論文 / 著書情報
Article / Book Information
題目(和文)
Title(English)

Modeling Interpretation of Structure in Design as a Situated
Phenomenon via Observation & Analysis of Design Activity

著者(和文)

カーロン ユバル

Author(English)

Yuval Kahlon

出典(和文)

学位:博士（工学）,学位授与機関:東京工業大学,
報告番号:甲第11981号,
授与年月日:2021年3月26日,
学位の種別:課程博士,
審査員:藤井 晴行,西條 美紀,齊藤 滋規,野原 佳代子,安田 幸一,大佛 俊泰

Citation(English)

Degree:Doctor (Engineering),
Conferring organization: Tokyo Institute of Technology,
Report number:甲第11981号,
Conferred date:2021/3/26,
Degree Type:Course doctor,
Examiner:,,,,,

学位種別(和文)

博士論文

Type(English)

Doctoral Thesis

Powered by T2R2 (Tokyo Institute Research Repository)

Modeling Interpretation of Structure in Design
as a Situated Phenomenon via Observation &Analysis of Design Activity
by

Kahlon Yuval
A Doctoral Thesis

Submitted to
the Graduate School of the Tokyo Institute of Technology
on November 30th
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Engineering

Supervisor: Fujii Haruyuki
Professor of Architecture & Design Science1“As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it.
As soon as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw.”-Shunryu Suzuki.1

1 In (Chadwick, 1999).

2

Introduction

Committee Members
Tokyo Institute of Technology, School of Environment and Society.

Prof. Nohara Kayoko;
Prof. Osaragi Toshihiro;
Prof. Saijo Miki;
Prof. Saito Shigeki;Prof. Yasuda Koichi;
Prof. Fujii Haruyuki (supervisor).

3I1

Acknowledgements
How do projects come into being? About 14 years ago I have picked up a book about Japanesegardens at a local book store in my home town, Kfar Saba. The photos in the book struck me
as magical. Looking back, without realizing it, I always had a strong liking for landscapedesign, and an interest in the creation of worlds. My attraction to these gardens is thus not
surprising.
Towards my graduation with a B.Des, I have found myself absorbed in both learning andteaching computational design. As a person with a great passion for learning, it seemednatural to continue my education to a graduate level, and the idea of combining my twointerests occurred to me. I asked myself – can we make a computational system for landscapedesign? One day, when inquiring about possible educational institutions, I remember my wife
saying – ‘you like Japanese gardens, why don’t you do that in Japan?’ The decision to cometo Japan had set the grounds for this project, which I am proud of. It seems difficult to thankall of the people that contributed to the work. Nonetheless, one should at least try.
First, I cannot begin to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Fujii Haruyuki, who
has taught me more than I could ask for. The patience and passion with which he helped me
throughout the project, and his ability to understand his students’ needs, cannot be
overstated. This project would have never been possible without these.
Also, I owe more than I can repay for my wonderful wife Karina K., who had supported me
through each and every step of this long journey. Her insights never cease to surprise me,
and our conversations are a major source of inspiration.
In addition, I extend my gratitude to the following people, for our stimulating discussions:
Jacob B.Z, Michael S., Barbara R., Prof. John S.; I thank my family and friends, for theircontinuous and invaluable support. For my mother, Michal. A, who helped my believe inmyself, and for my father Clement K., who encouraged me through difficult times.
I would also like to acknowledge the help of the teachers at the graduate school, as theiruseful advice greatly helped in improving the work. The designers who contributed their timeand joined our experiments are much appreciated as well. Finally, I thank the Japanese
government and the MEXT program, who had provided me with the opportunity to study anddo research in Japan, at the Tokyo Institute of Technology.
Yuval. K

II
4

Introduction

SummaryThis thesis deals with the challenge of constructing a thought-framework for systematicallydescribing interpretation activity in design. Such a description can facilitate the future
implementation of highly-adaptive human capabilities in digital design support systems.
Chapter 1 introduces the general topic of interpretation, and points out potential pitfalls in
its study. Following this, we focus our inquiry on an important interpretive ability, commonlyreferred to as “seeing as” (which facilitates dynamic changes in perspective, as a response tochanging situations). We then state our research aims, and formulate our research question
accordingly. The boundaries for our inquiry are set, and our research question is decomposed
into four sub-questions, each addressed in a separate chapter of this work (chapters 4-7).
In Chapter 2 we lay out the theoretical background for the work, by introducing key concepts
from various fields and disciplines. First, we provide an overview of interpretation in design.
Second, we discuss the approach of situated cognition and its effectiveness in studying
thinking and action. Third, we touch upon key concepts in knowledge representation andreasoning, which we see as essential for understanding interpretation activity. Fourth, we
provide an overview of artificial intelligence approaches to computational design, and review
representative examples of computational design systems from each. Fifth, we discuss key
notions in semiotics and linguistics, in order to build a firm foundation for analyzing
interpretive acts. We then conclude this chapter with an introduction of traditional Japaneserock garden design (JRGD), which we have embraced as a case study in this work.
Chapter 3 presents our methodological approach, which sets one foot in computational design(chapters 4-5), and another in observation of design activity (chapters 6-7). In this, we
introduce and justify our choice of JRGs as a case study for the work, as well as our design
task (for observing interpretation activity), which was devised in this context.
In Chapter 4 we lay the theoretical foundations for systematically dealing with interpretation,by identifying key entities which lie at its core. We review the practice of interpretation in
traditional JRGD, and formulate a computational framework for relating objects withinterpretations. The framework is implemented and tested in a Computer-aided Design(CAD) environment, by attempting to generate spatial designs based on interpretive
descriptions.
Chapter 5 furthers our efforts by proposing a formal framework for representing and storing
interpretations within a database. The framework is implemented via integrating a CAD
environment with a logical inference system, and tested by matching stored interpretations
with spatial designs.

III
5

1

Chapter 6 turns to design observation, to enrich our understanding of interpretation on thebasis of empirical data. We devise, execute and analyze a design task in the context of JRGs,
and draw insights regarding how subjects engage in interpretation. We then propose aframework for modeling interpretation in design, which enables to trace the assignment ofinterpretations in action.
In Chapter 7 we revise and repeat our design task, in attempt to deepen our understandingof human interpretive practices. We suggest how interpretation activity may be understood
through a new notion termed “narrative worlds”, which frames our various insights so far.
This notion, which draws on theories in design cognition, discourse analysis and thephilosophy of mind, enables to visualize and understand processes of interpretation throughthe eyes of the designer.
Chapter 8 discusses the main result of this work - a conceptual framework for systematicallyinquiring into this activity. In this, we clarify our contribution and position it within stateof-the-art models for computational design. Various implications for design theory andpractice, as well as for knowledge engineering and artificial intelligence, are suggested. In
addition, we specifically relate our findings with JRGs, which both inspired and enabled thisproject. We then discuss the main limitations of the work, and suggest possible ways in whichthese may be addressed.
Finally, Chapter 9 discusses future directions for research, on the basis of the current
limitations and by considering our research goals, and concludes this dissertation.

6

Introduction

Table of Contents
List of Committee Members ......................................................................................................................................... I
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................................... II
Summary .................................................................................................................................................................... III
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................................IV
List of Figures and Tables ........................................................................................................................................... V
Preliminary Terms and Definitions ...........................................................................................................................VI

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 16
1.1 Theme ............................................................................................................................................................... 16
1.2 Approach .......................................................................................................................................................... 18
1.3 Five Problems in Studying Interpretation...................................................................................................... 19
1.4 Swimming in the Sea of Interpretation .......................................................................................................... 20
1.5 Motivation ........................................................................................................................................................ 21
1.6 Opportunity ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
1.7 Aim & Focus ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
1.8 Problem Statement .......................................................................................................................................... 25
1.9 Boundary of Current Knowledge..................................................................................................................... 25
1.10 Objectives & Scope ......................................................................................................................................... 26
1.11 Significance .................................................................................................................................................... 27
1.12 Hypothesis & Problem Decomposition .......................................................................................................... 28
1.13 Overview of the Work .................................................................................................................................... 29
Chapter 2 Theoretical Background ............................................................................................................................ 32
2.1 Visual Interpretation in Conceptual Design................................................................................................... 32
2.1.1 The Pervasiveness of Interpretation ....................................................................................................... 32
2.1.2 Interpretation and Seeing: Seeing As ..................................................................................................... 33
2.1.3 Epistemic Transparency as the Basis for Interpretation ....................................................................... 35
2.1.4 Relevant Work .......................................................................................................................................... 35
2.2 Situatedness in Design .................................................................................................................................... 38
2.2.1 The Situated Approach to Cognition ....................................................................................................... 38
2.2.2 Successes of Situated Cognition .............................................................................................................. 39
2.2.3 A Framework for Modelling Situated Design ......................................................................................... 397

1

2.2.4 Situatedness and Interpretation ............................................................................................................. 41
2.3 Knowledge Representation and Reasoning .................................................................................................... 41
2.3.1 Knowledge Representation ...................................................................................................................... 41
2.3.2 Reasoning ................................................................................................................................................. 42
2.3.3 Knowledge and Reasoning in Computational Design Systems .............................................................. 43
2.4 Computational Design Systems ...................................................................................................................... 44
2.4.1 Knowledge-Based Design Systems .......................................................................................................... 44
2.4.2 Beyond Descriptions: Neural Networks in Service of Computational Design ...................................... 46
2.4.3 Neuro-Symbolic Integration & the Unfulfilled Potential in High-level Tasks ...................................... 48
2.4.4 Boundary of Current Approaches ............................................................................................................ 50
2.5 From Symbols and Metaphors to Worlds........................................................................................................ 51
2.5.1 Interpretation and Signification .............................................................................................................. 51
2.5.2 Metaphor: a Wondrous Scandal............................................................................................................... 52
2.5.3 Metaphor and Computation..................................................................................................................... 53
2.5.4 Worldmaking as a Linguistic Act ............................................................................................................ 55
2.6 JRG as a Case Study for Interpretation in Conceptual Design ..................................................................... 56
2.6.1 Traditional JRG design ............................................................................................................................ 56
2.6.2 Interpretation in Traditional JRG .......................................................................................................... 57
2.6.3 Further Considerations in Choosing JRG as a Case Study ................................................................... 58
2.6.4 Focusing on Rocks as Key Design Elements ........................................................................................... 59
Chapter 3 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 60
3.1 Organizing the Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................... 62
3.2 From CAD to Cognition ................................................................................................................................... 62
3.3 Drawing on Empirical Data ............................................................................................................................ 63
3.3.2 Our Design Task ...................................................................................................................................... 63
3.3.3 Protocols as Sources of Data .................................................................................................................... 64
3.4 Modeling Interpretation Activity .................................................................................................................... 65
Chapter 4 Approaching the Study of Interpretation of Structure: A Case Study of RI in JRGs ............................ 66
4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 66
4.1.1 Aims and Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 67
4.1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................. 68
4.1.3 Significance .............................................................................................................................................. 68
4.2 Key Concepts .................................................................................................................................................... 68
4.2.1 Metaphoric Relationships Between Rocks in JRGs ................................................................................ 69

8

Introduction

4.2.2 Main and Secondary Elements ................................................................................................................ 69
4.2.3 Roles, Behaviors, and Spatial Relations ................................................................................................. 69
4.2.4 Concept of Complementary Visual Potential .......................................................................................... 70
4.3 The Proposed Framework ................................................................................................................................ 72
4.3.1 Spatial Relations World (SRW), Metaphoric Relations World (MRW) .................................................. 73
4.3.2 Behavioral Expectation Space (BES), Behavioral Potential Space (BPS) ............................................. 73
4.3.3 Interpretation Space (IS), Complementary Visual Potential Space (CVPS) ......................................... 74
4.4 Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 75
4.4.1 Experimental Implementation ................................................................................................................ 75
4.4.2 System Behavior ...................................................................................................................................... 75
4.4.3 Sub-systems and their Roles ................................................................................................................... 76
4.4.4 Generating Alternative Designs for an Existing Rock Composition ...................................................... 77
4.4.5 Interpreting the Results .......................................................................................................................... 79
4.5 Discussion......................................................................................................................................................... 80
4.5.1 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................ 80
4.5.2 Generalizability of the Framework ......................................................................................................... 81
4.5.3 Future Work ............................................................................................................................................. 82
4.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 83
Chapter 5 A Framework for Representation of RIs in a CAD System: a Case Study of JRGD .............................. 84
5.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 84
5.1.1 Background............................................................................................................................................... 85
5.1.2 Aim............................................................................................................................................................ 86
5.1.3 Significance and Contribution ................................................................................................................. 86
5.2 Method.............................................................................................................................................................. 87
5.2.1 Scope ......................................................................................................................................................... 87
5.3 The Proposed Framework ................................................................................................................................ 87
5.4 Implementation and System Behavior ........................................................................................................... 88
5.4.1 Concept Creation ...................................................................................................................................... 88
5.4.2 Matching Concepts with Spatial Configurations .................................................................................... 89
5.5 Results and Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 90
5.5.1 Results ...................................................................................................................................................... 90
5.5.2 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................ 91
5.5.3 Possibility for Generalization .................................................................................................................. 92
5.5.4 Future Work ............................................................................................................................................. 93

91

5.6 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................ 94
Chapter 6 Towards Modelling RI as a Situated Activity: A Case Study of JRGD................................................... 95
6.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 95
6.1.1 Spatial Configuration and Interpretation ............................................................................................... 96
6.1.2 Situatedness a Basis for Approaching Interpretation of Structure ....................................................... 96
6.2 Aim, Objectives and Scope ............................................................................................................................... 96
6.3 Significance ...................................................................................................................................................... 97
6.4 Method.............................................................................................................................................................. 97
6.4.1 Task and Setup ........................................................................................................................................ 97
6.4.2 Data Collection and Processing ............................................................................................................... 98
6.4.3 Data Analysis Using State Diagrams ..................................................................................................... 99
6.4.4 Participant Selection .............................................................................................................................. 100
6.5 Identifying Interpretations and their Analogical Basis ............................................................................... 101
6.5.1 Interpretation and Analogy ................................................................................................................... 101
6.5.2 Three Levels of Analogical Mapping ..................................................................................................... 101
6.5.3 Extracting Interpretations from Design Sessions ................................................................................ 102
6.6 Relating Structure and RI via Element Dependencies ................................................................................ 103
6.6.1 Hierarchical Relations in Analogies Used by Participants .................................................................. 103
6.6.2 Structuring the Interpreted World via Roles ........................................................................................ 104
6.7 Modelling RI in-Action from a Situated Perspective .................................................................................... 105
6.7.1 Situated Interpretation and Action ....................................................................................................... 106
6.8 Discussion....................................................................................................................................................... 109
6.8.1 Implications ............................................................................................................................................ 111
6.8.2 Limitations ............................................................................................................................................. 111
6.9 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 112
Chapter 7 Interpretation as an Act of Worldmaking .............................................................................................. 113
7.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................... 114
7.2 Background .................................................................................................................................................... 115
7.2.1 Narration-in-action ................................................................................................................................ 115
7.2.2 Interpretation as World Making ........................................................................................................... 117
7.2.3 Taking the Designer’s Perspective ........................................................................................................ 118
7.3 Method and Task ........................................................................................................................................... 120
7.3.1 Approach ................................................................................................................................................. 120
7.3.2 Task, Environment and Setup ............................................................................................................... 121

10

Introduction

7.3.3 Participant Selection .............................................................................................................................. 121
7.3.4 Data Processing ...................................................................................................................................... 122
7.3.5 Data Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 122
7.4 Designing a Garden ....................................................................................................................................... 123
7.4.1 Case 1: The Emergence of a Design World ........................................................................................... 124
7.4.2 Case 2: Emerging Narratives as a Way of Reasoning .......................................................................... 125
7.5 Narrative Worlds ........................................................................................................................................... 129
7.5.1 A Picture of a Narrative World .............................................................................................................. 129
7.5.2 Generative Factors ................................................................................................................................. 131
7.6 Discussion....................................................................................................................................................... 135
7.6.1 Implications ............................................................................................................................................ 135
7.6.2 Limitations and Future Work ............................................................................................................... 136
7.7 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 137
Chapter 8 Discussion ................................................................................................................................................ 139
8.1 Contribution: General View of Interpretation of Structure ......................................................................... 139
8.2 Considering the Designer's Perspective in Computational Models for Design ........................................... 143
8.3 Achievement ................................................................................................................................................... 146
8.4 Narrative Worlds and Intentionality ............................................................................................................ 149
8.5 Implications.................................................................................................................................................... 151
8.6 Back to the Garden ........................................................................................................................................ 152
8.7 Limitations & Possible approaches for Addressing Them ........................................................................... 155
Chapter 9 Future Work & Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 159
9.1 Formalizing our Model .................................................................................................................................. 159
9.2 Beyond Symbolic Representation .................................................................................................................. 160
9.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 161
References ................................................................................................................................................................. 163
Appendix ................................................................................................................................................................... 176
A.1 Instructions Given to Subjects in Individual Sessions ................................................................................ 176
A.2 Transcripts from Individual Sessions .......................................................................................................... 176
A.2.1 ................................................................................................................................................................. 177
A.2.2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 179
A.2.3 ................................................................................................................................................................. 181
A.2.4 ................................................................................................................................................................. 184
A.2.5 ................................................................................................................................................................. 187

11

1

A.2.6 ................................................................................................................................................................. 189
A.2.7 ................................................................................................................................................................. 195
A.2.8 ................................................................................................................................................................. 201
A.2.9 ................................................................................................................................................................. 205
A.2.10 ............................................................................................................................................................... 206
A.3 Instructions Given to subjects in Team Sessions......................................................................................... 208
A.4 Transcripts from Team Sessions .................................................................................................................. 209
A.4.1 ................................................................................................................................................................. 209
A.4.2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 218
A.4.3 ................................................................................................................................................................. 234
A.4.4 ................................................................................................................................................................. 250
A.4.5 ................................................................................................................................................................. 298
A.4.6 ................................................................................................................................................................. 321

