The 71st Installment
From Product Semantics to Semantic Turn

by Yoshie Kunisawa,
Professor, Master Program of Innovation for Design and Engineering

The theory and practice regarding Product Semantics which attracted the attention of the design public in the 1980s were a trial for systematizing new design theory to replace modern design flowered in the beginning of 20th century.

Probably in 1984, I remember that the feeling of shock from the photograph brought by a member in the editorial board of the industrial design magazine. It was a design work made by a student of Cranbrook Academy of Art in U.S.A. and the first encounter with Product Semantics.

After that I featured Product Semantics on the Industrial design magazine. New design theory and practice received attention as Post Modern Movement with the performance of Memphis, etc. at the same time.

I was undertaking an experimental design “soft abstract” for overwriting formalized Modern Design code with new design code focusing on three terms theory and rhetoric by C. S. Perth around that time. I had the same goal to pull the design sticking to purposeful designing, geometric and simple style, and misfitted with user’s aesthetic form back to the user’s world.

I would like to refer a little debut of the back ground of Product Semantics appearance.
Since the Industrial Revolution, a great deal of practical items spread widely had been supplied by development of the machine industry of factory system. However, almost all of the practical items were inferior compared with conventionally crafted items. Although reasonable functional monozukuri have been sophisticated, perfection level might be still low from the aesthetic view point.

Then as a philosophy of monozukuri in which perfection level is high with functionality and sensuousness, the Design Movement so-called Modern Design generated from arguments in the German Manufacturing Federation or Bauhaus debuted. It is a design philosophy based functionalism and has new design code.

However, the Modern Design was gradually undertaking purposeful design to realize functionalism philosophy separately from user’s values. Although designers had chance of free choice, they focused on adopting exclusive and stoic style.

Technology Innovation afterward changed the elements of products to the electronic modules and lost the source of the forms on which designs relied. It was a factor that only the geometrical simple style used a lot by Modern Design remained as code.
Meanwhile in real-world stimulative design using a lot revival style or decorative style and the design seeking personal taste only had been popular. Modern Design was tarnished.

At that time Product Semantics has debuted. Product Semantics tries to pull the design theory to user’s world by using frame work of Symbology and Semantics.
In the theory, the significance was established in the center of design theory and it was the program to draw aesthetic style which can resonate with manufacturers and users.
The beginning of approach might be a style having childish implication. However, the attitude of explaining Product’s technique, function and role by forms designs communication with users and was much exciting.

Klaus Krippendorff who challenged Semantic approach had been taken an interest in relation between Design and Semantics since he was in Ulm School of Design, developed Semantics and wrote “Semantic Turn” in 2006.
He states in his book that:
today’s Design discourse is not persuasive in the increasingly individualistic culture which possess a wealth of information and changes quickly. Industrial Design faces major turning point. Designing artificial materials to be realized the meaning of it and to have the meaning as goods and gain social meaning traces back to lost meaning of Latin design. A drastic shift to design would require. It is a turn to consider the meaning, namely Semantic Turn.
Design is Making Sense of Things is running through the book and Design would position again itself in the structure of today's society is stated.
Klaus Krippendorff argues much about Semantic rather than Symbology. Although some people feel discomfort at this, his theory would be extremely enlightening as raising new Design discourse.

Although tracing back to the problem of meaning is important, it remains opaque regarding the problem of Design language how to actually represent the meaning. If it is intended to faithfully represent the meaning, sometimes a distinctive design expression is required. There is no formula for providing expression style anywhere, like the figure in rhetoric.
Mr. Sato states in “Rhetoric sensibility” that:
In the world of verbal expression, rhetoric sometime works as joking about grammar of the rule system. While in the world of symbol representation with no distinct grammar system other than verbal, I would foresee or get the noids, the thing working as an implicit rule system is exactly the mechanism of rhetoric.
The research of figure remains as an important subject in design.