PDF of article published by J Venture

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

185DesignandCulture DOI:10.1080/17547075.2015.1051826
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 PRACTICE
Exphrasis: 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.
jonathan.ventura@mail.huji.ac.il
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. gal.ventura@mail.huji.ac.il
Downloadedby[T&FInternalUsers],[YvetteKilian]at02:5526October2015

J. Ventura and G. Ventura
DesignandCulture186
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

Expharasis: Verbalizing Unexisting Objects in the World of Design
187DesignandCulture
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

DesignandCulture188
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 Technique
We 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)

189DesignandCulture
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

DesignandCulture190
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

191DesignandCulture
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
Downloadedby[TFInternalUsers],[YvetteKilian]at02:5526October2015

DesignandCulture192
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.

193DesignandCulture
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

DesignandCulture194
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.

195DesignandCulture
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.

DesignandCulture196
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.

197DesignandCulture
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?

DesignandCulture198
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.

199DesignandCulture
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.

DesignandCulture200
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.
References
Aristotle. 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.

201DesignandCulture
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.

DesignandCulture202
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.

PDF of article published by J Venture

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (6)

Ähnlich wie PDF of article published by J Venture

Ähnlich wie PDF of article published by J Venture (20)

PDF of article published by J Venture