well, designers “write” a three-dimensional (3D) object while using a unique and specific, studio-created visual language.

In its professional manifestation, Nina Ryd, Associate Professor and architect at March/MSA, stresses the brief’s importance as a crucial interpretative process, defining the professional relationship between client and designer. She notes that a carefully planned project, based on a detailed and precise brief, can mean the fail-ure or success of a project (2004). The process of exphrasis, then, becomes a crucial tool mediating between the client and the con-sumer, via the designer’s worldview.

As an example of the process of translating the textual into the visual, we can turn to the research conducted by Anne Tomes, professor of design research at Sheffield Hallam University, et al. (1998). During the course of their research, the researchers focused on the design process in a graphic design studio, as well as on designers’ translation abilities. Using qualitative research methods, the researchers found that the designers’ main tool is their ability to translate textual concepts and meanings into visual data and vice versa. According to Tomes et al., a vast database of visual imagery is a crucial element in every graphic designer’s arsenal.

Exphrasis in the Studio In order to understand exphrasis as it is practiced today, we studied three industrial design studios; each was chosen for its unique fea-tures, yet also for its ability to represent similar studios globally. The basic requirements included a staff of at least ten designers; win-ning international awards or gaining international recognition; and expertise in a defined field of design. The studios included Carpe Diem Design, a classic studio designing mainly consumer products, from pool-cleaning robots to flash drives; Innovation Design, a stu-dio designing mainly paramedical products that has introduced a product range varying from designs to enhance muscular activity to syringes based on high-frequency waves instead of needles; and, finally, Light & Strong Bags, one of the leading companies in the world in professional photo/video camera bags. Using participant observation5 and interviews, the study lasted eighteen months.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 10: PDF of article published by J Venture

Expharasis: Verbalizing Unexisting Objects in the World of Design

19

3D

esig

n an

d C

ultu

re

When describing the design process, Eyal, a Carpe Diem designer, describes the first stage in which designers receive their brief, which needs to be translated into a visual representation, which will in turn be turned into a two-dimensional (2D) sketch, lead-ing to the 3D model:

Jonathan (J): When a client approaches you, s/he describes the project textually, and then you have to translate this descrip-tion into a visual object?

Eyal (E): Sometimes it is words, sometimes other things, but yes.

J: Can you describe the various “stations” along this route?

E: Well, there’s a territory, a word, “mouse” [for computers], so the first thing I do is check what’s currently on the market, conducting visual, analogical, or parallel research.

J: Meaning, the world in which the object lives?

E: That world and others, since the client always asks for innovation, something that does not yet exist.

J: Is there a correlation between these worlds?

E: Sometimes. A mouse can also be a pen, so at first you check if such a thing exists, since the client is not always up to date with current commodities and innovations. But if the cli-ent is well informed in patents and stuff, we conduct research on what’s currently available on the market, then we conduct observations, seeing how people operate these devices. Fol-lowing this anthropological process, we try to pinpoint these moments and use them as starting points for places we can improve upon.

As we can see, the design process at Carpe Diem starts by high-lighting the client’s needs and demands and projecting these onto a visual–cultural world, which will later be translated into a more pre-cise concept. Again, the designer’s translation abilities enable him or her to mediate, via the textual brief, between the client’s demands and the end-user’s needs. Gidi, another Carpe Diem designer, describes his view of the complex stage of translating the textual brief into visual language:

It’s a very complex system of aesthetic, technical, and market-oriented considerations and constraints […] and it all has to come together. From another perspective, though, we

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 11: PDF of article published by J Venture

J. Ventura and G. Ventura

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture

194

have to compromise. For example, if I take the headset we designed,6 we had an internal debate in which we suggest-ed various versions of the product; some were bold, while others were more relaxed. One of the parameters we took into account was our ability to articulate a visual language, not only for this product, but rather for a whole line of [differ-ent] products as well. Hence, we acknowledged the product’s allure, but asked ourselves “how will these contours look on a teapot, for example?”; or, how can we implement the visual language we developed, not only in terms of a headset, but also in terms of a speaker? So, this visual language we creat-ed makes this process relatively easy, since it’s a flexible lan-guage, yet others are too specific, too rigid, and too unique. Thus, a product can be very appealing and beautiful, yet if its language is too rigid, it will create another constraint for the designers.