12Introduction

List of Figures and Tables
Figure 1-1 Spatial organization and interpretation.................................................................................................. 16
Figure 1-2 The famous “duck-rabbit” as an example of seeing as ........................................................................... 20
Figure 1-3 An abstract scale model used in designing a building complex ............................................................. 21
Figure 1-4 Levels of interpretation in design activity, focusing on interpretation of structure. ............................ 24
Figure 1-5 Physical objects as possible abstraction for other objects, facilitating RI.............................................. 24
Figure 1-6 The structure of this work........................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 2-1 Two different visual readings of one architectural plan for a library by a subject. .............................. 34
Figure 2-2 The American national September 11 memorial site ............................................................................. 34
Figure 2-3 Design worlds of the situated FBS; adapted from (J. Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004) ............................ 40
Figure 2-4 Knowledge representation using simple objects and relations .............................................................. 43
Figure 2-5 Interpretation in JRGD ............................................................................................................................ 58
Figure 3-1 Outline of our research methodology. ...................................................................................................... 61
Figure 3-2 Our design task for studying interpretation activity in the context of JRGD ....................................... 64
Figure 4-1 “Buddhist Triad” compositions ................................................................................................................ 67
Figure 4-2 Complimentary visual potential .............................................................................................................. 71
Figure 4-3 Example of complimentary visual potentials emerging from a height difference. ................................ 72
Figure 4-4 The proposed framework for relating spatial configuration and metaphoric descriptions. .................. 73
Figure 4-5 Spatial configuration design as a product of three integrated sub-systems. ......................................... 75
Figure 4-6 Producing a metaphor-based rock configuration using the implemented system. ................................ 76
Figure 4-7 Outline of the system’s core - the interpretation and selection systems................................................ 77
Figure 4-8 Auto-positioning the secondary rocks around the main rock. ................................................................ 77
Figure 4-9 A Buddhist Triad rock composition at the famous garden of Ryōan-ji. ................................................. 78
Figure 4-10 Generation of alternatives to the configuration in Fig. 4-9. ................................................................. 78
Figure 4-11 From an observed property to an expected behavior. ........................................................................... 80
Figure 4-12 A single element in various spatial configurations, expressing different metaphoric relations. ........ 82
Figure 5-1 The Greek orders; an early form of formalizing spatial relations. ......................................................... 85
Figure 5-2 Examples for common typologies serving as high-level conceptual abstractions in JRGD) ................. 86
Figure 5-3 A possible partial formalization of the concept “Dry Waterfall” using our framework ......................... 88
Figure 5-4 Creating and managing a concept knowledge base by utilizing an automatic parser .......................... 89
Figure 5-5 Matching concepts with spatial configurations using the system.......................................................... 89
Figure 5-6 Overview of the implemented system ...................................................................................................... 90
Figure 5-7 Basic concept-matching for a given configuration via our computational system ................................ 90
Figure 5-8 Examples of automatic matchings between a concept and a spatial configuration .............................. 91
Figure 6-1 Spatial configuration and interpretation in JRG .................................................................................... 96
Figure 6-2 Experiment environment: setup and documentation ............................................................................. 98
Figure 6-3 State diagram reflecting the relations between interpretation and structure .................................... 100
Figure 6-4 Examples for RI in design and possible associated sources ................................................................. 102
Figure 6-5 Interpretation via analogy containing a hierarchical component. ....................................................... 104
Figure 6-6 Correspondence between entities in the external and interpreted worlds .......................................... 105
Figure 6-7 Notation used in analysis ....................................................................................................................... 106
Figure 6-8 Role assignment...................................................................................................................................... 107
Figure 6-9 Simultaneous roles assignment; role projection from gestalt perception ............................................ 107
Figure 6-10 RI elaboration based on initial roles assigned to an element ............................................................. 108
Figure 6-11 “Flower and fallen petal”; a simple example of attribute detachment ............................................... 109
Figure 7-1 Task environment and setup ................................................................................................................. 121

V
13

1

Figure 7-2 From object focus to area focus. ............................................................................................................. 124
Figure 7-3 Endowing the world with the dimension of time. ................................................................................ 124
Figure 7-4 Setting the stage. .................................................................................................................................... 126
Figure 7-5 Elaborating the first concept.................................................................................................................. 126
Figure 7-6 Spontaneous adoption of elements. ....................................................................................................... 127
Figure 7-7 Emergence of couples. ............................................................................................................................ 127
Figure 7-8 A narrative world: “Life and death” or “the path of the emerging rocks” ............................................ 129
Figure 7-9 Visualizing the designer’s perspective using narrative worlds ............................................................ 130
Figure 7-10 Creative negotiation of interpretations via narrative......................................................................... 133
Figure 7-11 Visualization of negotiating different perspectives via our approach ................................................ 134
Figure 8-1 Placing the narrative world within current frameworks for artificial design agents. ........................ 140
Figure 8-2 A general view of interpretation in conceptual design as an act of world making .............................. 141
Figure 8-3 A three-layered view of design activity; as proposed by (Alexander, 1964) ......................................... 144
Figure 8-4 Design worlds of the situated FBS; adapted from (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004).............................. 146
Figure 8-5 NWs as a bridge between world and mind ............................................................................................ 149
Table 1 Key terms used in section 4.2 ....................................................................................................................... 72
Table 2 Abbreviations used in section 4.3 ................................................................................................................. 74
Table 3 Entities of the implemented system and their formal representation........................................................ 79
Table 4 Syntax and representation of our basic entities .......................................................................................... 88
Table 5 Object features and their corresponding predefined relations .................................................................... 89
Table 6 Explicit definition of a linguistic description dealing with spatial relations .............................................. 89
Table 7 The eight concepts defined for testing our implementation ........................................................................ 91
Table 8 Interpretations & their supporting analogies ............................................................................................ 103
Table 9 Important terms for modeling RI activity and their definition ................................................................. 106
Table 10 Complementary to Figure 6-8; Selected states and their representation ............................................... 107
Table 11 Complementary to Figure 6-10; selected states and their representation ............................................. 108
Table 12 Summary of terms and notions introduced in this work ......................................................................... 141

14

Introduction

Preliminary Terms and Definitions
We provide general definitions for key terms which frequently appear throughout the work.
In cases of difference in usage or deviation from these, more specific definitions are provided
within each chapter, as needed.
Term
Structure
Design Space
Element
Representational
Interpretation (RI)
State
Agent
Artificial Agent
Conceptual Design
Japanese rock Garden
Design (JRGD)

Definition
Refers to the physical parts which make the artifact that is being designed, or theirrepresentation.2
A physical space which serves as the “site” for our design task; determined by a wooden
tray covered by a bed of white sand; identical in all design sessions.
A single indivisible physical part of the design, or its representation.3
Refers to the assignment of a symbolic description to the structure or one of its parts(interpreted object), denoting a set of referents that the interpreted object stands for.
As an example, imagine a situation where several architects are discussing the design ofa building in front of a scaled model, in which high-rise buildings are represented by smallboxes. Under these circumstances, each box is interpreted as a building.
A segment of the design session after which change is observed
Refers to the human individual who is engaging in design activity; notice difference with“artificial agent” below.
Refers to a computational system engaging in design.
The part of a design process during which the project is conceptually framed by the agent.
This is often done by defining a theme to be shared by the various constituents of thedesign.
The traditional practice of landscape design which consists of placing large rocks on a bedof sand.4

2 corresponds with the definition in (Gero, 1990), stating that these parts and their relations compose “the syntax of a design”.
3 similar to “primitive element” in (Qian & Gero, 1996).
4 known in Japanese as “枯山水” (“karesansui”; commonly translated as “dry landscape”; see Mansfield & Richie, 2009).

VI
15

1

Chapter 1 Introduction
This work deals with human thinking in design. Specifically, we study the ways in which
spatial configurations are attributed with meaning, via cognitive processes of interpretation.
Figure 1-1 below shows two triangles which bear no special meaning when put side by sidein (a). However, when overlayed in (b) they form the “Star of David” - an important religious
symbol in the Jewish tradition5, which also appears on the Israeli flag (c).

Figure 1-1 Spatial organization and interpretation; (photo by Taylor Brandon, unsplash.com).

The point here is that the same set of objects invites the attribution of different meanings
under different configurations, and accordingly different worlds of content, association etc.
Since designers are often required to configure forms in space, it is important to understandhow they relate forms with meaning. In other words, it is important to study how they engage
in interpretation.
This chapter provides a structured introduction of our inquiry into interpretation in design,in several phases: first, we present the general theme of interpretation in some detail, pointout various pitfalls in its study and clarify our motivation for setting on this journey. Second,
we lay out our research aims, and draw the boundaries of this dissertation. Third, we identify
gaps in our current understanding of interpretation activity, which expose our window ofopportunity, thus leading to the formulation of our research question. Finally, we present our
hypothesis, and decompose our research question into manageable sub-questions, which areapproached within the work.

1.1 Theme“A man found that his axe was missing, and suspected his neighbor's son of
having taken it. Observing the youth walking around, the man was convinced

5 And curiously, in other cultures as well; in Japanese basketry it is referred to as “かごめ” (“kagome” or “basket-eye”).

16Introductionthat his was the walk of a thief. The youth looked like a thief and talked likea thief; everything he did pointed to his having stolen the axe. Then one day
the man happened to find his missing axe. After that, he noticed hisneighbor's son wasn't behaving like a thief anymore” (Liezi, Traditional
Daoist text)
As human beings, we can hardly avoid interpretation. The way in which we see the world issubject to our interpretation of what we see. The tale in the epigraph illustrates two
important points regarding interpretation: first, its power to shape our view of the world; we
see here how one event (a missing axe) leads to an interpretation of the situation (that theneighbor’s son stole it), which in turn determines the way in which the world is experienced(his behavior seemed like that of a thief). Second, the fact that ambiguity naturally invites
interpretation. Keeping this in mind, what is the place of interpretation in design?
As with most non-instinctive human behaviors, design activity, too, depends on thedesigner’s interpretation of the current situation. The manner in which one conceives of thecurrent state of affairs will strongly affect the course of his/her design process. According to,
Gabriella Goldschmidt, a pioneering design theorist in this field: “interpretation emerges as
the single most important force in the shaping of design solutions” (Goldschmidt, 1988, p.235).
As such, inquiry into its nature seems of great value to understanding design activity as awhole.
Another important point6 is that interpretation also facilitates action. The man in the story
could have acted upon his interpretation of the situation, by (falsely) accusing the “thief” inpublic and tarnishing his name, by stealing some of his belongings as an act of revenge, oreven by engaging in a quarrel over the missing item. Far from being a rare case, our actions
are regularly facilitated by our internal construal of the external world.
In conceptual design, where ambiguity is the rule rather than the exception, interpretation
plays a decisive role. Considering the well-known schematization of conceptual design
activity as "seeing-moving-seeing" (Schön & Wiggins, 1992), we can easily understandGoldschmidt’s claim regarding the immense importance of interpretation in structuring
design processes, as it facilitates seeing, which both precedes and follows action. Therefore,
and since design is a highly intelligent behavior (Kalay, 2004), the importance of studying
this practice goes beyond the domain of design, and expands well into our effort to understandhuman intelligent behavior.
How shall we study this complex activity, which permeates cognition and directs action?
From the perspective of cognition as computation (the dominant paradigm in current
6 This point, however, is not clearly conveyed by our tale.

17

1

cognitive sciences), striving to construct a computational model for simulating interpretationin-action seems as a worthy target. Such a model would preferably be based on empirical
data from design activity, to serve as its solid foundation. Existing research has either
studied interpretation by observing design activity, or suggested computational models forinterpretation (on theoretical grounds), but not both.
Additionally, considering the ambiguity that characterizes interpretation activity, and thepower of metaphor in conceptually framing complex design situations (Casakin, 2006), a
study of interpretation is expected to benefit from considering the role of metaphor in
facilitating interpretation. Despite the centrality of metaphor for thinking in general (Lakoff& Johnson, 2003), and specifically for conceptual design (Hey & Agogino, 2007), current
research has yet to address the use of metaphor in design in a formal manner.
Our work serves as a first integration of the all of the above, by striving for a thoughtframework of interpretation that is grounded in empirical data, based on state-of-the-art
theoretical models for design cognition, and considers the essential aspect of metaphoric
reasoning. This framework aims to establish a strong foundation for understanding
interpretation in-action, to enable the enhancement of future computational design systems
and their capacity to engage in interpretation activity.

1.2 Approach
In forming our approach for inquiring into interpretation practices in design, we rely on two
fundamental assumptions: (1) on an abstract level, interpretation involves (at least) two main
entities - an interpreted object and an interpreting agent7, and (2) interpretation depends on
both the former and the latter (expanded upon in the next sub-section).
Situated cognition is an emerging approach in cognitive sciences which stresses the relation
between the agent and its environment, as a basis for explaining complex behavior. As such,based on the above assumptions, it is suitable for approaching the study of agent-object
relations during interpretation activity. Moreover, this approach has had majorachievements in artificial intelligence, serving as the basis for robot control systems which
can autonomously adapt to dynamic situations. 8 Recent interest in this approach, withrespect to design computing, is best reflected in the formulation of the situated FunctionBehavior-Structure framework (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004), for modeling designing in arealistic manner.9
7 Excluding cases where the agent is interpreting itself, as in second-order cybernetics (Scott, 2004), these are distinct.
8 For a detailed review see (Clancey, 1997).
9 Here, the original Function-Behavior-Structure framework (Gero, 1990) is expanded, to address the notion of situatedness.

18

Introduction

We utilize this approach, and specifically the above framework (further discusses in 2.2.3),
for studying interpretation activity in conceptual design, and constructing our thought
framework. At this point, an initial research question may be stated:
How can we harness situated cognition to model interpretation
activity in conceptual design, as a basis for its future
implementation in a computational system?

1.3 Five Problems in Studying Interpretation10
Before attending to the focus of this work, it is useful to state some general problems whicharise when approaching the study of interpretation activity, which render it as a highly
intricate subject. We list here various problems exemplary of the major challenges that thejourney towards understanding interpretation entails:(1) Non-exclusivity: for a given object, interpretation is not unique. There is no singularmapping between structures and their interpretation. This fact is related with the “nofunction-in-structure” principle (De Kleer & Seely Brown, 2014), which is also expressed as“the teleology of an artifact is not found in its structure, but is a contextual interpretation ofits behavior” (Gero, 1996).
(2) The role of the agent: for any given object, interpretation depends not only on theobject itself but also on the interpreter, and to some extent is a function of, as well as
reflection of its internal state; this is true in the case of non-human animals as well, see (von
Uexküll, 1934).
(3) The effect of being situated: from (1) and (2) we see that neither the object nor theagent are sufficient in determining interpretation. This is further complicated by the factthat the same person may perceive or experience the same object in different manners, indifferent situations, reflected in Kurt Lewin's saying that "A physically identical environment
can be psychologically different even for the same man in different conditions" (Lewin, 1936,
p. 24-25). The agent does not exist independently from the world, but is situated within in,and consequently is in constant transactions with it.11(4) Relation with metaphor: interpretation is tightly linked with metaphor, which is yet
to be fully understood as a linguistic phenomenon (Eco, 1986). Although we have promisingaccounts from a computational perspective (Searle, 1990) and more recently from a cognitive-

10 Inspired by Searle’s account of problems in the philosophy of mind (J. R. Searle, 2004).
11 Slightly paraphrasing Heidegger - being means being in the world (Heidegger, 1962).

19

1linguistic perspective (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003), we are far from a complete understanding
and formalization of its workings.
(5) The unconscious: interpretation and action are both partly shaped by the manners inwhich the unconscious affects the conscious. However, the unconscious is not directly
accessible nor easily expressible; as explained, for example, by Jung in (Jung, von Franz,
Henderson, Jacobi, & Jaffe, 1964).

1.4 Swimming in the Sea of Interpretation
Considering the dimensions of the problem, it is essential to further clarify and define ourtarget of inquiry within interpretation activity. Which part of this activity should we focus
on? This question can be paraphrased as follows: what strategy or design ability do designers
often utilize for interpretation in conceptual design? From the literature dealing withinterpretation in design, one ability clearly stands out. This is the ability of “seeing as”(Goldschmidt, 1991; Schön & Wiggins, 1992; Stones & Cassidy, 2010). In Fig. 1-2 we see thefamous “duck-rabbit” image, which exemplifies in a clear way how the same object can beseen as either a duck or a rabbit, depending on our interpretation.

Figure 1-2 The famous “duck-rabbit” as an example of seeing as (redrawn from Wittgenstein, 1958). 12

In the context of design activity, designers constantly rely on such “visual flexibility” to bothconceive and reconceive of the design. In conceptual design, we often deal with scaled
representations. Since these are abstractions of the designed artifact, they are often
ambiguous, allowing different interpretations (Fig. 1-3). Conceptual design, therefore, isabound with opportunities for “seeing as”, and the way we “see as” emerges as a strong
candidate for our inquiry. We believe that modeling this ability can serve as an important
foundation for studying interpretation in design. We now restate the general researchquestion tentatively as follows:

12 In fact, Wittgenstein in-turn borrowed this figure from the American-Polish psychologist Joseph Jastrow (1892).

20

Introduction

How can we implement the ability of “seeing as” in a computational
system?

Figure 1-3 An abstract scale model used in designing a building complex;
manufactured using CNC milling; work by the author, 2011.

1.5 Motivation
We have already touched upon our general motivation for dealing with the problem ofinterpretation, towards modeling this practice. However, it is necessary to clarify the specificmotivation for studying this issue as defined in our initial problem statement. Professional
designers from all fields are capable of reinterpreting design representations, which enables
them to reconceive of their goals and change their view of the design problem, in a highly
adaptive manner (see Rowe,1986; Boden, 2004). We hold a deep sense of admiration for thisability, that we wish to study in depth. As Richard Feynman wrote on his blackboard at his
time of death: “What I cannot create, I do not understand”.13 By this philosophy, formalizing
this practice and implementing it in a computational system, may help us to:(1) deeply understand human cognition, which is of high value in itself.
(2) construct computational design systems displaying adaptive capabilities similar to thoseof human designers, resulting in highly robust design agents.14

1.6 Opportunity
This study is driven by the following views, which expose our window of opportunity:(1) The physical symbol system hypothesis (Newell, 1980), which claims that cognitive
activity15 requires grounding in a symbolic form. With respect to artificial intelligence, it
propagates the view that symbolic processing is sufficient for generating intelligent behavior.
13 Quoted in (Hawking, 2001).
14 Such systems can potentially support human designers effectively or work autonomously on complex design tasks.
15 Cognitive activity which enables intelligent behavior.

21

1

Despite repeated criticism and attacks, the hypothesis still stands, to a large extent (Nilsson,2007). We do not expect a symbolic construct to serve as the sole component of intelligent
computational design systems, but rather for it to be incorporated with sub-symbolic
components (such as artificial neural networks).16(2) Although many successes have been achieved based on the view of situatedness as“cognition without representation”, these have been mostly in tasks which may be seen as“low-level cognition” 17 . If we would like to attend to higher level cognitive tasks, somesymbolic representation seems necessary. Specifically, in the case of conceptual design, it isclear that without symbolic representation, it is difficult if not impossible to make progressin a design process. In his influential work “Being There”, Clark offers us a middle road whichtakes this approach, i.e. considers the necessity of linguistic symbolic representation forachieving higher level tasks, but without letting it “take over” the whole system or solely
account for its intelligence (Clark, 1998).
Based on the above, we believe that striving towards an understanding of the practice ofseeing as, with the aim of capturing key aspects of it within a symbolic form, can havesignificant implications to artificial intelligence.

1.7 Aim & Focus
The aim of this work is to deepen our understanding of the complex human cognitive capacity
for interpretation, which enables designers to behave intelligently and adapt to dynamic
situations. Such an understanding is expected to shed light on key components and processes
that may serve as the foundation for computational design systems engaging ininterpretation activity.
Considering the complexity of the problem18, we focus on a single aspect which we see suitable
as a stepping stone for successfully modeling this activity. This aspect is the visualinterpretation of physical objects, which the designer interacts with during the design process.
To explain our rationale for this decision, we briefly introduce a widely-accepted formal modelfor design, termed as “The Function-Behavior-Structure Ontology” (FBS), proposed by Gero
(1990).
The FBS framework was originally developed in order to enable to implement design
processes within computational systems. Accordingly, it separates design activity into
discrete components, which may be used for knowledge representation in computational
16 As suggested by recent research in artificial intelligence (Garcez et al., 2019, also see 2.4.3).
17 For a detailed review, see (Clancey, 1997).
18 Refer back to 1.3.

