Reading Deep: A Discussion of Ehses' "Rhetoric and Design"

Reading Deep: A Discussion of Ehses' "Rhetoric and Design"

Courtney Bonness

Source: Ragan Training

Hanno Ehses, of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, wrote “Rhetoric and Design,” an essay within the larger compilation Design Papers: Rhetorical Handbook. An Illustrated Manual for Graphic Designers by Ehses and Ellen Lupton. Originally, I was drawn to this text as I have read Lupton’s Thinking with Type in previous professional writing courses. I was curious to learn more regarding her literary contributions and particular perspective on rhetoric, design, and writing in general. However, it was Ehses’ first essay, “Rhetoric and Design,” that stood out ot me the most.

In “Rhetoric and Design,” Ehses explains the “current disorientation” within design resulting from a return to theoretical matters in the wake of collapsing modernity.  It is interesting to note the context in which such a discussion was written. Ehses penned “Rhetoric and Design” in 1987; therefore, can one accurately determine how applicable or relevant this piece is now, thirty-one years later? How does the specificity of the 1980s, a largely neo-conservative context, impact Ehses’ writing?

Ehses proposes purposeful discussion of rhetoric as a means of studying and practicing graphic design. He subsequently walks through a brief historical synopsis of rhetoric, beginning with Aristotle’s definition—“the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion,” arguing that everyone participates in rhetoric (Ehses, 5). Yet, prejudgment against rhetoric has also been present since the ancient Greeks—Plato believed language was simply the “outward form of an essential inner thought,” not necessarily the “instrument of social expression” (6).

Ehses continues with 16th century discussion of rhetoric as an entity separate from logic and of emblem books, whose design largely reflects modern advertisement structure. Ehses asserts that visual symbolism is greater than aesthetic doctrine, in both practice and theory; therefore, contention of rhetoric in graphic design is essential to holistic understanding and execution of the craft.

Ehses prompts readers to consider what specifically our individual ideas of rhetoric are. Oftentimes, one thinks of rhetoric as bias, fraud, or argumentation; however, rhetoric and persuasion are more encompassing than such terms and their negative connotations. One aspect that I found particularly intriguing was Peter Ramus’ differentiation between logic (associated with intellect) and rhetoric (associated with imagination). What prompted this differentiation between intellect and imagination? Why does Ramus perceive them to be mutually exclusive?

Personally, my imagination operates within my intellect and my intellect operates within my imagination. Are not rhetoric and logic the same way? Although I will not be able to fully answer this question at present, I am curious as to what extent this 16th century differentiation has impacted our modern conception of rhetoric. How has Ramus’ attribution of “discovery and arrangement of material” to logic, and not rhetoric, shaped our historical lexicon surrounding rhetoric? How may we redeem any nomenclature that ought to be repurposed? Are there any aspects of this discussion that have significantly shifted since 1987?

As mentioned previously, Ehses discussed emblem books of the 16th and 17th centuries as a continuing contemporary example of rhetorical design. Emblem books consisted of the image (pictura), the motto or title (inscription), and the narrative text. Modern advertisements consist of similar structure. For example, for my internship with Quintessence Publishing this past summer, I helped one of the content writers with an advertisement companion for a periodontal symposium the next autumn. The information I collected for such graphics, and the final design of said graphic, consisted of an image, title, and text, all conveying our larger message (the utility and uniqueness of the symposium).

Ehses’ piece fits into the literature surrounding experiential architecture as an emerging discipline. Ehses wrote, “Meaning is not an innate quality of visual forms: it is a matter of relationships,” and I believe experiential architecture is also inclusive of this understanding of meaning. Meaning develops as a result of the relationship between experience and design, user and interface, consumer and product, human and designed infrastructure. Rhetoric is this organic relationship, allowing for meaning to promulgate.

I anticipate seeing more aspects of “Rhetoric and Design” in my professional life as my experience continues. Specifically, I plan on reminding myself daily at work that meaning is not innate, it is a matter of relationships, and I play an active role in creating, promoting, fostering, and articulating said relationships; therefore, I play an active role in making meaning.

As a writer and a rhetorician, I may often serve as an ethical membrane between consumer and product. The words I craft in such a process carry weight. Whether I am writing for The New York Times, creating a user manual for Tesla, or formatting book chapter for a dental publisher, my choices and actions weave together meaning, designing the architecture of relationship between two entities (more often than not, user and product). If my work ever feels monotonous, it is imperative that I remember this simple truth.

The RXA Reading Deep Series is the course's "deep dives" into literature on professional writing, user experience & architecture, and design, written by the individual scholars of RXA.