An interesting point made by Gidi is the designer’s frequent need to create a product line consisting of various objects sharing the same visual characteristics. We can think of this family of objects as sharing a visual language with the same syntax. A graphic visual language, for example, is based on a clear and precise structure, on a local or universal cultural context, and on persistency (Ware 2004). In order to create a visual language when dealing with mate-rial objects, designers have to create a clear and precise language that will be flexible enough to include all of the products in that line. Theoretical and practical semiotic knowledge can help immensely in this process.

Eyal, the Carpe Diem designer mentioned above, describes his take on the process of translating a verbal description into visual imagery, leading to a 3D object:

J: So, when you read a brief you already see in your mind’s eye a visual representation?

E: Sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t. Sometimes I need a period of incubation, of wandering and pondering. If you mention imagery, or the aesthetic dimension, in this pro-cess I need, and not only myself, a period of wandering across various territories, from design or sculpture to architecture and sometimes it [the imagery] just sort of pops into my mind. I just hate the word “inspiration,” since this word is anachronistic in my opinion, but I lack a better word. But we don’t write, prior to every project, aesthetic guidelines by which every designer works.

J: Since it’s already in your worldview.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 12: PDF of article published by J Venture

Expharasis: Verbalizing Unexisting Objects in the World of Design

19

5D

esig

n an

d C

ultu

re

E: It’s in our DNA, although this DNA changes for better or for worse; it carries better and lesser sides, fashion-oriented aspects, which, by nature, tend to be more short-lived.

As we can see, the act of translation or of interpretation is based on a “visual–hermeneutic” world which is based on the designer’s experience and visual world, on the studio’s DNA or its visual lan-guage, aiding the designers in the complex task of translating the brief into a 3D object. Therefore, in every studio one can find visual imagery or an articulated visual language used or recreated by the designers for most projects. Furthermore, as we have seen, the process of translation and of interpretation, just like any textual lan-guage, changes actively and dynamically over the years in every studio.

The difficulties of translating the textual brief into an object occupy the minds of Innovation Design designers, as well. Hila, one of the studio’s designers, describes the difficulties deriving from the pro-cess in which designers receive the project’s guidelines from the cli-ent and begin the painstaking process of translating these guidelines into a visual and material object:

Hila (H): Firstly, we take his [the client’s] words and translate them into our own words, which is a crucial part, since we know how to proceed from our own words’ descrip-tion. There’s a theoretical world, a way in which we know how to define the design issues in question. Sometimes we don’t know how to deal with the client’s way of defining the problem, so we always try to confront the client’s definitions against our own previous and current ones. It starts by first of all repeating orally what the client means, and proceeds to translating these definitions into preliminary sketches reflect-ing the client’s words into parameters of size, shape, and the relations between the various parts of the object. So, this first stage does not deal directly with ways to solve the design problem, but rather rearranges the various definitions we have, in a way that contributes to better communication with the client.

J: So, it’s not yet the solution, but trying to describe the problem in another fashion?

H: Yes, describing the problem in our own words, contrib-uting input, asking questions, and clarifying various central design issues.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 13: PDF of article published by J Venture

J. Ventura and G. Ventura

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture

196

As may clearly be seen, one of the possible ways to trans-late text into imagery lies in redefining the design problem. A redescribing of the central design problem by the studio designers or translating the textual brief written by engineers or marketing people into a flexible and design-oriented descrip-tion marks the first step in a lengthy process culminating with the design of a 3D object. Furthermore, in the first stage, the designers translate the client-oriented textual brief into a more design-oriented language. In other words, the textual–visual translation begins with a client–textual–designer–textual pre-liminary translation, leading at a later stage to an abstract– textual–visual language translation.

Hila continues to describe the translation process, moving from a textual description to a 3D object:

J: So, how does it work? You have a sketch, a preliminary idea and then what?

H: Since we are always in a hurry and stressed for time, we have a set process, since we deal with very complex objects [paramedical design]; the shape does not necessar-ily flow directly from the problem’s preliminary description. At the beginning, even the problem is not sufficiently defined in a way in which you can immediately design a physical and material solution. So, we are dealing with a lengthy stage of debates, including descriptions, definitions, needs, and users.

J: Are there projects in which even the function is not defined?