22

Introduction

design. According to this model, the fundamental components required to formally describe
design processes are: functions, behaviors and structures. We introduce these threecomponents below:(1) “Structure” refers to the physical body of the artifact (or its representation); (2) “Behavior”
refers to properties or capabilities that the structure possesses; (3) “Function” correspondswith the purpose for which the structure is made (Gero, 1990; Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004).19
A concrete example would help in clarifying the above. Consider a standard sliding door
which may be installed at your home between the living-room and balcony. The physical bodyof the door (including the frame, handle etc.) is the structure. In this structure, various
functions can be identified. For example, one main function would be to separate the two
spaces. Separation here can be further broken down into sub-functions, such as acoustic
separation, visual separation and so on. Similarly, by observing the structure, i.e. the door
parts, various behaviors can be identified. For instance, the whole door can move from rightto left and vice versa.
Our work deals with interpretation. If we take interpretation in design to be a large task
composed out of smaller parts, we can use Gero’s framework to describe it as the product of
three main subtasks: interpretation of functions, interpretation of behaviors andinterpretation of structures. Which subtask should we focus on? Considering that both
functions and behaviors are defined in relation to structures, the subtask of interpretation of
structures seems as the best candidate for our initial inquiry.
Our focus on interpretation of structure is further justified by the fact that it is the mostconcrete out of the three main entities used to describe design activity, when considering
design through the FBS framework. 20 Fig. 1-4 summarizes the above and presents theinterpretation of structures as an important subtask within the more general task ofinterpretation in design.

19 These are described by Gero as “what the artifact consists of”, “what it does”, and “what it is for”, accordingly (Gero, 1990).
20 Since “structure” refers directly to artifacts, we can easily agree that it is less abstract than both “function” and “behavior”.

23

1Figure 1-4 Levels of interpretation in design activity, focusing on interpretation of structure.

Figure 1-5 Physical objects as possible abstraction for other objects, facilitating RI: (a) A cardboard model
for a residential unit, work by author, 2013 21; (b) A pile of paper which can be seen as a snowy mountain.

Additionally, while a definition for “interpretation” was previously given22, we introduce ithere as well, for clarity and readability purposes. By “interpretation” we refer to a specificinterpretive act, in which a designer lets some part of the structure (i.e. the physical object
and its parts) stand for something other than itself. This act is reflected in the assignment ofa symbolic description to the structure or to one of its parts, denoting a set of referents thatthe interpreted object stands for. We refer to this act of interpretation as “representational
interpretation” (RI). Above are two examples for RI which occur at different degrees ofabstraction (Fig 1-5).
Depending on the ambiguity of the structure, the relationship it bears to its referent may
seem strong (a) or weak (b). Both of these cases, however, share the basic fact that the viewer“looks through” the structure and “sees” its referent. This practice, which is related with the

21 Produced under the instruction of Prof. Joseph Cory and Arch. Ruth Ron.
22 Under “Important Terms and Definitions”.

24Introduction

idea of “epistemic transparency”, is further discussed in 2.1.3. At the moment, it is importantto understand the notion of RI as letting one object stand for another, in a broad sense which
includes these different cases. Under this definition, we can easily grasp the pervasivenessof RI in conceptual design, spanning from practical prototyping and up to abstract form
exploration.

1.8 Problem Statement
Based on the discussion so far, we state our research problem as follows:
How can we deepen our understanding of representational
interpretation (RI) of structures in conceptual design, to bothenhance computational design systems and extend our knowledge ofhuman cognition?

1.9 Boundary of Current Knowledge
We briefly state several of the main limitations of current knowledge, with respect tointerpretation activity as we have construed it, directly relevant to our efforts: 23(1) With respect to design theory: currently there is no thought-framework for describing
interpretation in action from a holistic perspective. Rather, there are only disparate
explanations of different phenomena, which shed light on the matter from various angles,
but are difficult to integrate into a cohesive image of this practice; for example, see theimportant work by Goldschmidt on the role of interpretation in architectural design(Goldschmidt, 1988).
The closest achievement to a unified framework is the work by Schön, who has described
designing as an interaction between “rules, types and worlds” (Schön, 1988). While this work
included a discussion of important elements which are central to visual interpretation
activity (for example, the effect of spatial gestalts), it did not focus on interpretation practices,
but rather on conceptual design in general. Consequently, it did not explain how these canthey be organized to form a coherent thought-framework, which enables to systematicallyunderstand and formalize human interpretation activity.
The major limitation, however, which is applicable to all current approaches for describing
interpretation activity, is that it they lack in their ability to describe the mental content
which both characterizes and enables interpretation in design. In simple words,
23 These are expanded upon the next section of “Theoretical Background”.

251

interpretation depends on the agent’s ability to have a “mental picture” of the design, whichreflects his/her view of the artifact. While this mental picture is presupposed by our bestmodels for design activity, no approach clearly discusses it in a systematic manner.
(2) With respect to computational design: the subjective dimension of cognition, whichcharacterizes interpretation (as we have construed it), is only included in computational
design systems to a very limited extent, and in a manner which does not enable tosymbolically relate interpretations with structure in a realistic manner (i.e. as done byhuman designers).

1.10 Objectives & Scope
In accordance with the above, the main objective of this research is to construct a thought
framework for interpretation activity in conceptual design, which has one foot in empirical
data from design activity and another in theoretical models for designing. This framework is
expected to describe interpretation as an activity which considers both the external state of
the world and the internal state of the agent, and the relation between them. We state twomain objectives:(1) lay the theoretical foundations for systematically dealing with interpretation byidentifying key entities which lie at the basis of this practice(2) suggest how the above may be integrated into a coherent thought framework, whichenables to understand interpretation in-design from a holistic perspective
In pursuing these objectives, we set the boundaries for our inquiry as follows. First, whilevisual interpretation may occur in various phases of the design process, this work focuses on
the conceptual phase of design activity. This is due to the fact that it abounds with ambiguity,which necessitates continuous interpretation by the designer.
Second, in dealing with RI, and for the purpose of simplification, we have found it useful tofocus our inquiry on the visual expression of spatial relations between design elements. Thisapproach has guided us throughout the work: in selecting our design domain to serve as acase study, in designing our task for collection of empirical data, in the analysis of this dataand in the extraction of important findings. Accordingly, the effect of other visual factors on
interpretation, such as color and texture of the design elements (intentionally minimized inour design task, see 3), were not attended to. These aspects add a layer of complexity to visualinterpretation activity, which cannot be disregarded. However, considering that this work
serves as a first step for developing a systematic understanding of this practice, a gradualintegration of additional visual factors into the work will be required in the future.

26

Introduction

Third, this work does not include an account of the following:►

how personal traits or characteristics of the interpreting agent shape the activity (forexample, personal preferences etc.)►

in accordance with the previous item, the effects of personal background and domainspecific knowledge on interpretation (for example, education in a certain discipline
etc.)

►

similarly, the aesthetic dimension of the design (for example, stylistic considerations
used in the creation of the artifact)►

how the current cognitive state of agents is affected by their bodily state (for example,
by hunger/thirst)

We see all of the above as higher-level factors, which substantially increase the complexityof the analysis, and can effectively be inquired into after a basic model for the activity isestablished. Such a model may be complemented by multiple layers for filtering potential
interpretations, based on the above. Of course, once the different layers are constructed, they
will preferably be integrated, so that various considerations may interact, as occurs in real
design processes.

1.11 SignificanceAs previously established, interpretation is central to design activity, and as such, a worthy
topic for research. 24 Accordingly, this research contributes to our understanding ofinterpretation processes in design. By providing a framework for understanding this ability,
our work bears a double contribution: first, to design science and second, to artificial
intelligence in design.
From the perspective of design science, this work furthers our ability to model interpretation
activity, and therefore contributes to:►facilitating systematic inquiries into interpretation in conceptual design, in order toformalize interpretive practices for their implementation in computational design
systems►

putting the current dominant theoretical frameworks for situated design25 to the test,
by applying them for modeling interpretation activity. This includes both a

24 Refer back to 1.1.
25 Most notably, the Situated Function-Behavior-Structure (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004).

27

1

demonstration of their applicability to real-world design activity and the suggestionof potential ways for extension, based on our findings
From the perspective of artificial intelligence in design, this work takes a step towards
capturing metaphoric interpretations within formal descriptions. This enables us to propose
concrete ways for extending the knowledge representation capabilities of digital design
systems, contributing to:►

the enhancement of CAD support systems for conceptual design, by informing themof high-level features of the artifact, which are of a subjective nature; thus reducing
human-machine gaps in understanding digital design representations►

such features can serve as the basis for high-level automated reasoning, byintegrating CAD environments with logical-inference engines. Accordingly, they canbe used to extend the ability of CAD systems to interpret structures, which canenhance both co-creative systems (supporting the user via suggestions) and
autonomous agents (which are implemented to perform a task involving
interpretation)►

storing subjective features within formal descriptions opens the door for sharing
collections of interpretations among designers, thus potentially deepening thecollaborative dimension of CAD-based design processes

1.12 Hypothesis & Problem Decomposition
Assignment of RIs is often seen as a serendipitous or improvisatory act. Despite this, wehypothesize that it utilizes certain cognitive abilities which can be modeled. Specifically, we
claim that while interpretations may be assigned on a potentially random or nontraceablebasis, changes in interpretation occasionally involve acts of reasoning, which can be traced
and modeled.
To examine this hypothesis, our research question26 is further broken down to the following
four questions, each explored in this work in a separate chapter, to facilitate a richunderstanding of this practice:(1) How can we approach the modeling of RI activity?
(2) How can we formally represent RIs in conceptual design?

26 Refer back to 1.8.

28

Introduction(3) How can we model the assignment of RIs in-action, in conceptual design?
(4) How can we model the designer’s perspective during the assignment of RIs?

1.13 Overview of the Work
This sub-section outlines the structure of the work, to enable readers to navigate through thedissertation, and follow our thought and research process. The reader can refer to Figure 16 below, which complements the following explanation.
The work generally consists of four parts: (1) introducing the topic, theoretical background,etc., (2) developing the methodology, (3) executing projects targeted at examining ourresearch questions, and (4) reflecting upon our findings from a holistic perspective.
The progression of the research may be summarized as follows: in part 1, we have raised ourgeneral research question, presented in the previous section. This question has led to thedevelopment of an initial CAD-based method (M1), which was executed in two projects (P1,
P2), each yielding a contribution to our knowledge of modeling RI (C2, C3 accordingly), anddeepening our research questions (Q2, Q3 accordingly). This resulted in the sophistication of
our methodological approach, via the development of a complementary method of design
observation (M2), which was applied in the following projects (P3, P4). Note that, as evident
from Fig. 1-6, the work was not conducted in a pure linear manner, but as a process involving
continuous reconsideration of our perspective, in accordance with our findings.

29

1

Figure 1-6 The structure of this work

Additionally, we provide a summary of the rest of this work, by concisely presenting thecontents of each chapter, as follows:o

Chapter 2: covers the theoretical background for this work, by reviewing relevant
literature from multiple angles and fields, including: interpretation in design, situatedcognition and design, knowledge representation and reasoning, computational design
systems, metaphors & world-making and JRGD.

30

IntroductionoChapter 3: presents the general methodology for this study, which has guided thedesign and execution, as well as integration of all sub-projects in this work.

oChapter 4: develops an initial thought framework and a set of concepts for
systematically approaching RI, by studying the interpretive practices of JRGD. thisconsist of the proposal, implementation and testing of a computational framework fortranslating RIs into structures in design.

oChapter 5: demonstrates the possibility of symbolic representation of RIs within acomputational system. This is done by proposing, implementing and testing aknowledge representation framework, in the context of JRGD.

oChapter 6: explores the assignment of RIs in-action via observing and analyzing
design activity, in the context of JRGD. In this, we propose a way to model RI
assignment, based on existing frameworks for situated design.

oChapter 7: further studies the aspect of subjective understanding of interpretation
activity by the designing agent, using our design task. Here, we demonstrate how thedesigner’s perspective during RI activity can be modeled, visualized and understood,
via utilizing frameworks for situated design, as well as theories from discourse
analysis and the philosophy of mind.

oChapter 8: considers our various findings from a holistic perspective, discusses ourachievement, its implications and the main limitations of the work.

oChapter 9: discusses potential future directions, and concludes this dissertation.

31

2

Chapter 2 Theoretical Background
2.1 Visual Interpretation in Conceptual Design
To date, research on interpretation in-action has been conducted mostly in the context ofarchitectural design, by analyzing the manner in which designers engage in it duringconceptual design activity. Important studies in this field have dealt with: (1) the manner inwhich the design task itself is interpreted (Goldschmidt, 1988); (2) the role of seeing in design(Schön & Wiggins, 1992; Suwa, 2003; Suwa & Tversky, 1997); (3) the role of interpretationin conceptual design (Gürer, Özkar, & Çağdaş, 2014); relating interpretations withexpectations (Kelly, 2011) and more. This section reviews such central works for elaborating
our view of interpretation in conceptual design. In this we identify important concepts toserve as a basis of our thought framework.
2.1.1 The Pervasiveness of Interpretation“As soon as you see something, you already start to intellectualize it. As soon
as you intellectualize something, it is no longer what you saw”; (Shunryu
Suzuki in Chadwick, 1999)
Our lives are permeated with interpretation. We do not only take information from theenvironment as passive input. High level cognitive activity, whether conscious, sub-consciousor unconscious, is always at play. Immanuel Kant has long expressed this in the 18th century
by stating that “perception without conception is blind.” (Kant, 1998) After more than two
centuries, this statement remains relevant for the discussion of seeing and interpreting. This
insight is well-weaved into recent work in the philosophy of mind, as exemplified by Searle,
who has proposed the interesting idea of “aspectual shape”. This notion refers to the fact thatany object is always seen under some framework of thought, which serves as a hidden
foundation for perception (Searle, 2004). These frameworks (often referred to as aspects)
shape our, perception, experience and interpretation of what we see.
Consider the simple example of a book lying on your desk. When you want to read it, you may
see it under the aspect of “source of information”. However, if your window is open and strong
wind starts to blow, you might pick it up and place it on top of your documents as an ad-hoc
paperweight, to keep them from flying in the air. In this case, the aspect is quite different,
and might be called a “heavy object”. We interpret the book differently, according to ourchanging circumstances. Of course, interpretation goes far beyond such situations, andextends into almost every aspect of everyday life. We interpret the weather outside by looking

32

Theoretical Backgroundat the sky from the window, we interpret our friends’ feelings when we see them smile or cry.
We also interpret the letters on this page as English.
It is important to notice that interpretation gains much power from ambiguity. Once we areunsure about what is in front of us, we are naturally driven to find an interpretation. Ourinterpretations usually correspond, in this way or the other, with our current cognitions.
Some objects are highly ambiguous and afford many interpretations for the viewer, further
intensifying the role of interpretation. Contrast, for example, the duck-rabbit (previously
show in Fig. 1-2) with more multifaceted example like the famous Rorschach ink blot test,
used to evaluate how individuals project interpretations onto highly ambiguous forms.
If we cannot escape interpretation in everyday life, the same applies for design activity. In
visual design disciplines, interpretation comes into the picture as an integral part of seeing,
and has decisive impacts for action. We do not look at objects in design in an objective,
disinterred or neutral way. Rather, we see them from our own subjective viewpoint, andbased on our own momentary interpretation, which is in turn affected by the current
situation. When we engage in conceptual design, we almost never deal directly with the realartifact. Instead, we work with models 27 , as design representations. Due to this, andconsidering that representations always omit certain details from the original 28 , it is nowonder that working with them encourages interpretation, which then leads to discoveries
and to restructuring the design process.
At the root of interpretation activity in conceptual design lies a phenomenon referred to as“seeing as”29. The next sub-section discusses this important notion, which is at the heart ofour inquiry into the human capacity for interpretation.
2.1.2 Interpretation and Seeing: Seeing As
The notion of “seeing as” was first suggested by Wittgenstein, to refer to our ability to “see”
one thing as another. The image presented in the introduction (Fig. 1-2), which served as our
first example for this phenomenon, was borrowed from his famous book “PhilosophicalInvestigations” (Wittgenstein, 1958), and demonstrated the manner in which we may look at
a figure, which is constituted of marks on paper or on our screen, and see it in different ways.
In this act of seeing, we are interpreting the image.
As an example in the context of conceptual design in architecture, examine the figure below,
which is taken from a design task demanding the positioning of entrances to a librarybuilding. The same architectural plan was seen by the subject in two different manners, at

27 Whether physical or virtual.
28 Refer to the famous tale “On exactitude in Science” by (Borges, 1975).
29 Briefly mentioned in the Chapter 1.

33

2

different times. The plan to the left, i.e. (a), is interpreted once as “central space and threepods” in (b), and later as “Two L’s Back to Back” in (c) (Goldschmidt, 1991) . The manner inwhich the designer saw the building’s footprint in terms of smaller units has determined
his/her approach to positioning the entrances, and thus had significant consequences for thedesign process.

Figure 2-1 Two different visual readings of one architectural plan for a library by a subject. (a) originalplan as given in the design task, (b) seeing it as “a central space and three pods”, or (c) as “two L’s back toback”; redrawn from (Goldschmidt, 1991) and colored for emphasis by author.

With respect to the specific practice which we are interested in, i.e. that of letting one object
stand for another, examine the World Trade Center Memorial project by Peter Walker andMichael Arad, called “Reflecting Absence” (Fig 2-2). Here, the footprints of the twin towers
were replaced with a large hole, emphasizing their absence. The hole metaphorically stands
for the buildings, which no longer exist. With this knowledge, we do not simply see it as ahole, but rather interpret it as a remnant of the past buildings.

Figure 2-2 The American national September 11 memorial site. A hole as a sophisticated form of
inducing “seeing as”, implying on the absence of the Twin Towers (Source: Foundry Co from Pixabay).

