Opinion

1. As practitioners in the field of visual communication, communication design and graphic design, we are familiar with the importance of developing unknown and unexpected visual results. We know that we cannot deliver a proposal for a poster which resembles a campaign just simply disseminated. We are aware that it is the deviance from the schematically determined visual preconception, held in the collective memory of a society, that binds the attention of the beholder.
2. Following this line of thought, the new, the unseen or the surprising result is not merely based on the judgment of an individual designer, artist or architect. Even though the creative community tends to overlook this fact, the designer developing the innovative result and the beholder of that result are both part of a historical, social and cultural context — one that determines to a large extend what is considered familiar and conventional or new and provocative. Some voices in cultural philosophy claim that the new can be described as a shift in the value system of a society. Suddenly what has been considered of little importance to a group, can be seen in a different light and appear as concrete and innovative.¹ We can follow this description to a large extent, but the literal application of the concept would mean that for the designer, artist or architect, the new is merely retrieving a result out of a forgotten collective archive. In contrast to the described interdependence of the new with culture and society, the close reading of the history of images shows, that the new is never an identical copy of what has been seen before. In order to achieve a sustainable visual innovation, there has to be a reconfiguration, a shift or at least a change of context. The art of the 20th century can be interpreted as a history of deviations. In opposition to craft where the development of the new is not the primary goal, visual communication connects to the artistic through its dependence on visual innovation. Therefore we can claim that one of the central issues to further develop visual communication is the reflection upon methodologies, circumstances and mysteries that lead to unexpected visual results. The key question of this field of inquiry asks how the process of design can be conducted in order to achieve the unexpected. How can we overcome what is familiar, by a leap beyond what can be explained by social and cultural preconditions?
3. This question is obviously of aporetic character. The dispositive factors are so complex and interwoven that we can’t separate them easily. But it seems to be possible to differentiate specific aspects of the processes and become aware of their influence in the search for the new. On this basis we can ask what the influence of the individual is; how the physical constellation of the body supports or prevents certain aspects in the process of creating an image; how the role of the social and cultural precondition can be described; what decisions are influenced by the tool and material used in the process of image generation; and what role the channels of dissemination play.
4. If we look for answers to our question in the context of cultural philosophy, we find two dominating concepts.
The first one is based on the belief that the new appears out of an individual predisposition. The power of “imagination” allows an individual to create something out of nothing and is also described with the term “creatio ex nihilo.”² In periods of religious hegemony the power of imagination is a manifestation of the divine guidance, which results in a creative act executed by an artist. In times where the individual is granted their own reasoning powers, imagination is considered the key attribute to distinguish the human being as a cultural being. 
The second concept is related to the previously described dependence of the new with the cultural and social aspects. The term “figuration” is based on the idea that the unseen is achieved through a recombination of existing elements.³ Figuration is often related to invention, in the language system. Poetry for example, is using a combination of terms in order to create unexpected meanings. The idea of imagination is more often used in the context of images.

5. If we consider diverse methodologies in order to design and to generate images, we can transfer the idea of imagination and figuration to these processes. To create a drawing, to develop form out of an empty sheet of paper, is closely related to the concept of imagination. On the other end of the spectrum, we can describe the collage, the assemblage, the montage and the act of appropriation as a process of figuration. But how can we describe the process of taking a photograph, of programming a picture in processing, with the terms introduced above? 
We can find some indications in philosophy which consider the limitation of theoretically accessing practical methodologies. With the concept of “Zuhandenheit”, Martin Heidegger describes for example, that the use of a hammer is the only way to understand the practical dimension of a tool.⁴ Merely looking at the tool does not reveal what hammering is providing as an epistemological experience. If we are transferring this insight to our question of how the new can emerge in design processes, we can infer a practical methodology which will be able to differentiate the concepts described above. This methodology, which we began to call Practice-Led Iconic Research, employs the generation of images as a means to develop a better understanding of the creative processes (for further examples, see provided images and captions).
6. This issue of Neshan is devoted to the practical exploration of design processes. The contributions attempt to reconstruct how an innovative result is achieved, through taking a walk; through conducting artistic explorations next to the applied activities; by positioning the design process in the context of research; through collaborative exchange between clients and colleagues; by understanding one’s individual preferences; by new tools and materials; and mysteries we are not able to describe with words at the moment. We do not believe that the mechanisms behind designing innovative results will ever be revealed entirely, but we hope the reflection upon the design processes provided in this issue will contribute to develop unexpected approaches which result in cultural contributions.

Image 1: This drawing experiment was conducted with ten participants (Master’s students in Visual Communication, 2011). They were asked to draw a composition of horizontal and vertical lines using ink and brush with the goal of achieving an interesting or aesthetically pleasing result. Images show selected drawings of 6 participants arranged vertically.

Images 2 – 7: In a second task, the participants were asked to draw objects such as pumpkins and lilies with brush and ink. Even though there was no indication that the still lives should show similarities to the abstract composition, the individual image series present in many cases a surprising visual resemblance between the first and the second task. The series of drawings of most of the participants make evident how individual preferences in respect to the employment of a conceptual framework or decision made in the flow of executing a drawing are used implicitly across diverse tasks of image creation.  

1. Boris Groys, Über das Neue: Versuch einer Kulturökonomie, München, 2007.
2. Dieter Mersch, Imagination, Figuralität und Kreativität. Zur Frage der Bedingungen kultureller Produktivität, Sic et Non, zeitschrift für philosophie und kultur. im netz, 2005, www.sicetnon.org [22.12.2012].
3. Ibid. 
4. Heidegger, Martin: Sein und Zeit. Tübingen, 2006, p. 69.

* Michael Renner, 1961, experienced the digital revolution first-hand when he went to work for Apple Computer Inc. and The Understanding Business in California in 1986, just after completing his diploma as Graphic Designer at the Basel School of Design. Research and reflection upon the meaning of images in the context of digital tools became the central theme of Renner’s practical and theoretical design activities. Since 1990, he has his own design Studio in Basel with corporate and cultural clients. He started teaching in 1990 in the Visual Communication department at the HGK in Basel with an emphasis on Information Design, Interaction Design and Corporate Design. In 1999 he was named chairman of the department. Since 2005 he is member of “eikones”, the Swiss National Center of Competence in Iconic Research. He has lectured and taught workshops on the theme of Visual Communication and Design Research in Europe and abroad. 
His approach to develop research activities in the field of design is based on the aim to further develop existing competencies of image creation With this approach of gaining knowledge through the creation of images the design process becomes the central research theme and a methodology at the same time. He has lectured and taught workshops on the theme of Visual Communication and Interactive Media in Europe and abroad.