H: […] either the function exists and the technology is still undefined, or the technology exists and the function is still unclear. In many cases we have both, but in a very broad and general way […] we usually have a very broad textual description of what the object “does” and the tech-nology enabling this function. Even so, the technological aspects are very theoretical and not inherently connected to the applied aspects of usability. We know the technology works in the lab, but we don’t know how to make the end-user comprehend it and use it in a natural way […] so, I can say that we start with a very broad textual description, so that even the sketches or preliminary visual representations arrive later along the way. At this early stage, our preliminary visual representations will describe a situation rather than an object.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 14: PDF of article published by J Venture

Expharasis: Verbalizing Unexisting Objects in the World of Design

19

7D

esig

n an

d C

ultu

re

According to Hila’s description, since in some cases either the function of the object or its technological aspects are not clearly defined in the preliminary brief, the designer’s first step in the design process is to translate the client’s demands and technological outlines into a more designer-oriented textual language; specifi-cally, describing the design situation in which the product will be situated, and then moving onto the more visual–material aspects of the product. In the transition from the “client’s language” to the “designer’s language,” the necessary functions are emphasized (as a grounded link to the world of the end-user) and the technological aspects of the product are translated into a clear and functional lan-guage, which will lead the designers to conceptualize a clear image of the material object.

Zachi, an Innovation Design engineer, describes this process of “conversion” of the textual description of the brief into a 3D object:

At BDE,7 for example, a company I know well, the designer’s initial presentation includes key words, meaning, a descrip-tion of the design process, what the object should be, what it should include, rough measurements, pictures of similar objects, inspiration references, and a textual description of the problems this object responds to. Innovation, conservatism – in the medical world it’s usually conservatism, technical and very hi-tech-looking objects … when we present a project [to clients], we usually say “this is the figure 8 configuration, and that’s the layer-oriented configuration, and this is the rounded objects family, etc.”; in general, I think that one of the most important abilities in this area is the ability to imbue the objects with a soul, to actually create a sort of interaction.

Following these descriptions and in direct correlation with Hila’s theory, a major part of the process of translating the textual into the visual lies in redefining the central design problem in the “language of designers.” Afterwards, designers articulate key words depicting the desired imagery, leading to the future shape, aesthetics, and con-figuration of the designed object. It is interesting to note that Zachi’s descriptions, as an engineer rather than a designer, accentuate the primary transition from a textual language to a secondary textual language, and finally to visual language. As we have seen, several acts of translation take part in the design process: the primary textual language (the client’s “lingua”) is translated into a secondary textual language (the designer’s “lingua”), which is finally transferred into a visual language, which in turn yields a material object. What can this process teach us with regard to acts of interpretation or representation?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 15: PDF of article published by J Venture

J. Ventura and G. Ventura

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture

198

The Applicability of Exphrasis

Ekphrasis, then, is a curiosity: it is the name of a minor and rather obscure literary genre (poems which describe works of visual art) and of a more general topic (the verbal representa-tion of visual representation) that seems as important as Bob and Ray’s radio photographs. (Mitchell 1994: 2)

Following in Mitchell’s8 footsteps, we wish to present our model of exphrasis not as a mere “obscure literary genre,” but rather as a clear, specific, and practical tool for designers and visual culture researchers. Furthermore, based on Kosuth’s example, we believe that exphrasis is better suited for applicants of creativity, since it offers highly versatile opportunities.

In light of our interviewees’ descriptions of the act of transition, rather than mere translation, and the gap in theoretical knowledge dealing with ekphrasis in the framework of industrial design, we wish to stress two major points regarding the applicability of exphrasis. First, the term exphrasis is better suited to describe the contempo-rary visual and material world. Exphrasis has an ability to portray the transition from textual knowledge to visual representation and, later in the design process, to a material object; thus it opens an array of possibilities, visual as well as material, that enable designers to enhance their preliminary thoughts. Second, we wish to present the benefits of exphrasis, not only for designers and researchers, but also as a pedagogical opportunity to teach creative practices in a different manner.

Our conclusions correspond with theories of both cognitive psy-chology and cognitive anthropology. Louis Connell, Co-founder of the Embodied Cognition Lab, and Michael Ramscar, Linguistics Professor at the University of Tübingen, describe the relationship between typicality and prototypes (Connell and Ramscar 2001). Whereas a typical object relates only to what we discern from our sociocultural surroundings, a prototype leaves a gap to be filled by our subjective knowledge and imagination. For example, a “bird” will instantly lead a British person to think of a robin, while an Ant-arctic researcher might think of a penguin. In both cases, there will be a specific and unequivocal option. Cognitive anthropolo-gists follow the same route. Tyler claims that we use language to create cognitive and cohesive taxonomies in order to create order in our chaotic daily experiences (1969). Therefore, while the word “chair” can correspond to a multitude of objects, we usually mean a generic object with “chairy” attributes. Hence, a generic and vague description will lead us to a specific object, while a specific descrip-tion will enable us to arrive at a much more flexible description of a chair.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 16: PDF of article published by J Venture