34

Theoretical Background2.1.3 Epistemic Transparency as the Basis for Interpretation
In conceptual design, designers work with design elements as models for full-sized artifacts,
each postulating different transformation between the model and the design to be executed.
However, in all cases, of course, the designers are aware that they are dealing with a model.
As such, to use Liddament’s term, the materials in front of them are taken as “epistemicallytransparent” (Liddament, 2000). Viewing the model as a “picture” of the future artifact, we
can further quote:“For us to be able to see what is in the picture, it must become ‘transparent’to us in a sense which transcends the transparency of the primary conceptual
field. To do this one must grasp the use of the picture as a representational
device.” (Liddament, 2000, p.601)
In the same manner, conceptual design tasks demand designers to look at the materials as‘transparent’ and attempt to see the real objects which they stand for, which will comprisethe artifact to be actualized in the future. When designers invoke the power of metaphor toassign interpretation to object, they can detach from the representational object itself
towards its interpretation. In this sense, metaphor works in the service of epistemictransparency, enabling us to engage in interpretation activity its full sense (more in 2.5).
2.1.4 Relevant WorkWe review current research which deals with interpretation and is relevant to our work. The
major part of such research was conducted in the context of architectural design activity.
Different researches have studied how designers see and interpret designs by documenting
and analyzing conceptual design tasks.
First, as a pioneering researcher in this field, Goldschmidt has studied the role ofinterpretation in architectural design, by examining the manner in which a design task isinterpreted, i.e. how designers construe a task which is loosely defined (Goldschmidt, 1988).
In this experiment, architecture students were requested to design a dwelling unit. All
students started with the same cubic volume, which could be manipulated by adding or
removing parts, and were requested to produce a design for a private house that will adhere
to the idea of a “cube”. When the task was completed, the student ended with very different
results. Goldschmidt has shown that different designers construe the same task differently,
and therefore that interpretation has a major role in shaping design solutions. The final
result depended on the initial interpretation of what a “cube house” meant for each student.
In Goldschmidt’s later work titled “The Dialectics of Sketching”, she proposed the distinction
between “seeing as” and “seeing that”, which can serve as a basis for understanding thedifferent functions of seeing in design (Goldschmidt, 1991).

35

2

Other researches have extended this inquiry into the roles of seeing in design: Schön and
Wiggins have discussed different kinds of seeing in design, further distinguishing between“seeing that”, “seeing as” and “seeing in”. They stress that seeing is not a passive activity,
but rather an active one of engaging with the design and interpreting it: “the designer not
only visually registers information but also constructs its meaning”. Accordingly, they
propose to see design as a “conversation with the materials”, a perspective which stresses theinteractive nature of designing, consistent with the views of design as a situated activity(discussed later). By analyzing data from architectural design tasks, they draw a picture ofdesign activity as “seeing-moving-seeing”. The designer “sees” the design, acts based on whathe/she sees, and acts again (Schön & Wiggins, 1992).
Suwa and Tversky have examined the manner in which architects interact with visual
representations, focusing on what they “see” in their own sketches, i.e. what information they
extract from them, and how it is utilized. They concluded that focus-shifting 30 and
subsequent exploration of successive thought are both essential drivers in the design process(Suwa & Tversky, 1997). Integrating the above schematization of Schön & Wiggins and theresults by Suwa & Tversky, we could describe design as seeing-reflecting-moving-seeing.
In a later work, Suwa further found that the ability to recognize multiple interpretations inambiguous forms depends on skill, which he refers to as “constructive perception” (Suwa,
2003). This skill is described as a form of self-awareness to the manner in which perception
facilitates one’s current interpretation of a visual figure. This means that our ability forinterpretation can and needs to be trained, in order for us to make use of our full potential ofinterpretation in the design process, as designers of any visual discipline. It also means that
we can speak of degrees of skill in terms of our capacity for interpretation, and thatinterpretation itself is subject to higher level cognitive processes, which enable its regulationand control.
From a more general perspective, Gürer et. al have discussed the role of interpretation inconceptual design, and its relation with action. By letting designers reflect on their designs
in writing, they provided them with an opportunity for distancing themselves from theartifact, and reassessing it. Such distancing enabled changing their thinking mode fromdesigners to interpreters of their own designs, thereby enriching their interpretive output.
According to Gürer et al. “design is assumed to begin where prejudices (such as initialperspectives, design languages and more) meet an explicit situation” (Gürer et al., 2014,p.170). This stresses the two-sided nature of designing as an encounter between the agent
and the materials, which largely coincides with views of situated designing. 31 The link

30 For example, between different gestalts.
31 See next section.

36

Theoretical Backgroundbetween the two is, of course, formed by the interpretation of the materials based on theagent’s current “prejudices”. They concluded that design can be driven by a “dialog” ofmaking and writing, reminiscent of Schön and Wiggin’s metaphor of “design as conversation”
mentioned above (Gürer et al., 2014).
Several conclusions can be drawn from the existing work, and the manners in whichinterpretation has been previously studied: (1) most existing work is based on architecturaldesign practices; (2) nearly all works utilize design protocols as a major part of their study;(3) key insights from the works in this field are presented as general guidelines andidentification of important cognitive phenomena, but commonly do not include specificmodels which account for their structure, internal dynamics etc.; (4) key works in the field do
not rely on formal models for design activity32; (5) in accordance with (3) and (4), few works
provide us with formalizations of interpretation practices, which can be implemented incomputational systems.
An exception to the above is the research done by Kelly, which proposed a formalization for
an aspect of interpretation activity in design, namely the relation between expectations andconstruction of interpretations (Kelly, 2011). This research included the development of aformal model, as well as a computational implementation, which demonstrated how visualinterpretations may be constructed, based on an agent’s expectations. The proposed model
makes a distinction between “push-only”, “pull-only”, and “push-pull” interpretation, withrespect to how the interpretation emerges in relation to the agent’s memory and expectations.
Kelly has utilized the formal model of situated FBS for his research, as a basis for
distinguishing between the objective state of affairs in the external world, and its subjective
reflection in the interpreted world (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004).
We take a similar approach, and utilize the same formal model as a basis for our work.
However, in contrast, instead of developing a method by which future interpretation may becomputationally accounted for, based on the current state of the agent, we are moreinterested in understanding the relations between the interpretation and the structure. Thisis necessary for symbolically describing RIs, in order to facilitate high-level reasoning in acomputational system.33

32 Such as the situated FBS framework; (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004).
33 See further in 2.3.

37

2

2.2 Situatedness in Design
2.2.1 The Situated Approach to Cognition
Situated Cognition is an umbrella-term for a collection of approaches in cognitive science
which share a basic philosophical stance in the study of cognition, as well as several key
guiding principles. The main philosophical foundation can be generally traced back to ideas
found in Dewey, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, among others (Gallagher, 2001). Its core stancecan be grasped in the following quote by Dewey: “The idea of environment is a necessity to
the idea of organism, and with the conception of environment comes the impossibility ofconsidering psychical life as an individual, isolated thing developing in a vacuum.” (Dewey,1884). This aligns well with Heidegger’s notion of “being in the world” (Heidegger, 1962).
The key point is this: people do not exist in an empty or neutral space. We perceive, reason,and function in specific physical environments, which we cannot detach ourselves from.
Cognitive activity essentially takes place within concrete situations and using physicalmaterials which play an important role in its facilitation. This results in an emphasis on
agent-environment relations, as a basis for studying and understanding cognitive activity.
This basic stance is further elaborated by the various approaches which fall under the term.
Several of the main approaches propagating situatedness are:►the embodied approach, emphasizing the role of the body in facilitating cognition; see(Johnson, 1990; Shapiro, 2011; Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1993),►

the extended approach, stressing the extension of cognitive activity beyond the bodyand into the environment; for example (Wilson, 2004),►

the enactive approach, emphasizing the dependency on the activity of the agent, forexample (Hurley 1998).

For a brief review of the main approaches associated with situated cognition see (Wilson,
2002). For an overview of the field, see Andy Clark’s seminal work (Clark, 1998). Finally,
Cheng has recently provided us with a review of different types of situatedness in animals(Cheng, 2018).
It is important to mention that, beyond their theoretical appeal, these approaches have had
major success in facilitating the construction of intelligent control systems, enabling highly
adaptive behavior in robotic systems, via a close coupling with the environment. Sinceinterpretation, as we have construed it, is necessarily an interaction between an agent andan interpreted object in the environment, such success points to the strong potential of
situatedness for contributing to the development of artificial intelligence systems forinterpretation in design. Accordingly, we present several products of this approach in the38

Theoretical Backgroundfollowing sub-section, as examples for its contribution to engineering and design of intelligent
systems capable of real-time action.
2.2.2 Successes of Situated Cognition
Rodney Brook’s subsumption architecture, elaborated in his famous work “A Robust Layered
Control Architecture for a Mobile Robot” (Brooks, 1986), proposed a control architecture
which enables moving robots to perform well in navigation and interaction with theenvironment, by forming a reactive hierarchy of behaviors, which does not depend on preplanning for action. The system senses and responds in real time, adapting its behavior to
the dynamic conditions of the task, caused by changes to the environment as well as the
position of the robot within it. The success of this architecture is evident in the later
establishment of “iRobot”, the world-famous manufacturer of autonomous robots for floor
cleaning and maintenance.
In another case, Fukuda and Saito have managed to replicate the brachiation movement ofapes (swinging from one branch to another), based on a situated approach. In this case,success was achieved using a neural-network for learning the different values of actions at
different times, with respect to the state of the robotic arm in relation to the “branch” in theenvironment (Fukuda & Saito, 1996).
For a detailed review of artificial intelligence systems such as the above which, to some extent,
find their basis in the situated cognition approach, see (Clark, 1998), as well as (Clancey,1997). More recently, and in the context of computational design systems which is closer toour area of interest, Kelly has demonstrated how visual interpretations may be constructed,
based on the expectations of the interpreting agent (Kelly, 2011). In this work, a framework
for modeling interpretation was proposed based on current situated design models, andimplemented using self-organizing maps. 34 This suggests the direct relevance of situatedcognition for the development of computational design systems, and specifically forinterpretation.
2.2.3 A Framework for Modelling Situated Design
Many efforts have been made to construct formal models for design, as a basis forcomputational design systems. Most notably, Gero’s Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS)
ontology has established a general foundation for systematic representation of design
processes, enabling their implementation in computational systems (Gero, 1990). Whilesignificantly contributing to our understanding of design35, this model did not address certain
important aspects of the design process.36 For example, the differences between the external
34 Commonly referred to as SOM; also called Kohonen Maps.
35 And its formalization towards the development of artificial intelligence in design.
36 As noted by its creator.

39

2

objective world and the internal subjective world of the designer. In order to bridge such gaps
between our knowledge of designing and existing design models, the original FBS framework
was extended, based on the notion of situated cognition, resulting in the situated FunctionBehavior-Structure (situated FBS) framework (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004). We briefly
introduce this later framework, which serves as our basis for modeling interpretation activity
in this work.
The situated FBS framework distinguishes between three worlds in which design activity
takes place: an external world, an interpreted world and an expected world (Fig. 2-3). The
external world deals with the representation of structures existing outside of the agent. Theinterpreted world, in turn, deals with the manners in which the agent subjectively conceivesof the external world. Finally, the expected world deals with future states that the agent
intends to bring about via design activity, and based on the contents of the other two worlds,
which frame his current view of the design. The model further specifies different
transformations which occur between its fundamental design entities (function, behavior,and structure) across these worlds, enabling its application for analyzing and formalizing
design activity.

Figure 2-3 Design worlds of the situated FBS; adapted from (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004).

It is important to further clarify the nature of the relation between design and situatedcognition. As in the case of most human activities, the concrete circumstances in which
designers are found, when designing, affect and shape their design process. On this basis,
design is seen as a situated activity. According to Gero and Fujii, actions in design are
situated in the sense that they result from the designer’s interaction with the changing
environment, as the design process progresses (Gero & Fujii, 2000). Furthermore, withrespect to the role of situatedness in design, Gero suggest the following: “Situatedness canbe seen as a means by which the designer changes the trajectory of the developing design.
Different situations provide different opportunities to move in different directions” (Gero,
1998b).
Both of the above relations between situatedness and design are tied with the importantnotion of “reflection-in-action”, propagated by Schön, which is an essential component of ourunderstanding regarding how professionals perform in their area of expertise, in real-time(for a general discussion on the subject with respect to professionals of different fields, see
Schön, 1984; in the context of visual design see Schön, 1992). Therefore, situated cognition
has the potential of enlightening us regarding real-time cognition and action of designers intheir general practices, and specifically in the manners in which they engage in
40

Theoretical Backgroundinterpretation. Accordingly, we utilize Gero and Kannengiesser’s framework as our
foundation for approaching the modeling of interpretation in-action. In the following subsection, we further clarify its stance towards interpretation.
2.2.4 Situatedness and Interpretation
As seen in the previous sub-section, the current situated model for design approaches design
activity by discerning the external world from the internal world of the designer. Design
activity is further seen as a set of transformations across these worlds. In the context of thiswork, since interpretations assigned by designers are grounded both in the external object
which is interpreted, and in the designer’s internal state (see 1.2), such models have a strong
potential to shed light on how interpretations emerge from the interaction between designers
and their environment. Among the three worlds mentioned37, we find it important at thispoint to expand on the nature of the interpreted world.
The interpreted world is best seen as a kind of mediating mental environment between two
fundamental aspects of the design: the current state of the design (external world) and theplans for action which one intends to take in the future, towards its modification (expectedworld). Thus, its importance in shaping the design process is rather clear. When designers
engage in acts of seeing as, they assign an object in the external world with a symbolic
description in the interpreted world. While the ink markings of the duck-rabbit drawing from
Figure 1-2 exists in the external world on paper (or on our screen), its interpretation as either
a duck or a rabbit exists in our private interpreted world. Of course, modifying the drawing
in the external world can affect its interpretation in the interpreted world. In other words,
there is a tight relation between what is there, and how we perceive and conceive of it.
In this work, we approach interpretation mainly as an activity of reasoning 38 , in which
entities in the interpreted and external worlds, which are symbolically represented by theagent, interrelate and interact.

2.3 Knowledge Representation and Reasoning
This section introduces the notions of knowledge representation and reasoning, as apreparation for their discussion in the context of computational design systems.
2.3.1 Knowledge Representation
To approach the matter of knowledge representation, it is important to at least briefly
introduce the notion of knowledge itself. Both knowledge and the notion of knowing are
37 The external, interpreted and expected worlds.
38 See next section.

41

2extremely deep and complex matters. Nevertheless, a useful foundational approach issuggested by Brachman and Levesque, who mention the following as its basic aspects:►

knowledge can be seen as a relation between an agent (knower) and a proposition►

such propositions constituting the knowledge of the agent can be right or wrong, to acertain degree

On the basis of these, they further define knowledge representation as follows: “…the field ofstudy concerned with using formal symbols to represent a collection of propositions believedby some putative agent” (Brachman & Levesque, 2004, p.4). In our case, the agent can beeither the human designer who we are studying (by experimentation) or catering to (whendeveloping the computational system), or the computational system itself.
2.3.2 Reasoning
The literature abounds with various views of design activity, for example: design as a
dialogue between the designer and the materials (Schön & Wiggins, 1992), design asinvention (Zumthor, 2006), or deign as play (Goldschmidt, 1988). A highly influential view isthat of design as a problem-solving activity (Simon, 1996). In this view, the agent (designer)
attempts to change the current state of the world, which is unsatisfactory in some sense (andtherefore poses a problem to be solved), into a preferrable state (Fujii, Nakashima, & Suwa,
2013). Note that this view is strongly associated with representation of knowledge in a
symbolic form (Newell & Simon, 1972) (which corresponds with 2.3.1 above).
To successfully engage in such problem solving, we need to be able to represent the initialstate and the desired state, as well as make the transition between the two, via reasoning.
In line with 2.3.1, and with the work by Newell & Simon mentioned above, we take thegeneral view of reasoning as a process of formally manipulating symbols, which stand for theagent’s knowledge (Brachman & Levesque, 2004). To further specify the notion of reasoning
employed in this research, which we view as important for modeling interpretation activity,
we turn to artificial intelligence.
In classic artificial intelligence, an important type of reasoning is that of deductive inference(Barr & Feigenbaum, 1981). Deductive inference can be seen as a mechanism of utilizing
existing knowledge and rules for deriving new knowledge, on the basis of deductive logic. The
existing knowledge held by the agent (represented symbolically via propositions) is usuallyreferred to as “facts”, and the rules as “inference rules”.39 As a simple example, consider the

39 See Barr & Feigenbaum above.

42

Theoretical Backgroundproposition “John is a man” and the rule “if X is a man, then X has a mother”, which enable
us to logically deduce that John has a mother.
Conducting such inference, whether by human or computational agents, thus requires: (1)the ability to represent the facts and rules in some manner, and (2) the ability to apply therules on the facts, in order to derive new facts. According to current theories in cognitive
science, which take the computational view of mind, modeling human cognition requires us
to account for knowledge representation, and processes which operate on this knowledge.
Notice that these correspond with (1) and (2) above (Friedenberg & Silverman, 2006; Thagard,2005). Therefore, in the context of this work, if we wish to model interpretation processes indesign, we need to account for: (1) the knowledge held by the agent, and (2) the processes ofreasoning applied to this knowledge, in order to make progress towards solving the design
problem.
2.3.3 Knowledge and Reasoning in Computational Design Systems
Based on the above, and considering our focus on computational design systems, we rely on
the model by Coyne et al., which further defines the basic units of knowledge as objects andrelations. Objects and relations constitute facts, which in turn enable to derive new facts, on
the basis of existing ones. According to Coyne et al.: “knowledge can be characterized asstatements about mappings between facts” (Coyne, Rosenman, Radford, Balachandran, &Gero, 1990, p.48).
In our case, such knowledge is useful both for describing structures and for reasoning about
them; a simple example is provided below in (Fig. 2-4). With this in mind, and as explained
above, our work regards knowledge as sets of propositions, which are formally expressed ina symbolic form, and are believed by the designing agent (whether human or artificial).

Figure 2-4 Knowledge representation using simple objects and relations; see (Coyne et al., 1990).

Such propositions can serve as the basis for problem-solving via reasoning, on the basis ofinference rules, within a computational design system. For example, we could formulate arule stating that a box is too expensive for manufacturing if its height is more than 10 units.
In this case, box (a) in Figure 2-4 may be automatically evaluated (deductively) as “tooexpensive” via inference. This deduction can result in the addition of new fact to the agent’s
database, such as “box_a(cost, too_exepensive)”, thus enriching its ability to both describe
the current situation, and further reason about it.

