Advertisement

Ekphrasis as a Basis for a Framework for Creative Design Processes

  • Udo Kannengiesser
  • John S. Gero
Conference paper

Abstract

This paper introduces the notion of ekphrasis in the arts as a basis for developing a framework of creative designing. Ekphrasis is the transformation of a concept from one medium or domain (e.g. sculpture) to another medium or domain (e.g. music). When used in design, ekphrasis enables the use of new processes afforded within the new domain that can produce new concepts not available in the original domain. We show how five known mechanisms of creative designing—emergence, analogy, combination, mutation and first principles—can be included in a general framework as instantiations of ekphrasis. This framework is developed based on the function–behaviour–structure (FBS) ontology and its application to affordances.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is supported in part by the US National Science Foundation, Grant No. CMMI-1400466. Figure 5 was used with permission from Janet Manalo and Suzanne Bruce.

References

  1. 1.
    Gero JS (2017) Ekphrasis as a design method. In: International conference on engineering design 2017, Vancouver, Canada (to appear)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gero JS (2017) Generalizing ekphrastic expression: a foundation for a computational method to aid creative design. In: Janssen P, Loh P, Raonic A, Schnabel MA (eds) Protocols, flows and glitches. Proceedings of the 22nd international conference of the association for computer-aided architectural design research in Asia (CAADRIA) 2017, pp 345–354Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fowler DP (1991) Narrate and describe: the problem of ekphrasis. J Roman Stud 81:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldhill S (2007) What is ekphrasis for? Class Philology 102(1):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Knapp JA (2011) Harnessing the visual: from illustration to ekphrasis, Image ethics in Shakespeare and Spenser. Palgrave Macmillan, UK, pp 31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leader S (2014) Ekphrasis and its reverse. Academic commons program, paper 11. http://digitalcommons.risd.edu/grad_academiccommonsprogram/11 (RISD paper)
  7. 7.
    Newby Z (2002) Testing the boundaries of ekphrasis: Lucian on the Hall. Ramus 31(1–2):126–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Scott GF (1992) Ekphrasis. Eur Romantic Rev 3(2):215–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ranjan A, Gabora L, O’Connor B (2013) The cross-domain re-interpretation of artistic ideas. arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.4706Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ranjan A, Gabora L, O’Connor B (2013) Evidence that cross-domain re-interpretations of creative ideas are recognizable. arXiv preprint arXiv:1310.0519Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alstott J, Triulzi G, Yan B, Luo J (2017) Inventors’ explorations across technology domains. Des Sci 3Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boden MA (1991) The creative mind: myths and mechanisms. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suwa M, Gero JS, Purcell T (1999) Unexpected discoveries and s-inventions of design requirements: a key to creative designs. In: Gero JS, Maher ML (eds) Computational models of creative design IV. Key Centre of Design Computing and Cognition, University of Sydney, Australia, pp 297–320Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2011) Design. In: Runco MA, Pritzker SR (eds) Encyclopedia of creativity, vol 1, 2nd edn. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 369–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gero JS (1996) Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. Knowl Based Syst 9(7):435–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2012) Representational affordances in design, with examples from analogy making and optimization. Res Eng Des 23(3):235–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gero JS, Kannengiesser U (2014) The function-behaviour-structure ontology of design. In Chakrabarti A, Blessing LTM (eds) An anthology of theories and models of design. Springer, Berlin, pp 263–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tennis JT (2003) Two axes of domains for domain analysis. Knowl Organ 30(3–4):191–195Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gero JS (1992) Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. In: Gero JS, Sudweeks F (eds) Preprints computational models of creative design. Department of Architectural and Design Science, University of Sydney, pp 1–28Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stiny G (1980) Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environ Planning B Urban Analytics City Sci 7(3):343–351Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deldin J-M, Schuknecht M (2014) The AskNature database: enabling solutions in biomimetic design. In: Goel AK, McAdams DA, Stone RB (eds) Biologically inspired design: computational methods and tools. Springer, London, pp 17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gentner D (1983) Structure-mapping: a theoretical framework for analogy. Cogn Sci 7(2):155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nagai Y, Taura Y, Mukai F (2009) Concepts blending and dissimilarity: factors for creative concept generation process. Des Stud 30(6):648–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Koestler A (1964) The act of creation. Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rosenman MA, Gero JS (1989) Creativity in design using a prototype approach. Preprints modeling creativity and knowledge-based creative design. Design Computing Unit, Department of Architectural and Design Science, University of Sydney, pp 207–232Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cagan J, Agogino AM (1991) Dimensional variable expansion—a formal approach to innovative design. Res Eng Des 3(2):75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aelion V, Cagan J, Powers G (1991) Inducing optimally directed innovative designs from chemical engineering first principles. Comput Chem Eng 15(9):619–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Howard TJ, Culley SJ, Dekoninck E (2008) Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Des Stud 29(2):160–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wallas G (1926) The art of thought. Jonathan Cape, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Segal E (2004) Incubation in insight problem solving. Creativity Res J 16(1):141–148MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Compunity GmbHLinzAustria
  2. 2.University of North Carolina at CharlotteCharlotteUSA

Personalised recommendations