Expharasis: Verbalizing Unexisting Objects in the World of Design

19

9D

esig

n an

d C

ultu

re

During their lengthy process of designing a material object, design-ers lead a complex journey, which combines translation, applied semiotic knowledge, and a pseudohermeneutic transition from the text to its visual representation. Following this train of thought, we use our term “exphrasis” to describe a process in which the design evolves from the textual description to a material object. That said, exphrasis as a pedagogical tool could benefit educators in every discipline dealing with the visual or the material. Using input gathered from various design partners (end-users, engineers, and others), designers navigate between myriad variations of the yet-nonexistent object. Using the various partners’ experiences and expectations of the designed objects, designers, therefore, materialize these expec-tations in the form of an object vis-à-vis their imagination. Following this approach, we can clearly see the difference between ekphrasis and exphrasis, as well as the latter’s relevance to design. While the classic term of ekphrasis suits researchers focusing on the past from a linear point of view targeted at the past, the postmodern term of exphrasis stresses the multifaceted and limitless act of interpretation of the design brief. During this process, the designer creates in his or her mind various alternatives of the potential designed object, which will be anchored in a final model incorporating input gathered from various design partners.

Going back to our opening pages we can see the resonating of our thesis with both Genesis Rabbah, as well as the Plato– Aristotle debate mentioned above. While in the Midrash, God’s creation is imagined in the Torah, so the exphrasis process is not merely a reflection of the brief. Rather, it is a reimagination of the creative faculties of the designer. When rereading both Plato and Aristotle, we can clearly place our thesis in this classic debate. In adopting Plato’s view, exphrasis resembles his definition of mimesis, both in its imperfect nature as well as in the gap between the idea (i.e. the brief) and its material manifestation. Yet, while Plato saw mimesis as an inherent fraud, we see it as an invitation to an endless array of creation – thus perfectly crafted for our contemporary world of consumption.

Indeed, designers claim that a brief containing a specific descrip-tion and clearly outlined boundaries presents them with a highly flexible and thought-provoking process. Furthermore, this train of thought can and should benefit our students as well. Creating a pedagogical environment with set boundaries will lead the students to take more risks and think outside the box, while relying on the safety of the said boundaries. This can be achieved by presenting a specific framework for every project, hence broadening the possible ways of accomplishing the said goal. Finally, exphrasis can benefit industry partners in cutting expenses on a multitude of models and sketches, instead of investing in a clearly described brief, which will lead to a better-suited and economically efficient object.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 17: PDF of article published by J Venture

J. Ventura and G. Ventura

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture

200

Notes 1. This article is a result of Jonathan Ventura’s doctoral disser-

tation, which is based on research focusing on the social–cultural roles of industrial designers. His thesis is based on in-depth ethnography, which lasted approximately eighteen months. During his ethnographic work, he spent one day every week for the said duration alternating between three dif-ferent industrial design studios. Furthermore, for the past two years, he has been working at various venues as an applied anthropologist, alongside industrial designers.

2. One of the most common manifestations of freedom sel-dom seen in the work of designers is the use of sketches. As Goldschmidt describes it: “Designers make sketches because the sketch is an extension of mental imagery, and therefore has the freedom of imagery to retrieve previously stored images and to manipulate them rapidly” (2003: 88).

3. Seely Brown was chief scientist at Xerox Corporation until April 2002 and was also director of the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center; Duguid is a professor at the School of Information Man-agement and Systems (SIMS), University of California – Berkeley.

4. The term “visual language” (Mitchell 1994 defines it as “visi-ble language”) became popular among art critics at the end of the eighteenth century (Reynolds 1975), reaching its peak during the twentieth century (Gombrich 1956; Goodman 1976; Pinney 2006).

5. In describing participant observations, we are referring to a process that involved watching the designers at work and asking questions. In order to investigate virtual objects, Ventura used what he describes as “The 3D Text”: a method created in order to better understand objects which have not yet been physically created, using 3D imaging software, usu-ally SolidWorks. Just like the process used while investigating religious texts, Ventura asked the designers to talk about their CAD files and explain their decisions (shape, materials, lines, plains, aesthetics, etc.).