43

2

2.4 Computational Design Systems
This section reviews key computational approaches in artificial intelligence, which have
proved fruitful for constructing computational design systems, and are relevant forinterpretation in conceptual design. We begin by presenting the two dominant camps of“knowledge-based” and “connectionist” systems, and continue with the integrative approachof “hybrid systems”. Finally, we identify the contribution of each for our ability to constructcomputational systems for interpretation of structure, as well as the boundaries of current
knowledge which are expanded by our work.
2.4.1 Knowledge-Based Design Systems
We open this sub-section by introducing the notion of knowledge-based systems (sometimes
called “production systems” or “expert systems”). This will serve as our basis for discussing
the use of knowledge-based design systems, which can be seen as an early form of applying
knowledge for computational design.
Knowledge-based systems are artificial intelligence systems which rely on symbolic
descriptions for conducting automated reasoning. The main idea behind these systems may
be stated as follows: if we can capture key facts and rules about some discipline within formal
descriptions and store them in a knowledge base, then we may use computation to easily
draw further inferences (using what we call an “inference engine”). As mentioned by Milesand Moore (1994), these systems date as far as the 1970’s. Notable examples from that period
are the DENDRAL system by Feigenbaum et al., which has dealt with auto-identification oforganic molecules (Feigenbaum, Buchanan, & Lederberg, 1970), and the one by Shortliffe(1976) called MYCIN, which has dealt with automated reasoning for medical diagnosis
purposes.
As any form of AI, expert systems have both advantages and disadvantages. Key weaknesses
are discussed in the following sub-section. Their main strengths are summarized here:►

constructing such systems makes the domain knowledge explicit, by specifying it
within symbolic descriptions, which serve as the content for the knowledge base►once the knowledge base is established, it can be used to automatically reason withrespect to extremely complex structures of facts and rules►

the behavior of such systems is relatively easy to trace and therefore to debug

Knowledge-based design systems can be seen as a sub-type of knowledge-based systems,
since they too rely on the existence of knowledge bases as well as inference engines, for

44

Theoretical Backgroundcomputationally reasoning in design. Coyne et al. Provide us with an overview of this field,
as well as concrete examples for successfully implemented systems (Coyne et al., 1990). Some
prominent early examples for such systems from architectural design are SightPlan, which
has dealt with planning of construction site layouts (Tommelein, Levitt, & Hayes-Roth, 1989),
and the EAVE system for designing roof details, as to accord with specific regional
regulations (Mitchell & Radford, 1987).
In accordance with our research problem, we are especially interested in computational
design systems that target the conceptual design phase. We thus chronologically review
various examples, to outline the variety of applications of knowledge-based design systems,
which have emerged since their inception.
A fundamental motivation for developing knowledge-based design system is the desire toreuse existing knowledge in future designs. The Argo system, developed by Huhns and Acosta,
which focused on the aspect of general problem solving, utilized analogical reasoning for thetransference of complete design plans between analogous design problems. Their systemenabled learning from previous experience in knowledge-based design systems, by reusing
previous knowledge and applying it to new problems which are analogous to ones solved in
the past (Huhns & Acosta, 1992).
Generation of design solutions may also be facilitated via knowledge-based systems. In thedomain of engineering, Chin and Wong (1996) reported on a system which supports material
selection by utilizing a knowledge base, and further aids in determining certain features of
the initial design of plastic molds. In a related research, Moulianitis et al. have demonstrated
how we can generate design solutions at the conceptual design stage, using a heuristic searchmethod, in the context of mechanical parts production for robot grippers (Moulianitis,
Dentsoras, & Aspragathos, 1999). Additionally, in the context of manufacturing andassembly for physical parts, Zhang et al. have developed a system for synthesizing initial
functions into physical properties at the first stages of the design process. Their system also
demonstrated abilities of function-decomposition, enabling to convert complex functional
requirements into sets of simpler sub-functions, to facilitate the translation of high-level
functions into concrete properties of the design (W. Y. Zhang, Tor, & Britton, 2001).
By utilizing the capabilities of knowledge-based systems for automatically reasoning
regarding relations between multiple elements, researchers have also developed systems
which aid designers to maintain control over the initial design, in real time. Tong and Gomory
have proposed a system for supporting the initial phase of product design, by making surethat essential spatial relations are maintained during the conceptual design process, thus
reducing the cognitive load on the designer. Their system can also simulate local partinteraction and report useful information regarding it, which may be then examined by the45

2user. If users become aware of problems in this manner, they can modify the design
accordingly (Tong & Gomory, 1993).
Last but not least, knowledge based-design systems have also been used for shortening theinitial design cycle. In the context of aircraft design, two knowledge-based system were
integrated by forming a shared knowledge base, to which both systems can access. The result
is a cross-platform integration between 3D modeling capabilities of the first system (RAPID)
and a geometric analysis ability of the second (TANGO), to facilitate faster evaluation ofdesign solutions at the initial design phase (Munjulury, Staack, Berry, & Krus, 2016).
2.4.2 Beyond Descriptions: Neural Networks in Service of Computational Design
The previous sub-section has discussed knowledge-based design systems and theirapplications, mainly in conceptual design. While these systems bear different advantages,
they have failed to provide complete solutions for conceptual design processes, for multiple
reasons. Among these are:►constructing these systems requires a symbolic representation of knowledge, yet not
all design knowledge can be easily formalized and inserted into a knowledge base►even in cases where the design knowledge can be formalized and captured withinsymbolic descriptions, it is a time-costly task, which requires the allocation of
sufficient resources. Additionally, knowledge is often domain specific, which
dramatically reduces its usability in future systems, which are of a different domain

Considering these limitations and others, as well as the development of neural-network
technologies in artificial intelligence, a new approach to developing computational design
systems has gradually emerged. Instead of relying on symbolic descriptions, new systems
which utilize sub-symbolic descriptions are being developed, by using artificial neuralnetworks. Interesting examples for such systems, which have achieved success in coping withpreviously-considered difficult tasks, are reviewed below.
First, many of the neural-network based computational design systems target the quick
evaluation of design solutions at the initial stage, in order to both shorten conceptual design
processes and aid in making sound decisions, at this critical phase. Various examples for such
systems are introduced here. Singaravel and Geyer, for example, have proposed a deeplearning method for estimation of thermal energy levels during the early stages of the design,
which is both accurate and significantly faster than existing simulation models (by a factorof ~260). By shortening the traditional time-costly simulation process, they enhance ourdecision making capabilities at the early design stage40 (Singaravel & Philipp, 2018). Sharing
40 These are of high importance, since often have a great impact the final design.

46

Theoretical Backgroundthis aim, McComb has proposed a method for utilizing auto-encoders to enable fast evaluationof engineered systems, demonstrated in the context of offshore structure engineering(McComb, 2018).
Researches have also found a certain type of networks, termed “fuzzy neural networks”, tobe useful in striving toward the above aim. For example, Huang et al. have developed acomputational method for evaluating different design solutions at the conceptual design
stage, by combining a fuzzy neural network with a generative algorithm. They have used
these networks for evaluating design solutions in cases where the description of evaluation
criteria is imprecise (for example, in qualitative cases relying on linguistics variables) (Huang,
Liu, Li, Xue, & Wang, 2013). Sun et al. have also utilized a fuzzy neural network for
identifying promising candidate design solutions at the conceptual design stage,
implemented in the context of designing mechanical parts for mountain bikes. Their model
suggested a way to convert customer needs into quantifiable attributes, which can then be
used to automatically evaluate potential design solutions, reducing the burdens oftranslating needs into requirements and searching through the solution space for suitable
candidates (Sun, Kalenchuk, Xue, & Gu, 2000).
Furthermore, Eisenhard et al. have proposed a model for evaluating the impact of candidate
design solutions on the environment, at the conceptual design stage. Their work aims to
improve conceptual design processes by enabling the early integration of life-cycle
assessment, which is highly-time consuming, via approximating it to a satisfactory level.
Their usage of a neural network which learns from data of existing products (regarding
energy consumption during their life-cycle) has enabled to predict the potential impact of new
designs on the environment (Eisenhard & De Schepper, 2000). Additionally, in the complex
field of mechatronics, Mohebbi et al. have proposed a model for evaluating system designs at
the conceptual stage. They have used a Choquet neural network to deal with the problem ofdecision making under difficult circumstances, i.e. in multi-objective problems wheremultiple interacting criteria should be addressed. They have demonstrated a systematic
approach for dealing with such problems in engineering, which can facilitate efficientevaluation of concepts at the conceptual design stage (Mohebbi, Baron, Achiche, & Birglen,2014).
Another potential use of neural-network based computational design system is thegeneration of design candidates, fulfilling sets of requirements. For example, Zhang et al.
Have developed a model for generating candidate forms fulfilling a set of desired
requirements, by learning from a database of existing designs (in this case, of past airplanemodels). The applicability of their model was demonstrated using a case study of glider designin the field of aeronautical engineering, by combining a variational auto-encoder-decoder anda genetic optimization algorithm (W. Zhang et al., 2019).

47

2

The two above approaches (of identifying candidate solutions and generating ones) were
integrated to produce systems for joint generation and evaluation of candidate solutions. A
prominent example is the system by Hsiao and Tsai, which integrates a fuzzy neural networkwith a genetic algorithm for evaluation and generation of design solutions at the conceptual
design stage. Their model, which was demonstrated using a case study of a door-lockmechanism design, establishes a relation between a product’s image and certain parameters
defining its form. The result is that users engaging in conceptual design can both match agiven form with a linguistic description and search for other forms, which satisfy the initial
parameters but better match the descriptions (Hsiao & Tsai, 2005).
Researches have also attempted to streamline the initial design process, by supplying
designers with automatic means of translating initial requirements into formal descriptions,that can then be understood by a computational system. Kim et al. Have developed a concept
for a virtual assistant for supporting design processes, using deep learning techniques.
Specifically, they have implemented a computational system, based on an auto-encoder,which can extract functional requirements from descriptions given in natural language (Kimet al., 2019). Facilitating human-machine communication in this manner can improveconceptual design processes, by reducing the time spent to explicate the design requirements
in a formal and rigorous manner, to be input to the computational design system.
Finally, few systems were developed using neural network technology which support
conceptual design from the perspective of design cognition. An example which is importantfor our work is the system by Karimi et al., which has demonstrated the potential of deeplearning to assist with conceptual shifts in design. Their system consists of a convolutional
neural- network-based agent which can propose alternative interpretation for designers’
sketches (Karimi, Grace, David, & Lou Maher, 2018). Such systems may be integrated intocurrent CAD systems, to enhance the designer’s ability to re-conceive of the design, by
providing opportunities for shifting their current view. In addition, though not a neuralnetwork based system, we would like to mention the work by Yumer et al., who have designed
a model for numerically learning semantic attributes of 3D forms, based on a crowd-sourced
database. Their work demonstrates the possibility of teaching a computational system torecognize visual attributes which the designer may associate with the artifact, and therefore
relevant for interpretation activity (Yumer et al., 2015).
2.4.3 Neuro-Symbolic Integration & the Unfulfilled Potential in High-level Tasks
The previous dominant approaches to constructing design systems41 can be seen as important
representative members of two opposing approaches for the study of cognition, andaccordingly to AI, commonly referred to as “symbolicism” and “connectionism” (Hilario, 1995).
41 Knowledge-based vs. neural-network based.

48

Theoretical Background

The first equates cognitive processing with the manipulation of symbolic structures, andaccordingly emphasizes the syntax and semantics which are involved in thinking activity.
The second views cognition as a sub-symbolic tuning of pattern-recognition mechanisms,
which in-themselves do not require any explicit symbolic representation.
Acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of each of the above resulted in an integrated
approach called “hybrid systems”. 42 These systems draw on the strengths of each approachfor creating synergistic models, which can tackle difficult tasks in AI. While examples indesign are not as abundant as in other fields, we review selected systems which aid ingrasping their potential for the future development of computational system in our field.
First, shortly after its inception, researches have observed the potential of neuro-symbolic
integration for improving the intelligibility of neural-network-based artificial intelligencesystems. Summers and Dybowski have proposed to use a hybrid system for automatedmedical evaluation, with the aim of rendering computation activity itself more intelligible(which is important for medical professionals, in order to be able to trust the system’s
judgment). Their model utilized the non-linear (and therefore flexible) properties of neuralnetworks along with the explicit representation capabilities of uncertain situations via causal
probabilistic networks, rendering the system as a “grey-box”, i.e. partially transparent,
instead of the common neural network black-box (Summers & Dybowski, 1994). Such efforts
have led to the development of the sub-field of “explainable artificial intelligence”. An
interesting example for such system can be seen in the work by Daniels et al., which attempts
to explain deep neural networks using knowledge (Daniels, Frank, Menart, Raymer, &Hitzler, 2020).
Second, neuro-symbolic systems have demonstrated a strong capability in tasks involving
classification, outperforming their non-hybrid state-of-the-art predecessors in certain cases.
An interesting example can be found in Chen and Liu, who have proposed a neuro-symbolicmodel for visual recognition of emergent two-dimensional shapes. They have integrated twoneural networks with a mediating symbolic component, forming a three-layered featurebased hybrid system. As opposed to previous non-hybrid systems, their system enabled todetect sub-shapes even in cases of uncertainty or incompleteness of the visual data used as
input (Chen & Liu, 1996). Similarly, Sanchez et al. have applied neuro-symbolic integration
for the visual inspection of artificial textures, by combining expert knowledge with aclassification system. Their system achieved higher accuracy rates, in comparison withexisting non-hybrid systems (Sánchez, Vergara, Salgado, & Domínguez, 2011). In anotherclassification task, researches have demonstrated the ability of hybrid systems to

42 Also referred to as “neuro-symbolic systems”.

49

2

automatically reason with respect to qualitative states, which characterize medical diagnosis(Tan, Hayes, & Shaw, 1996).
Finally, it was recently demonstrated that neuro-symbolic systems can aid in elucidating theinternal structure of complex data structures. One example is the work by Sarkar et al., whohave utilized neuro-symbolic integration for detection of instabilities in combustion engines.
Their model included a convolutional neural network, which extracts semantic features fromhigh-speed camera video, with a symbolic time series analysis component, which enabled tocapture the manner in which these features change over time (Sarkar, Lore, & Sarkar, 2015).
Considering the above, it is no wonder that many researches see the neuro-symbolic approachas highly promising for the construction of intelligent computational systems (for example:
Garcez, Broda, & Gabbay, 2002; Kühnberger et al., 2007; Ma, Francis, Lu, Nyberg, &Oltramari, 2019; Mao, Gan, Kohli, Tenenbaum, & Wu, 2019). Their future development,
however, entails many challenges. As explained by Lamb, one of the main challenges for theirdevelopment is the need for a semantic foundation, as a basis for neural-symbolic
computation (Lamb, 2008). Since we do not have a denotational semantics for thesecomputational models, and despite the fact that research on the topic has existed for sometime now (for example Taha & Ghosh, 1999), bridging connectionist networks and symbolic
descriptions remains a difficult task. This needs to be considered in our later discussion ofcomputational systems for interpretation in design.
2.4.4 Boundary of Current Approaches
This section has surveyed various approaches for the development of intelligent systems,
which can potentially serve as the basis for computational systems for interpretation inconceptual design. In this, we have introduced exemplary implementations and discussed
their strengths and weaknesses. We conclude by further outlining the capacity of current
knowledge to facilitate the development of intelligent systems specifically for conducting
interpretation in conceptual design, in accordance with the aim of this work:
With respect to support systems targeting interpretation of structure in conceptual design
activity, current state-of-the-art work enables us to:►automatically detect various sub-shapes within a two-dimensional configuration oflarger shapes, based on visual input and a supporting knowledge-base (which is usefulfor informing CAD systems regarding the potential visual interpretation of thedesigner regarding the geometry which is represented)►

automatically match three-dimensional forms with semantic attributes (enabling to
inform the CAD system of the manner in which the designer views the object on aconceptual level)

50

Theoretical Background►automatically propose various interpretations to two-dimensional shapes, by ananalogy-based mechanism, drawing on an image knowledge-base (enabling the CAD
system to encourage conceptual shifts during conceptual design activity, by drawing
the designer’s attention to new interpretations)

On the basis of the above, we identify the specific limitations of existing work, which are
directly addressed by our work:►

With respect with the types of interpretations handled by the computational system,
current state-of-the-art systems largely rely either on a statistical attribution of a
description to a structure, or on identifying an analogical mapping. However, theygenerally do not address metaphoric interpretation. This is mainly due to a lack of asuitable knowledge representation framework.

►

Even in the few cases where metaphoric attributes are automatically associated withthe structure (for example in Yumer et al., 2015), current interpretation bycomputational systems is done on the basis of direct matching of the structure with asymbolic description. Unlike in real-world conceptual design, these symbolic
descriptions do not have an internal structure. In our work, we propose an ontology
for such a structure, which enables a richer representation of interpretations in a
symbolic manner, within the knowledge base. This also facilitates the utilization of
automated reasoning with respect to interpretations, within the computational
system.

2.5 From Symbols and Metaphors to Worlds
2.5.1 Interpretation and Signification
Before we approach the topic of metaphor, which is important for our inquiry into
interpretation, we provide a basic semiotic background, which aids in understanding somefundamental aspects of signification. This is important since, as metaphors of the kind weare interested are used to speak of one object as another, they necessarily point beyond theobject itself. We thus briefly review Charles Sanders Peirce’s account of signification, which
is widely accepted as a theoretical foundation in this field.
Peirce’s notion of sign is elaborated in a triadic model.43 In this model, signification occurs asa relation between the following three components: an object (which is referenced or pointed
to in some manner), a representamen (a thing representing the object), and an interpretant

43 As opposed to the dyadic model of de-Saussure (1959).

51

2(its effect on the interpreting agent or “the idea to which it gives rise” ;Mohanty, 1997) (Peirce,
1998, p.477).
Further, he suggests three main forms of signification, i.e. of manners in which a sign canstand for an object: symbolically, indexically and iconically. In accordance with these, hesuggests three categories for classifying signs: symbol, index and icon. Symbols are signs inwhich the relation between the object and representamen has been established as aconvention, without an inherent necessity (consider for example the relation between thenumber two and the character “2”, which has been arbitrarily assigned to represent it). When
there exists a natural relation between the two, the sign might be regarded as an index (asin the case where we see smoke, which signifies the potential existence of fire in its vicinity).
Finally, icons are characterized by a relation of similarity in form between the object and therepresentamen. The representamen somehow embodies a part of the object, in this way or
another, or “exhibits” it (Burks, 1949) (consider the famous “smiley” icon which structurally
and visually resembles a human face, on an abstract level).
In this work, acts in which designers let one object stand for another during interpretation
activity are regarded as the formation of sign in-action, which can be generally regarded as
symbols (due to the ad-hoc nature between the structure and its interpretation). However,such signs are also often also iconic (owing to the frequent occurrence of similarity between
the structure and the referent in the interpretation).
2.5.2 Metaphor: a Wondrous Scandal
Few other linguistic phenomena have received such attention, and have posed suchtremendous difficulties, as that of metaphor. Expressing this fact, Umberto Eco has statedthat metaphor “defies every encyclopedic entry” (Eco & Paci, 1983, p.217). From Eco’s
perspective, metaphors are seen as a “scandal” in use of language, a human deviation fromthe linguistic infrastructure which facilitates and enables communication. With all thedifficulties inherent in its study, we believe that research into interpretation must address
the notion of metaphor, owing to its centrality for high-level cognitive abilities, as discussed
hereafter.
We are most interested in the account of conceptual metaphors as powerful cognitive devices,
given by Lakoff and Johnson. In their important work “Metaphors we Live by”, they explain
their view of metaphor as a tool for utilizing knowledge from one domain (source) via its
projection onto another domain, which is less understood (target). Using the famous exampleof “time is money”, they demonstrate how a highly abstract concept (time) can be understoodin terms of a more concrete concept (money), which we can grasp rather firmly. The emphasis
here is neither on metaphors as mere decorative literary devices, nor as ones ofcommunication (as in speech-act theory), but rather as ones which facilitate thinking and52

Theoretical Backgroundreasoning (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003). From this aspect, we can begin to relate metaphor withinterpretation in design.
How do metaphors function in design? As mentioned by Casakin, despite their centrality tohuman life and communication, few studies have empirically examined the use of metaphorsin design practices, and the manner in which they function in design (Casakin, 2006).
Nonetheless, certain fundamental aspects of their contribution as cognitive tools for design
have been laid out. Casakin has explained that metaphors are frequently used by designers
in the act of encoding complex systems of relations as short verbal descriptions, which can be
intuitively understood. To this, Hey et al. have added that, by utilizing metaphoric
descriptions during the design process, designers are able to gradually develop a high-level,
conceptual understanding of the task at hand (Hey, Linsey, Agogino, & Wood, 2008).
Considering both of the above, we can start to delineate the role of metaphor within thecontext of interpretation activity. When designers see an object as another, and assign it witha metaphoric description accordingly, they may begin to form an abstract conceptual
understanding, which aids them in their interaction with structure. We thus approach
metaphoric description as a form of high-level control, which utilizes interpretation forstructuring the agent’s understanding, and thereby shaping subsequent action.
2.5.3 Metaphor and Computation
Perhaps one of the best systematic accounts of the problem of metaphor is provided to us by
Searle, who has made an effort to elucidate it from the perspective of speech acts andcommunication. We open this sub-section by briefly reviewing the work by Searle on thismatter, as a theoretical foundation for approaching the notion of metaphor from acomputational perspective. Searle starts by making a fundamental distinction between“sentence meaning” and “speaker meaning” (Searle, 1990). Sentence meaning refers to theliteral meaning of the uttered words, while speaker meaning refers to their indented meaning(also called utterance meaning). He further explains that metaphoric meaning coincides withspeaker meaning.
Somewhat in correspondence with Eco’s “scandal”, Searle construes the problem of metaphor
as follows: "The problem of explaining how metaphors work is a special case of the general
problem of explaining how speaker meaning and sentence meaning come apart" (Searle, 1990,p408). This question is further elaborated in the following form: suppose a speaker says thesentence S, which literally means R, but metaphorically means P. First, how can we knowthat S does not mean R, and second, how can we compute P. While answering the first may
not seems difficult (i.e. we only need to know if the sentence should or should not be taken
literally), the second poses a significant challenge.

53

2

As a partial answer to the second part of the question, Searle provides us with a set ofprinciples which enable to explain the relation between P and R under certain circumstances.
One example which can be given is the following principle: “things which are P are often saidor believed to be R”. Applying this rule, for example, we can take the sentence “he runs likea turtle”, and deduce the sentence “he runs slow”, since turtles are commonly seen as slow.
Searle’s structuring of the problem, as well as his proposed principles, are an important
contribution for establishing a systematic account of understanding metaphor. However, twomain limitations should be mentioned. First, the proposed principles are generally useful for
supporting search processes which take utterances as input and provide speaker meaning as
output. Yet, they do not explain how to compute specific values. Even if we were to use
probability to choose between multiple candidates, there still remains the problem ofchanging contexts which may significantly alter the intended meaning. Second, as mentioned
by Searle, these principles are by no means exhaustive, so that identifying and elaborating
additional principles is necessary. Nonetheless, Searle’s account provides us with a strong
foundation for approaching metaphor from a computational perspective.
Considering the size of the problem and its centrality to understanding natural language, it
is not surprising that many researches strive to develop computational systems for dealing
with metaphor. Such systems can be roughly divided into four main categories: extraction,
comprehension, generation and reasoning. We review several major works in each category,in order to facilitate an understanding of our current computational capabilities in this field,
and their relevance for this work.
With respect to metaphor extraction systems, an important example is provided by Mason,
who has demonstrated the possibility of extracting metaphors from textual data (Mason,
2004). One of the main advantages of this system lies in the fact that, while other systems
usually deal with a very limited set of manually constructed examples, it draws directly on asubstantial existing database (WordNet). Such systems can be used for facilitating a richdatabase of metaphors in a semi-automatic manner.
Systems capable of generating metaphoric expressions have existed for some time now, andcan be traced back, to the best of our knowledge, as far as the 1980’s. One such example is
the work by Young, in which the possibility of utilizing a relational database for metaphor
generation has been shown (Young, 1987). In a more recent example, the system by Abe etal. has demonstrated how metaphors can be automatically generated based on statisticalanalysis of co-occurrence relationships between words, further validated using evaluation ofhuman subjects (Abe, Sakamoto, & Nakagawa, 2006). Work on metaphor thus enables, to acertain extent, to computationally form metaphoric expressions, which may be useful for

54

Theoretical Backgrounddesign agents concerned with tasks of assigning interpretations, in the form of symbolic
descriptions.
Comprehension systems attempt to automatically interpret given utterances. For example,
Kintsch has demonstrated the possibility of computing reasonable interpretations ofmetaphors, by representing meaning using vectors in a high-dimensional semantic space(Kintsch, 2000). More recently, focusing on pragmatic aspects of understanding metaphoricalutterances, researchers have proposed a computational model which not only suggests
plausible metaphorical interpretations, as in the above case, but also enables to evaluate
whether certain features are likely to be attributed to the entities referred to in the metaphor(Kao, Bergen, & Goodman, 2014). Such work is useful for supporting metaphor-based
reasoning, by extending a single metaphoric interpretation into set of attributes which may
serve as a basis for a more elaborate interpretation of the design (see further regarding
reasoning).
With respect to reasoning systems utilizing metaphoric expressions, an interesting example
is the work by Narayanan, which has demonstrated the possibility of automated reasoning
based on metaphorical utterances. In this work, paper articles from different domains wereparsed and fed as input into the system, which could draw sensible inferences based on
metaphorical expressions in the article (Narayanan, 1999). Such systems support our
hypothesis that, given a knowledge representation framework for interpretation of structure
in design, creating a computational system for interpretation in action, which automaticallyreasons about the design, is a feasible task.
2.5.4 Worldmaking as a Linguistic Act
This sub section has introduced two notions, which are important for this research, from thefields of semiotics and cognitive linguistics: signification and metaphors as cognitive devices,
respectively. We now conclude this part by relating them within a larger notion of worlds,
which may be facilitated by them.
The American philosopher Nelson Goodman has rightfully claimed that we, as people, areworld makers. Our symbolic systems of language enable us to form myriad worlds, which
serve as our constructed, yet nonetheless actual, realities (Goodman, 1978). Focusing on
Goodman’s fundamental claim, regarding the manner in which symbols constitute worlds,
we may begin to tie it with interpretation activity, using the notions mentioned above.
When designers see one object as another and interpret it accordingly, they do this by
assigning a symbolic description to the object. For example, if I see a cardboard box as abuilding, I am (even if implicitly) assigning the box with the symbolic description of“building”. Notice that, by doing so, I have formed a sign. In this specific case the sign is both55

2

symbolic (I have arbitrarily assigned it) and perhaps iconic (in the sense that the form of thebox may be reminiscent of a building). Now imagine that another box stands beside the firstone. If I choose to extend my interpretation to the second box, we can say that I am now“seeing” two buildings. This interpretation may further lead me to conceive of the buildings
as a “small neighborhood” or as a “city street”. By further extending my interpretation, I canstart to form an interpretive world, within which the previous symbolic descriptions arefurther attributed with meaning. This world can also serve as a general context for assigningfurther interpretations (for example, in the case of a “city”, I could add a green object
representing a “park”).
Our key point in the above example is that, while interpretation may begin by assigningobjects with symbolic descriptions, these descriptions may be further elaborated into symbol
systems forming virtual interpretive worlds. Therefore, we should be aware that designers
do not only assign disparate interpretations, they also make cohesive worlds from them. This
point is explored in the later part of the work (chapter 7), focusing on the manner in which
several interpretations can be joined to form larger wholes. Finally, it is important to noticethat the whole process of interpretation, as construed here, relies heavily on metaphor. By
its virtue, we freely and intuitively move from the concrete to the abstract and back, asinterpreters and world makers.

2.6 JRG as a Case Study for Interpretation in Conceptual
DesignTo collect empirical data of design activity, as a basis for our inquiry into interpretation, we
have chosen to focus on the practice of JRGs, as a case study. Our choice is justified later inthis section. First, we briefly introduce the practice of JRGs, and provide the necessary
general background in a concise manner. We then attend to a specific aspect which is highly
relevant to our work - the use of rocks as representational devices.
2.6.1 Traditional JRG design
JRGs have long existed as an art form and a design practice. The classical traditional manual“Sakuteiki” (translated in Takei & Keane, 2001), which had first outlined their design
guidelines in a written form, dates back as far as a millennium, and consists mainly of textual
information. Later important works such as the “Illustrations” (translated in Slawson &ZoÌen, 1991), which can be traced back to the 15th century, offer graphic material which cancomplement the former, and therefore facilitate a deeper understanding of this practice.
While different styles are associated with different visual expressions, several major
principles can be mentioned as foundational, if not essential:

56

Theoretical Background►frugality: usage of a small number of elements►

abstractness: their design generally refrains from detailed figurative expression►

representational quality: elements are commonly assigned with metaphoric
interpretations►

asymmetry: forms are commonly organized in space as to avoid regularity orsymmetry►

consideration of viewpoint: the various positions users may assume via movement
through the space guide their visual and spatial organization

As a preparation for the project, we have studied both of the classical manuals mentioned
above, with the aim of understanding the guiding principles of the traditional design
methodology. This greatly inspired our work, and invited us to deeply inquire into
interpretation practices in design. The main principles that contributed to the work areintegrated relevant throughout the dissertation, as needed. However, it seems necessary at
this point to mention the central principle, which underlies our approach. Reading the
Sakuteiki, we find the following words already in the second instruction, immediately
following an explanation regarding carrying stones to the site:“Choose a particularly splendid stone and set it as the Main stone…following
the request of the first stone, set others accordingly” (Takei & Keane, 2001,
p.181).
By reading this instruction carefully, a door to a world of interpretation opens. The designer
is instructed to first select a rock which he finds “particularly splendid”, and then “listen” toit and add rocks accordingly. What is a splendid stone? How should one listen? Right fromthe start, the manual encourages the designer to approach the design and these guidelines
as an active interpreter. For this reason, and many others, we have found great potential inutilizing JRGD as our case study of choice.
2.6.2 Interpretation in Traditional JRG
JRGD is well known for its extensive use of metaphoric interpretations, both in the design
process itself and for describing the final product of the design, as explained hereafter (Fig.
2-5). This ranges from assigning names to preferable rock forms or specific rocks in acomposition (a), and up to forming narratives which encompass a full garden, as in the garden
of Ryōan-ji (c). It is important to note that these names are not regarded as mere decorative
linguistic elements attached to the artifact. Rather they are used to speak of it metaphorically,
as to expose or emphasize certain visual features, in an intuitive manner. Form and position57

2

are thus tied with meaning, by such interpretive acts (Nakagawara, 2004; Slawson & ZoÌen,1991). As such, this practice is highly relevant for our inquiry into visual interpretation ofdesign elements, and serves as an endless source of knowledge and inspiration.

Figure 2-5 Interpretation in JRGD: (a) “heroic rock”; the rock receives its name on the basis of certain visualqualities, such as massiveness, texture direction etc., associated with it; reproduced from (Slawson & ZoÌen,1991); (b) “Teacher and Student” or “Buddhist Triad” composition, the middle rock is assigned with a role ofteacher or Buddha and the other two its disciples, Daitoku-Ji, Kyoto (Mansfield & Richie, 2009); (c) A partof the rock composition at the garden of Ryōan-ji in Kyoto, commonly interpreted as “a tiger carrying its cubs
across a river” (Yamada, 2009).

2.6.3 Further Considerations in Choosing JRG as a Case Study
Aside from the tight link with the activity of interpretation via metaphoric descriptions,additional considerations support the choice of JRGD to serve as our case study. We lay out
our main considerations and rationale for this choice below.
Generally speaking, the need for empirical data for studying the activity of interpretation asa human ability is undeniable. The question is thus, if we are to collect data of conceptual
design activity, what kind of data can best aid in our inquiry? As said by Minsky: "for me anda whole generation of students, the world of work with children's blocks has been the prismand the pendulum (referring to Galileo & Newton) for studying intelligence" (Minsky, 1986,
p20). We therefore need to choose our “children’s blocks”, that will be best suited for ourinquiry. Several guidelines can be outlined as follows: (1) the documented activity should be
one of a conceptual design process; (2) the task should contain elements which are ambiguous(to offer enough opportunities for interpretation); (3) the task should be simple enough toafford a deep analysis, in order for us to avoid over-complex situations, which will obscure
the basic mechanisms that are at play (as reflected in Minsky’s comment above); (4) the task
should naturally accommodate the notion of representational interpretation.
In accordance with these, we have found JRGD as a suitable design context for our study,
since it: (1) can easily serve as the basis for a conceptual design task which does not impede
creativity due to the burdens of technical requirements; (2) mainly consists of ambiguous
elements, and tends to avoid explicit figurative representation. Additionally, its elements are
less-abstract than simple blocks (commonly used in “block worlds” in AI) so that

58

Theoretical Backgroundinterpretation is easily invoked by them; (3) can be conducted with a set of simple elements
which need not be divided or altered (and therefore serve as relatively-manageable
environment for the exploration of interpretation in-action; literally a “sand box” task); ;(4)already has the aspect of representational interpretation integrated into the design process(as previously explained).
2.6.4 Focusing on Rocks as Key Design Elements
Japanese gardens consist of a relatively small number of elements. Among these are: rocks,
moss, gravel, small plants and others. While each contributes to the experience of the garden,
and of course to its interpretation, we have resolved to isolate the garden rocks as our target
of inquiry. Note that, even with other elements removed from consideration, their range of
expression, and thus of interpretation, is inconceivably broad. Furthermore, this approach is
in-line with the guidelines provided in the classical manuals, which clarify that rocks are themain element in traditional gardens, and serve as the foundation for the rest of the design.
In fact, the Sakuteiki opens with the words “The art of setting stones”44, which clearly reflects
its position towards the importance of rocks, as opposed to other elements. We do keep inmind the need for a future extension of our scope to include other design elements in ourtasks and in their analysis.

44 (Takei & Keane, 2001); notice that, in this work, the words “rock” and “stone” are used interchangeably.

59Chapter 3 Methodology
This research deals with an intricate aspect of the human mind - our cognitive ability toengage in interpretation. In accord with current cognitive sciences, we adopt thecomputational-representational view of mind, which generally assumes that the existence ofmental representations and computational processes operating on them, can together
account for human cognitive activity (Thagard, 2005). Taking this perspective, we draw
fundamental guidelines, which shape our methodological approach, as follows:First, rather than attempting to replicate the exact internal mechanism responsible for ourinterpretation capability, we humbly aim to model it, by identifying its essential
representational and computational components.45
Second, and considering the above aim, we take the constructive research approach. Thisapproach, which draws on pragmatist views, utilizes theory for solving practical problems,by forming new artifacts (Crnkovic, 2010). Our desired artifact (i.e. our model forinterpretation) will ideally harness existing knowledge from multiple relevant disciplines toanswer our research question. To recapitulate:
How can we deepen our understanding of representational
interpretation (RI) of structures in conceptual design, to bothenhance computational design systems and extend our knowledge ofhuman cognition?
A concise description of the phases in constructive research can be found in Lehtiranta et al.,as follows: (1) problem-definition, (2) pre-analysis, (3) construct-design, (4) demonstration offeasibility, (5) clarification of relation to theory, and (6) examination of generalizability(Lehtiranta, Junnonen, Kärnä, & Pekuri, 2015). These have guided us in setting theframework for our research methodology, presented in general outlines in Figure 3-1. In thefollowing sub-sections, we further elaborate on several of these building blocks, to form aclear picture of how this work was structured and conducted.

45 Considering that “All models are wrong, but some are useful”; a quote commonly attributed to George Box (1979).

Methodology

Figure 3-1 Outline of our research methodology.

Finally, it is worth noting that our methodology for studying human cognition aligns withfoundational works in artificial intelligence46, in several key aspects, such as our focus on
performance (rather than development or learning), and our approach to cognition as an act
of manipulating symbolic descriptions. While these foundational works have been supersededby utilizing new methods etc., they have successfully carved out an essential aspect ofcognition as an object of study, i.e. our symbolic capacities. As such, they remain relevant
and important as a guiding light for current studies in the field.
The following sections introduce the key knowledge-domains on which we draw in thisresearch, as well as the two methods which are integrated in this work, for inquiring into
interpretation - that of utilizing computational systems and that of using empirical data (seeFigure 3-1 above; b, c). These are followed by introducing our general modeling approach andthe way it relates to existing theory (Figure 3-1; d, e).

46 Such as the notable “Human Problem Solving” by (Newell & Simon, 1972).

61

3

3.1 Organizing the Theoretical Framework
Our theoretical framework is based on several domains of knowledge. The main categories
and major sources within each category are:►philosophical foundations: these are mainly set in the philosophy of mind (Searle,
2004) and constructivism (Goodman, 1978)►

knowledge of cognitive science: focusing on cognition as a situated phenomenon(Clancey, 1997; Clark, 1998; Robbins & Aydede, 2009; R. A. Wilson & Clark, 2009)►

knowledge of state-of-the-art AI systems: in this, we focus on systems forsupporting interpretation activity in conceptual design, as in Karimi et al. (2018)►

models for design as a situated activity: we rely on existing models which provide
us an understanding of design activity from a computational perspective. The mainmodel utilized in this research in the situated Function-Behavior-Structure
framework (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004)►

knowledge of key aspects of interpretation activity: existing research ofinterpretation in design generally offers us insights into interpretive practices from aqualitative perspective. Accordingly, it is mainly available as descriptions of various
phenomena that illuminate aspects of interpretation processes in design (Goldschmidt,
1988; Schön & Wiggins, 1992)►

knowledge of relevant cognitive mechanisms: key examples are analogy as a tool
for mapping between different domains (Gentner, 1983; Gentner & Smith, 2012;
Holyoak & Thagard, 1996) and metaphor as a cognitive device for establishing highlevel conceptual understanding of the world (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003)►

domain specific knowledge of JRGD: the traditional manuals serve as a richsource of insight for approaching design as an activity of interpretation (Slawson &ZoÌen, 1991; Takei & Keane, 2001)

3.2 From CAD to Cognition
As previously mentioned, current approaches to the study of human thinking in cognitive
science are based on the “computational-representational understanding of mind” (Thagard,2005). The core of this view is that human cognition can be described as an activity ofcomputation, which involves representations (knowledge) and computational processes
62

Methodology

operating on these. By this view, in order to understand interpretation activity, it is essential
to be able to describe the knowledge involved in it, as well as the processes which operate on
this knowledge in a computational form. Consequently, computational implementation is
widely accepted as a valid means in cognitive science for testing hypotheses regarding theworkings of mental phenomena (Friedenberg & Silverman, 2006). In accordance with thisapproach, we harness Computer-Aided Design (CAD) systems, as a computational
environment for implementing and testing our insights. It is worth noting that such
implementations are not expected to replicate the cognitive mechanism which is being
studied, but the behavior which it produces.
Furthermore, when discussing knowledge representation in Chapter 2, we have explainedthat this work chiefly deals with knowledge in symbolic form. In this we rely on the “PhysicalSymbol System” Hypothesis” (Newell, 1980). This hypothesis regards human cognition as anactivity of symbol manipulation. Despite many attacks from various perspective, it is fair tosay that the hypothesis still stands (Nilsson, 2007). Accordingly, our efforts are directed at
capturing the knowledge and processes involved in interpretation activity, using symbolicmeans of representation.