6. A Bluetooth headset for cellular devices designed for a major electronics corporation.

7. The company’s name has been changed, in accordance with the American Anthropological Association’s code of ethics.

8. Mitchell is Professor of English and Art History at the Univer-sity of Chicago.

ReferencesAristotle. 1995. Poetics. Edited by Donald A. Russell. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.Bal, M. and Morra, J. 2007. “Editorial: Acts of Translation.” Journal

of Visual Culture, 6(1): 5–11.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 18: PDF of article published by J Venture

Expharasis: Verbalizing Unexisting Objects in the World of Design

20

1D

esig

n an

d C

ultu

re

Barthes, R. 1977. “The Death of the Author.” Image, Music, Text, pp. 142–148. New York: Hill & Wang.

Barthes, R. [1957] 2012. Mythologies. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

Baudrillard, J. 1995. Simulacra and Simulation. Chicago, IL: Univer-sity of Chicago.

Benjamin, W. 2008. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. London: Penguin.

Binder, T., De Michelis, G., Ehn, P., Jacucci, G., Linde, P. and Wagner, I. 2011. Design Things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Brown, J.S. and Duguid, P. 1994. “Borderline Issues: Social and Material Aspects of Design.” Human-Computer Interaction, 9: 3–36.

Connell, L., and Ramscar, M. 2001. Using Distributional Measures to Model Typicality in Categorization. Available online: http://psych.stanford.edu/~michael/papers/2001_ramscar_typicality.pdf

De Michelis, G. 2008. “The Phenomenological Stance of the Designer.” In Thomas Binder, Jonas Lowgren and Lone Malmborg (eds), (Re) Searching the Digital Bauhaus, pp. 145–162. London: Springer.

Gadamer, H.G. 1977. Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Goldschmidt, G. 2003. “The Backtalk of Self-generated Sketches.” Design Issues, 19(1): 72–88.

Gombrich, E. 1956. Art and Illusion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Goodman, N. 1976. Language of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis, IN: Hacket.

Heffernan, J. 1991. “Ekphrasis and Representation.” New Literary History, 22: 297–316.

Heidegger, M. 1971. Poetry, Language, Thought. New York: Harper & Row.

Hume, D. 1965. On the Standard of Taste and Other Essays. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Kant, I. 1951. Critique of Judgment. New York: Hafner.Klapproth, D. 2004. Narrative as Social Practice: Anglo-Western and

Australian Aboriginal Oral Traditions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Kosuth, J. 1969. Art after Philosophy and After: Collected Writings.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Lorand, R. 1991. On the Nature of Art. Tel Aviv: Dvir [In Hebrew].Mitchell, W.J.T. 1994. Picture Theory. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.Pinney, C. 2006. “Four Types of Visual Culture.” In C. Tilley, W.

Keane, S. Küchler, M. Rowlands and P. Spyer (eds), Handbook of Material Culture, pp. 131–144. London: Sage.

Plato. 1992. The Republic. Indianapolis IN: Hacket.Reynolds, J. 1975. 1797. Seven Discourses on Art. New Haven and

London: Yale University Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015

Page 19: PDF of article published by J Venture

J. Ventura and G. Ventura

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture

202

Ryd, N. 2004. “The Design Brief as Carrier of Client Informa-tion during the Construction Process.” Design Studies, 25(3): 231–249.

Talgam, R. 2004. “The Ekphrasis Eikonos of Procopius of Gaza: The Depiction of Mythological Themes in Palestine and Arabia during the Fifth and Sixth Centuries.” In B. Biton and A. Ashkelony (eds), Christian Gaza in Late Antiquity, pp. 209–210. Leiden: Brill.

Tomes, A., Oates, C. and Armstrong, P. 1998. “Talking Design: Negotiating the Verbal-Visual Translation.” Design Studies, 19: 127–142.

Tyler, S. 1969. “Introduction to Cognitive Anthropology.” In S.A. Tyler (ed.), Cognitive Anthropology, pp. 5–21. New York,: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Ware, C. 2004. Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Oxford: Elsevier.

Welsh, R. 2007. Theories of Media. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

Woodward, I. 2009. “Material Culture and Narrative: Fusing Myth, Materiality and Meaning.” In P. Vannini (ed.), Material Culture and Technology in Everyday Life, pp. 59–72. New York: Peter Lang.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

T&

F In

tern

al U

sers

], [

Yve

tte K

ilian

] at

02:

55 2

6 O

ctob

er 2

015