3.3 Drawing on Empirical Data
As a powerful means for getting insight into design activity, we have resolve to collect andanalyze empirical data from design activity. This demanded us to contextualize the work, via
focusing on a certain design practice, as a case study. The chosen design practice was
expected to encourage the natural occurrence of interpretation during design activity, in amanner which is frequent enough and clearly observable to allow analysis. Acknowledging
the tight relation between traditional practices of JRGD and interpretation, as we haveconstrued it, the choice of theses gardens47 seemed natural and promising. Already in theearly phases of the research, we have discovered that this initial (and rather intuitive) choiceoffered many advantages for the study of interpretation.48
3.3.2 Our Design Task
We provide an overview of the task we have formulated for studying interpretation activity.
Further details regarding setup, participant selection etc., as well as procedures for dataprocessing and analysis, are provided in chapters 6 and 7, which employ this method.49

47 As a design context, this can be further characterized as a special form of architectural or landscape design.
48 The choice of this practice is further elaborated and justified in Chapter 2.
49 See 6.4 and 7.3, accordingly.

63

3

We have planned and executed a conceptual design task, focusing on the design of aminiature JRG, using a table-sized model (Figure 3-2). The task was conducted in two
different cycles: first, with individual designers and second, with designers working in pairs.
The designers were requested to design a “garden”, and were free to interpret the task withincertain limits (read further in 6.4 and 7.3). The “design site” consisted of a wooden tray
covered with a thin bed of white sand, placed on a desk in front of the participants (Figure 32). As design materials, we have supplied the participants with a small yet varied collectionof rocks, in different forms, sizes and textures. The subjects were directed to design within
the tray’s limits, and to not stack rocks on top of other rocks, in order to maintain thefundamental and essential guidelines of traditional practices.50
Within the above constraints, the design task offered ample room for interpretation by the
subjects regarding the idea of a “garden” etc. 51 The subjects were thus expected to bothconstrue the problem and solve it, by utilizing the design materials available to them, in
accordance with their construal of the task.

Figure 3-2 Our design task for studying interpretation activity in the context of JRGD

3.3.3 Protocols as Sources of Data
With the aim of establishing rich design protocols (ideally carrying important information
regarding interpretation processes), we requested our subjects to design in a “think aloud”
style, i.e. to voice out their internal dialogue (Charters, 2003; Ericsson & Simon, 1980). Thisis, of course, a common practice in studies of interpretation (see Goldschmidt, 1991; Gürer etal., 2014; Schön & Wiggins, 1992; Suwa, 2003). The audio data collected during all sessions
consisted mainly of participants’ utterances, which accompanied the design session.

50 As indicated in the notable JRGD manual “Sakuteiki” (Takei & Keane, 2001).
51 See the related work by Goldschmidt, in which subjects were asked to design a “cube” house (Goldschmidt, 1988).

64

Methodology

3.4 Modeling Interpretation Activity
In the absence of a model for interpretation of structure, modeling in this work essentiallymeans, first and foremost, identifying and naming entities which are fundamental for thisactivity, and second, the identification of relations between them. This is done via analyzing
our empirical data from design activity, and attempting to account for interpretation of
structure clearly and coherently, so that it may be formalized into a computational model.
Furthermore, as an integral part of the work, we have continuously placed new terms,
definitions and components of RI activity within the context of existing models in design
theory. As previously explained, Gero and Kannengiesser’s situated FBS framework52 served
as a main conceptual holding environment for the entities of our model. Additionally,
considering the tight relation of “seeing-as” practices with analogy, we also draw on theearlier model by Qian and Gero, which attempted to formalize analogy-based design (Qian &Gero, 1996).
This helped in clarifying how the newly proposed entities fit within our current
understanding of the nature of design activity, especially with respect to well-acceptedmodels and theoretical notions which are central to our inquiry.

52 In (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004); refer back to 2.2.3.

65

Chapter 4 Approaching the Study ofInterpretation of Structure: A Case Study of RI in
JRGs53This chapter asks the following question: how can we approach the modeling of RI activity?
To answer this question, we attempt to establish a basic thought-framework for this practice,by defining a set of concepts which are necessary for relating structures with interpretations.
These concepts include an original notion that we term as “complementary visual potential”- a property which ties the elements of the structure with their metaphoric interpretation.
On the basis of these, we propose, implement and test a computational framework for relating
structures with interpretations, in the context of JRGD. Testing is done by attempting to
generate alternative designs for an existing rock composition in the famous garden of Ryōanji, via assigning the structure (i.e. the rocks) with different metaphoric interpretations. The
framework demonstrates how simple spatial configurations may emerge from different
interpretations. This renders it as a springboard towards systematically describing thepractice of interpretation of structure.

4.1 Introduction
How do designers attribute structures with metaphoric descriptions? We approach the taskof formalizing this practice by studying it in the context of traditional JRGD, and the way inwhich metaphors may guide the design process of rock compositions.
Metaphors are powerful cognitive devices (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003) often used by designers
to encode systems of deep relations into a concise verbal description (Casakin, 2006) thatenables the development of a conceptual understanding of the design activity (Hey et al.,2008). Surprisingly, some of the most celebrated JRGs (such as Ryōan-ji, Kyoto; recognized
by UNESCO as a world heritage site in 1994) were designed using metaphor-based practices
more than half a millennium ago. Given their frugal nature, which focuses on spatial designusing a well-defined collection of elements, JRGs serve as a solid ground for studying thispractice in a systematic manner.
In traditional JRGs, using metaphoric descriptions such as “Buddhist triad” (Fig. 4-1;
Mansfield & Richie, 2009) to describe a rock composition is a common practice. These short

53 Published in “Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing”; see (Kahlon & Fujii, 2020a).

Approaching the Study of Interpretation of Structure: A Case Study of RI in JRGs

titles enabled JRG designers to establish a unique design language, cleverly tying spatial
relations with linguistics expressions, offered to the designer as intuitive design catalysts.
Using these expressions as the basis for designing a rock composition demands designers to:(1) interpret the metaphor in terms of spatial relations, (2) select the rocks for the composition,and (3) position them in the garden space.

Figure 4-1 “Buddhist Triad” compositions; (a): Buddhist Triad rock configuration at Daitoku-ji, Kyoto(Mansfield & Richie, 2009)54; (b): Buddhist Triad sculpture55, ~1100 AD (Source: Kyoto National Museum).

JRG compositions are created using “ready-made” elements, i.e. the rocks must be used asthey are found in nature (Takei & Keane, 2001). Consequently, the resulting design largely
depends on the inherent properties of each rock, and its relations to those of the other rocks
in the composition. We may say that each rock has a potential to enable certain visualinterpretations when combined with other rocks in the garden space (for example, a tall rockcan make a neighboring rock appear shorter). To describe this potential, emerging from thepossible visual interaction between different rocks, we propose the term “complementary
visual potential”, which can be seen as the ability to enable another rock to fulfill its
metaphoric role in the composition.56 Utilizing the concept of complementary visual potential,
a framework for metaphor-based design is proposed and implemented, in attempt to autogenerate alternative designs for an existing rock composition in a famous JRG. The
alternative designs are presented, and conclusions are drawn regarding the ability of theframework to support a metaphor-based conceptual design process. Important definitions
and abbreviations are provided in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
4.1.1 Aims and Scope
This chapter aims to clarify how we can systematically relate simple structures withmetaphoric interpretations, by studying this practice in the context of JRGD. As an initialeffort to establish a clear foundation for formalizing this practice, this study focuses solely on
simple compositions consisting of three elements, and on the translation of possible
metaphoric relations into spatial configurations in such settings.

54 also see Fig. 4-9.
55 Commonly referred to as an “Amida Raigo Triad”.
56 Further discussed in the next section, under 4.2.4.

67

4

In this, we exclude other JRG elements, i.e. pebbles, moss etc., from consideration. While
such elements may indeed play a significant role in our experience of JRGs, we can regard
them as a higher-level aspect of the design, which may be attended to in further studies. Thisis consistent with the traditional guidelines for JRGD mentioned in Takei & Keane (2001)
and by Van-Tonder & Lyons (2005). According to these, the positioning of rocks guides thedesign, and serves as a basis for the selection and placement of other design elements.
4.1.2 Objectives
Two main objectives were set: (1) identify the main principles which underlie the metaphorbased design process well-established in traditional JRG design and organize them into a
coherent design framework, and (2) test the framework by implementing it in a 3D
environment via generating alternative designs for an existing three-rock composition.
4.1.3 SignificanceThis study contributes to the understanding of interpretation in design, as an interaction
between the spatial properties of the design elements and their metaphoric descriptions. We
present the potential target groups which may benefit from this study, in a (suggested) risingorder of relevance: (1) theorists of design and design cognition who are interested in themutual dependency between design elements in visual design; (2) knowledge engineers, as abasis for a knowledge representation framework which formalizes this dependency; (3)designers of any discipline incorporating a visual dimension who would like to better
understand the practice of utilizing metaphors in design; (4) software developers ofintelligent CAD systems and/or design agents targeted at supporting the translation of
metaphoric relations into spatial configurations.
We also provide possible utilizations of the framework. For theorists of design and design
cognition the framework can be used as the basis for conducting empirical studies of therelation between metaphoric interpretation and spatial configuration, and for identifying
common practices in assignment of roles which project relations and expectations onto thedesign elements. Other designers engaged in the visual dimension may benefit from theframework through examining their designs from the perspective of element roles and theirrelated expectations which are mutually projected. Finally, software developers of intelligent
CAD systems could integrate the framework into CAD environments with logical inference
systems for enabling spatial reasoning based on logical predicates.

4.2 Key Concepts
Here we provide the necessary background for understanding the proposed framework, anddefine key terms and concepts. These are summarized at the end of this section, in Table 1.

68Approaching the Study of Interpretation of Structure: A Case Study of RI in JRGs

4.2.1 Metaphoric Relationships Between Rocks in JRGs
As evident in the classical manuals for JRG design, the “Sakuteiki” and the “Illustrations”57,
metaphors are extensively used as a basis for the design of rock compositions. This isemployed in the design process by assigning names to preferred configurations (see Fig. 4-1)
or even short titles containing a concise narrative such as “a tiger carrying its cubs across ariver” (Yamada, 2009). These metaphors are not merely verbal descriptions imposed on thedesign as an afterthought, but rather sophisticated design tools which tie form, position andmeaning (Nakagawara, 2004; Slawson & ZoÌen, 1991). In this study we focus on metaphors
expressed by concise verbal descriptions which assign roles for each design element, mainly
by personification. In the context of JRGs, such metaphors assign visual roles to rockelements, and thus imply that certain spatial relations are expected to be maintained withneighboring rocks, as discussed below.
4.2.2 Main and Secondary Elements
Our approach to formalizing the design process of rock compositions depends on one of thefundamental instructions given in the “Sakuteiki” 58 regarding how one should go about
positioning the rocks in the garden: “Choose a particularly splendid stone and set it as theMain stone…following the request of the first stone, set others accordingly” (Takei & Keane,
2001, p.181).59 We interpret this instruction as guiding the designer to select a first rock(hereafter referred to as a main rock), examine its prominent features and add rocks to thecomposition (referred to as secondary rocks) in relation to the features observed. Thisdistinction between main and secondary rocks can be generalized to a broader context as a
distinction between main and secondary design elements; main elements are selected by thedesigner (independently of other elements) as an anchor for the composition, while secondary
elements are added in relation to the main ones, in attempt to fulfill certain metaphoric
relations.
4.2.3 Roles, Behaviors, and Spatial Relations
The metaphoric relations mentioned above are the product of the roles implied by themetaphor, which is chosen by the designer as a basis for creating the configuration. For
example, if we wish to design a composition based on the metaphor “mother protecting
children”, we may map the role “mother” onto the main design element, and the role “children”
onto the secondary ones. The relationship the designer associates with these roles willcorrespond with behaviors that the main element demands secondary elements to fulfill,
hereafter referred to as expected behaviors (Gero, 1990).

57 Translated in (Takei & Keane, 2001), (Slawson & ZoÌen, 1991) accordingly; note that both were written by unknown

authors.
58 Generally considered as the top classical manual for JRGD.
59 Given as the second instruction in the “Setting Stones” section, following the instruction of carrying rocks to the site etc.

69

4When creating a composition, we define our design goal as to enable the main element tofulfill its metaphoric role in the composition, which occurs when the secondary elements
fulfill their expected behaviors. This requires determining which elements are proper
candidates to fulfill the expected behaviors imposed on them by the main element, by
evaluating their complementary visual potential, as explained in 4.2.4.
In the context of JRGs, the main rock may be assigned with different roles, each imposing
certain expected behaviors onto its secondary rocks in the composition. Typical linguistic(semantic) metaphors underlying the spatial relationship of rock arrangements are“Buddhist triad”, “teacher-student” and “mother-children”. While at first glance these may
seem rather different, their similarity is readily revealed when considered through the lensof East-Asian thought: the 5 Relationships of Confucianism set basic guidelines for humanrelations, based on the concept of superior-inferior. This is complemented by the yin-yang
theory, which emphasizes the fundamental dependencies existing between seemingly
opposing or contrasting elements in the world. For example, a teacher is referred to as
superior only in relation to a group of students, who are his/her inferiors.60 Analogously, rockarrangements which correspond with the above linguistic expressions consist of one superior
figure (main; imposing expected behaviors) and at least one inferior figure (secondary), andare therefore often expressed visually and interpreted conceptually as interchangeable, if not
identical.
4.2.4 Concept of Complementary Visual Potential
The concept of complimentary visual potential finds its roots in the concept of affordance(Gibson, 1979) and its view as an “ability”, as proposed by Kannengiesser & Gero (2012) oran “action possibility” (McGrenere & Ho, 2000). Accordingly, we precede its definition with abrief discussion of affordances. An affordance can be seen as a visual cue for possible
interactions with an object (Soegaard, 2002), owing either to its inherent or perceived
properties. While there are different approaches regarding the nature of affordances, it isgenerally agreed that the existence of an affordance depends on the spatial relations between
an agent and an object. For instance, if an object is to afford “grasping”, its physicaldimensions and shape need to match the hand of the grasping agent.
In the domain of visual design, each element in a composition has various properties which
may enable different visual impressions for the viewer, when combined with other elementsin the composition. For example, one object may enable another to appear very large, if theformer is significantly smaller than the latter. Therefore, from the standpoint of viewing
affordance as an ability depending on spatial relations, we may say that elements in acomposition also “afford” certain behaviors to each other. Maier & Fadel (2009) have proposed
60 As nicely put by Alan Watts: “I can’t play the teacher unless you play the student” (Watts, 2017).

70

Approaching the Study of Interpretation of Structure: A Case Study of RI in JRGs

the notion of “artifact-artifact affordance” which is relevant for our discussion; however, since
our study focuses on the visual aspect of interaction between design elements, we use theterm “complimentary visual potential” to describe this ability, in order to avoid confusion
with the concept of affordance, which stresses the aspect of function.
Kannengiesser & Gero (2012) proposed a model which conceptualizes the relation between
affordances and behaviors via a construct with input parameters matching the affordance.
This model is used here to represent the concept of complementary visual potential, which
can be seen as a coupled structure tying two objects and their potential behaviors (Fig. 4-2).
We define complementary visual potential as the ability of an object to enable another object
to fulfill an expected behavior in the composition.

Figure 4-2 Complimentary visual potential; represented on the basis of Kannengiesser & Gero (2012).

In Figure 4-3 we provide a simple example using two objects, to explain how complementary
visual potentials contribute to formalizing the mutual dependency that characterizes therelation between design elements. Behaviors here can be thought of as adjectives or verbs
corresponding with sets of spatial relations (for example: “wide” can correspond with certain
measurements). The two objects x,y are of different sizes; if we wished y to fulfill the behavior“tall”, y would need to maintain certain spatial relations with the other elements in thecomposition, which correspond with this behavior. Therefore, adding an object which fulfills
these spatial relations, would enable y to fulfill the desired behavior. Being shorter, x cancomplement the behavior “tall” for y, and thus owns the required complementary visual
potential for our goal. Notice that this is a two-way relationship, and y also owns acomplementary visual potential in relation to x, i.e. to enable it to fulfill an opposite behavior
which may be called “short”. Although this example focuses on a single spatial relation,complementary visual potentials may also result from multiple spatial relations. With
respect to JRG design, complementary visual potentials can serve as criteria for filtering andselecting candidate secondary rocks out of a large collection, in accordance with the design
goal.

71

4

Figure 4-3 Example of complimentary visual potentials emerging from a height difference. 61
Table 1 Key terms used in section 4.2.

Term
Metaphor
Design element
Main element
Secondaryelement
Complimentary
visual potential

Definition

ExampleA concise linguistic expression referring to the design elements& assigning them with roles, often via personification
A physical part of the designed artifact (or its representation)
which is defined as an undividable unit by the designer
The first element placed in the composition, selected by thedesigner independently of other elements
Any element selected and added to the composition in relation
to the main element
The ability of an element to enable another element to fulfill an
expected visual behavior(These rocks are) “teacher &student”
Rock, moss patch etc.
Fig. 4-1, middle rockFig. 4-1, left rock
In Fig. 4-1, the right rockrenders the middle as “tall”

4.3 The Proposed Framework
Every spatial configuration has two distinct (yet related) aspects: its physical forms (i.e. thedesign elements) and its verbal description (i.e. the linguistic phrase from which we canderive the metaphoric relations to serve as a basis for the design). The following frameworkaims to create a relation between the Spatial Relations World (SRW) emerging from the forms
and their spatial configuration, and the Metaphoric Relations World (MRW) emerging fromthe description. This is done by defining two corresponding spaces: Behavioral Potential
Space (BPS) and Behavioral Expectation Space (BES). This construct was inspired by the“Dual Deep-Structure” proposed by Fujii & Aoki (2003) for establishing a relation between
shapes and their linguistic descriptions. Yet, here two mediating spaces are added –Interpretation Space (IS) and Complementary Visual Potential Space (CVPS). Abbreviations
and definitions are summarized at the end of this section in Table 2; the complete frameworkis shown below (Fig. 4-4).

61 As previously mentioned, represented on the basis of Kannengiesser & Gero (2012).

72

Approaching the Study of Interpretation of Structure: A Case Study of RI in JRGs

Figure 4-4 The proposed framework for relating spatial configuration and metaphoric descriptions.

4.3.1 Spatial Relations World (SRW), Metaphoric Relations World (MRW)SRW is concerned with low-level spatial relations that may be identified in the artifact
through measurement and comparison, as well as with higher level relations that may bederived from them via deduction. Given two objects x and y, these relations are represented
as simple propositions in the form relation(x,y). For example, the fact that x is taller than yis represented in SRW as taller(x,y). MRW on the other hand, is concerned with the roles ofthe design elements which are implied by the linguistic expression. These are represented in
the form roles(main_role, secondary_role). For example, given the expression “master teaches
student”, a possible formalization of the roles may be roles(master, student).
Referring back to Fig. 4-1, possible expressions of the composition in SRW areshorter(secondary,main), wider(main,secondary). Possible expressions of the composition in
MRW are role(teacher,students), role(father,children). Given a rock composition, by
examining it through the lens of SRW we can identify spatial relations between the rocks,
which result from their configuration in space, as well as from their inherent properties. By
examining it through the lens of MRW, we can identify certain roles implied by themetaphoric relations in the verbal description. From these emerge BPS and BES, accordingly.
4.3.2 Behavioral Expectation Space (BES), Behavioral Potential Space (BPS)
Behaviors are entities represented by verbs in the English language. Each behavior receives
its spatial meaning from the correspondences specified in the IS (see 4.3.3). A behavior issaid to be well-defined if and only if there exists a spatial relation in IS which correspondswith it. An object y is said to fulfill a behavior b in relation to an object x, if and only if b iswell defined and y fulfills the spatial relation that correspond with it in IS, in relation to x.
The fact that y fulfills the behavior b in relation to x is expressed in the form behavior(x,y).
BES emerges from MRW and consists of sets of behaviors which one object may expect
another to fulfill, called expectation sets. Each behavior in the expectation set is referred to73

4

as an expected behavior. Let B represent a BES and let B* represent the finite set of all welldefined behaviors. Then B={E1,..,Et}, where each Ej is an expectation set in the form
Ej={b1,…,bm: bi∈B*}. The set {bow(x,y), listen(x,y)} may serve as an example for an expectation
set containing two expected behaviors of an element x from an element y.
BPS emerges from SRW and consists of sets of behaviors that can be fulfilled in practice byan object x. Let B’ represent a BPS; let S(⊆B*) represent the set of all behaviors that x canfulfill in relation to y. B’ is then given by the power set of S, so that B’=P(S). Each item in B’
consists of a combination of potential behaviors, i.e. set of behaviors which may be actuallyfulfilled, thus referred to as a potential set. Since B’ contains all of the possible combinationsof behaviors that x may fulfill in relation to y, it provides us useful information regardingwhether x can meet the behaviors in a given expectation set of y. This will determine x’s
ability to enable y to fulfill its role in the composition.
4.3.3 Interpretation Space (IS), Complementary Visual Potential Space (CVPS)IS enables us to give spatial expression to our behaviors by assigning each with acorresponding spatial relation. Let I={i1,….,in} represent an IS; Every ij∈I denotes aninterpretation for a single behavior so that I=(b,R), where b is a behavior of the form
behavior(x,y) and R is a set of spatial relations that may occur between the two elements,
each in the form relation(x,y); in other words, each ij represents a single correspondence
between a behavior and its spatial expression. For example, the behavior of “bowing” maycorrespond with being physically shorter, and can therefore be expressed asi=(bow(x,y),{shorter(x,y)}). This ties the behavior of an object with the spatial relations it
fulfills with another in the composition.
CVPS results from the intersection of BES and BPS, and enables an evaluation of the abilityof one object to fulfill the expectations of another. Let C represent a CVPS; C is given by
C=B∩B’. Since B is populated with expectation sets of x, and B’ is populated with potential
sets of y which may fulfill them, C consists only of the expectation sets which can be fulfilledin practice by y in relation to x. When an expectation set of x is fulfilled by y, we say that x
fulfills its role in the composition and that y owns the complementary visual potential forthat role. Thus, when C≠ Ø we can say that there exists at least one potential set of y which
fulfills an expectation set of x, and y can enable x to fulfill its role in the composition.
Table 2 Abbreviations used in section 4.3.

SRW, MRW
BES, BPS
IS, CVPS

Spatial Relations World, Metaphoric Relations World
Behavioral Expectation Space, Behavioral Potential SpaceInterpretation Space, Complimentary Visual Potential Space74

Approaching the Study of Interpretation of Structure: A Case Study of RI in JRGs

4.4 Results
4.4.1 Experimental Implementation
The proposed framework was implemented by constructing three sub-systems assigned withthe following tasks: interpretation, selection and positioning (Fig. 4-5). This is in accordancewith the three main operations in JRGD: interpreting a metaphor in terms of spatial
relations, selecting rocks suitable for the current design task and positioning them to convey
the metaphoric relationship. The systems were integrated with a 3D CAD environment(Rhinoceros 3D) and used to generate spatial configurations of simple rock compositions
based on metaphoric relations, as described hereafter. Important definitions are given at theend of this section in Table 3.

Figure 4-5 Spatial configuration design as a product of three integrated sub-systems.

4.4.2 System Behavior
During initialization, the system utilizes three elements as catalysts for the design of a rockcomposition: a main rock, a metaphoric relation and a set of observed properties (see Table3). These serve as decision variables, and are collectively referred to as the design motivation.
In order to generate a rock composition using the system, the user is required to set thedesign motivation by selecting a main rock and assigning values to its observed properties.
The system will then: (1) pass the design motivation to the interpretation system to convert
it into expected behaviors62; (2) pass these into the selection system for choosing two suitable
candidates for the secondary rocks; (3) pass the chosen candidates to the positioning system
to set them in place, also in accordance with the demanded spatial relations. The complete
process is summarized in Figure 4-6.

62 This can be seen as a “pre-processing” phase (Kannengiesser & Gero, 2012).

75

4

Figure 4-6 Producing a metaphor-based rock configuration using the implemented system.

4.4.3 Sub-systems and their Roles
As mentioned in 4.4.1, the complete spatial configuration generation system consists of threesub-systems. The general behavior and tasks handled by each are described below.
The interpretation system’s main task is to convert the metaphoric relationship into expectedbehaviors. These behaviors will enable the selection system to evaluate the complementary
visual potentials, and thus serve as the criteria for filtering the secondary rocks, and selecting
those that can enable the main rock to fulfill its role.
The selection system receives the expected behaviors from the interpretation system andattempts to select appropriate secondary rocks, i.e. ones which will enable the main rock tofulfill its role in the composition by: (1) filtering the rock collection from secondary rocks
which cannot fulfill the expected behaviors, and (2) randomly selecting two rocks from thefiltered rock collection and passing them to the positioning system.
Figure 4-7 outlines the general structure of the system’s core; this consist of theinterpretation and selection systems, as well as the resources involved in the process ofinterpreting the design motivation and selecting adequate secondary rocks, which are thenpassed to the positioning system.

76

Approaching the Study of Interpretation of Structure: A Case Study of RI in JRGs

Figure 4-7 Outline of the system’s core - the interpretation and selection systems.

The positioning system aims to position the selected secondary rocks around the main rock,in accordance with the metaphoric relationship and its corresponding expected behaviors.
Setting the position for the secondary rocks involves three parameters: proximity, relative
position (in front, behind etc.) and orientation, all in relation to the main rock. The system
reads the spatial demands corresponding with the expected behaviors and positions thesecondary rocks in three phases: (1) initialization: the secondary rocks are arbitrarily placedaround the main rock in a pre-defined boundary, serving as the environment for thegeneration of the composition; (2) gathering: the secondary rocks attempt to approach themain rock to fulfill the demanded spatial relations concerning with proximity; (3) orienting:the secondary rocks will circulate around the main rock and around their pivot axes, in orderto fulfill the demanded spatial relations. Figure 4-8 shows a simple positioning process of two
secondary rocks around a main rock.

Figure 4-8 Auto-positioning the secondary rocks around the main rock.

4.4.4 Generating Alternative Designs for an Existing Rock Composition
The implemented system was tested by attempting to generate alternative designs for an
existing rock composition, found in the garden of Ryōan-ji (Figs. 4-9, 4-10). The original mainrock was maintained (Fig. 4-9, middle rock) while the secondary rocks were replaced and77

4

repositioned, by reinterpreting the metaphoric relation in different manners, as explained
hereafter.
The main rock in the composition was modeled in 3D after the original, according tophotographic documentation taken from multiple angles. The rock collection used for thegeneration consisted of 48 small rocks, digitally scanned using a desktop 3D scanner, eachused in 4 different scales, resulting in a total of (48x4=)196 rocks.

Figure 4-9 A Buddhist Triad rock composition at the famous garden of Ryōan-ji, Kyoto.

Figure 4-10 Generation of alternatives to the configuration in Fig. 4-9.

According to the metaphoric relation in the original composition, the main rock was assignedwith the role of “teacher” and the secondary rocks with the role of “students”. Alternative
designs for the original composition were produced by assigning different values to theobserved properties of the teacher rock, which determined the selection and positioning of
the student rocks. Each set of values represents a different interpretation of the metaphoric
relation, as explained below. Figure 4-10 shows the different sets of the observed properties
assigned each time to the teacher rock, and the resulting rock configurations.

78

Approaching the Study of Interpretation of Structure: A Case Study of RI in JRGs

Table 3 Entities of the implemented system and their formal representation.

EntityElement
SpatialRelations Set
Behavior

Role

Metaphoric
Relation

Observed
Property

DesignMotivation

Definition
A single rock stored as meshgeometry with a unique id
Finite set of spatial relations
occurring between two design
elements x and y
A pairing of a single verb in the
English language with a Spatial
Relations Set
A pairing of an element with asingle Noun appearing in the
linguistic expression describing
the compos.; for example,“Mother with children” contains
the possible roles “mother” and“children”
An ordered pair of roles
correspond. with a set of
behaviorsthesecondaryelements are expected to fulfil
An attribute assigned to themain element by the user via
selection from several possible
values
A set of decision variables which
includes the chosen mainelement, a metaphoric relation
and a set of observed properties

Representation

Example

e(id)

e(32)

srs(x,y){shorter(x,y),wider(x,y)}behavior(name,srs)

behavior(“bow”,srs(x,y)),srs(x,y)={shorter(x,y),in_front(x,y)}role(e,role_name)r(e(65),”buddha”)

mr(r, r’)
Where r,r’ are roles

mr(role(e(20),“buddha”),role(e(51),”student”))

op(prop_name,value)

op(“character”,”humble”){e(id),mr(r,r’),O}
where O is a set ofobserved properties{e(26),mr(…),{op(character,humble),...}}

4.4.5 Interpreting the Results
The generated compositions aim to demonstrate the possibility of tying a metaphoric relation
with a spatial expression, using our framework. In order to clarify how the metaphoric
relation is expressed spatially in the compositions, we firstly explain the relationshipbetween the observed properties assigned to the main rock and the resulting configuration.
As an example, we focus on the property of “experience”. In all three compositions the mainrock is assigned with the role of “teacher”, while the secondary rocks are assigned with therole of “students”. As a teacher, the main rock may be further described as either a “master”
or “inexperienced”. Since a master is more likely to expect deep respect from his students(compared with an inexperienced teacher), asserting the teacher as having the observed
property op(experience,master), will demand the secondary rocks to fulfill the expectedbehavior of “bowing”, so that the students can express their respect to the teacher. The79

4behavior of “bowing” is spatially interpreted as being relatively short63, and as we see in
Figure 4-10(b), the student rocks were selected so as to fulfill this criterion. This expectedbehavior can be briefly stated as behavior(bow,{shorter(x,y)}), although additional spatial
demands may be further integrated according to the user’s considerations. In contrast, theassertion that the teacher is “inexperienced, i.e. having the property ofop(experience,inexperienced), results in a lack of expectation for “deep respect”. This isexpressed in the selection of vertically oriented rocks which “stand” (i.e. do not bow), as seenin Figure 4-10(a). For clarification purposes, an example for the above correspondence
between an observed property and its spatial expression (determined by an expectedbehavior) is diagrammed below in Figure 4-11.

Figure 4-11 From an observed property to an expected behavior.

4.5 Discussion
4.5.1 Evaluation
The implementation of the proposed framework focuses on the fundamental entities andconsiderations involved in translating a metaphoric relation into a simple spatialconfiguration, and is based on our understanding of this practice in JRGs. This enables us to
examine the framework’s ability to serve as a basis for embodying a given metaphoric
relation within a spatial configuration via: (1) elaborating the relation as a set of related
qualities which may be assigned to the main element, i.e. our observed properties; (2)assigning each observed property with a corresponding expected behavior that the mainelement may demand the secondary ones to fulfill; (3) tying these behaviors to spatial
relations that the secondary elements are consequently required to fulfill.
In this manner, the complete construct of observed properties, expected behaviors and spatial
relations can be seen as an elaboration of the metaphoric expression, which may be used as
design knowledge for constructing, as well as interpreting, spatial configurations.
The entities in our implementation are representations of our translation for JRG designprinciples; the observed properties entity is an exception to this rule, and therefore requires
further elucidation. As explained in section 2, the basic instruction of JRG design guides the63This is a common interpretation in JRG; see Figure 4-1.

80

Approaching the Study of Interpretation of Structure: A Case Study of RI in JRGs

designer to select a rock, “listen to its request” and act in accordance with it. From aphenomenological perspective, we may view this stage as implicitly guiding designers to form
their initial intentional stance for creating the composition, by extracting certain properties
suggested by the rock. This can be seen as an interaction between the designer and the mainrock, in the form of a mental activity. Fujii et al. (2013) have proposed the FNS model for
describing the formation of the intentional stance of the designer as a result of interaction
with the external world. This model uses the term “current noema” to refer to the designer’s
experience of the current situation. The current noema is said to form through a process ofanalysis, which occurs through three sub-processes of observation, evaluation and narration.
The last phase of forming the intentional stance thus results with a narrative which includes
the understanding of the current situation. To represent this understanding acquired fromobserving the rock, we defined the entity of “observed properties”, which are properties that
may be assigned with different values by the designer. These properties are neither
quantitative nor objective evaluations of the main element, but rather conceptual
descriptions which the designer associates with it after a careful observation. The observed
properties thus serve as an instrument to represent the current noema (resulting fromobserving the main element) as a set of properties which can be given a spatial expression.
4.5.2 Generalizability of the Framework
While the framework was introduced through the lens of JRGD, it is fundamentally
independent of a specific design discipline, and may be utilized in other areas of design which
involve spatial configuration, for tying metaphoric expressions with spatial relations. The
framework is targeted for use at the conceptual design stage. In order to utilize it in acomputational system, regardless of the specific design context, it is required to conduct a
preliminary three-phase process of: (1) identification and formalization of the domain’s
design elements, (2) specification of the common spatial relations that may occur between
these, and (3) translation of these into behaviors coupled with spatial relations. These may
serve as an initial knowledge base for implementing intelligent agents in CAD systems,
which can support metaphor-based design processes. In Figure 4-12 we present a simple
example for creating several spatial configurations based on a single element, a metaphoric
relation and a related expected behavior, imposed on the secondary elements as a result. For
example, in Figure 4-12(b) we have translated the observed property of being perceived astall to refer to the element as the “peak of the district”, which results in an expectation of thesurrounding object to fulfill certain behaviors (being shorter than the main element, having
a vertical appearance in order to resemble typical tall buildings etc.).

81

4

Figure 4-12 A single element in various spatial configurations, expressing different metaphoric relations.

4.5.3 Future Work
The framework presented in this chapter systematically relates the metaphoric
interpretation of structures with their spatial configuration. In order to utilize the framework,
it is necessary to couple spatial relations with behaviors of elements64. These are currently
specified in IS65 via manual input of such pairings. While feasible in simple conceptual designtasks, demanding users to specify each interpretation in IS a priori may prove inadequate forprojects of greater complexity. This is due to the time-costly nature of this process, as well as
to the improbability of sufficiently covering the (potentially) vast spaces of possible behaviors
and interpretations. This issue may be approached by enabling users to share their IS,
potentially leading to a development of public interpretation repositories which are contextbased.
Yet, before proceeding in this direction, a preparatory step should be taken to adapt theframework to a standardized knowledge representation system. This will serve as a strong
basis for both phrasing and sharing interpretations among designers, as well as facilitating
the use of logical inference engines for reasoning purposes. The chosen representation system
would preferably: (1) enable to phrase metaphoric interpretations formally in an intuitive
manner, and (2) support comparison between various interpretations created by different
users. A possible candidate is the Ontological Logs (“Ologs”) framework by (Spivak & Kent,2012), yet this requires further inquiry.
Additionally, is it important for future versions of the framework to address non-hierarchicalrelations between elements, which often occur in design. This may be done by reformulating

64 Refer back to 4.5.2.
65 Refer back to 4.3.3.

82

Approaching the Study of Interpretation of Structure: A Case Study of RI in JRGs

it as to enable each element to have expectations from others, regardless of its position in ahierarchical structure.

4.6 Conclusion
This chapter has examined the metaphor-based design methodology employed in JRGs, as avehicle for gaining insight into practices of interpretation of structure in design. A framework
for relating structures with interpretations was proposed, implemented, and tested, in thiscontext. The proposed framework enabled to utilize metaphoric interpretation as a basis forforming structures, by coupling spatial relations with linguistic expressions.
From the perspectives of design-theory, the proposed framework suggests key-concepts which
are essential for systematically describing interpretation processes, thus serving as a strong
foundation for striving towards its modeling and formalization. Additionally, from theperspective of computational design, we view this study as a first step towards integrating
metaphor-based interpretation capabilities into CAD systems, which can potentially extend
their capacity to support conceptual design processes.
Considering the potential of enhancing CAD systems’ ability to engage in metaphoric
interpretation, what steps can we take in this direction? A precondition for making further
progress is the ability to explicitly represent and store interpretations within a knowledge
base, for repeated use. In the current framework, metaphoric interpretations are only
represented implicitly, as a combination of several distinct entities (properties, rules etc.).
This is in contrast to real design practices, where designers often “store” a concise metaphoric
expression, which binds such properties and rules in a memorable manner. The challenge of
explicitly representing metaphoric interpretations within a computational system, in an
intelligible manner, is thus approached in the next chapter.

83

Chapter 5 A Framework for Representation of
RIs in a CAD System: a Case Study of JRGD66
This chapter asks the following question: how can we formally represent RIs in conceptual
design? Towards answering this question, we propose a framework for knowledge
representation within a computational system, in the context of JRGD, as a case study. The
framework is implemented by integrating a CAD system with a logical inference engine. We
test the framework by attempting to automatically match structures with possible
metaphoric interpretations, stored in a knowledge base. A direct consequence of this study isthe extension of our ability to inform CAD systems regarding subjective meanings ofstructures for the user. This marks an important step towards reducing the conceptual gap
between the user and the CAD system, with respect to their ability to interpret structures.

5.1 Introduction
Computer-Aided Design (CAD) systems enable designers to create digital representations of
their designs by storing, manipulating and visualizing information regarding the designed
artifact’s configuration (Fujii & Aoki, 2003). Utilizing object-oriented approaches, CAD
systems continuously strive to minimize the gap between the designer’s conceptual
understanding of the artifact being designed, and its digital representation (Kalay, 2004). As
a result, advanced CAD systems are highly informed with respect to the representation’s
denotative meaning in the designer’s conceptual world. This is evident in Building
Information Modeling systems for architecture, where a set of elements is often associatedwith a higher-level entity; for example, a set of window parts is encapsulated in a single objectof a window, informing the system of this high-level denotation.
Contrary to this, most systems are less informed regarding the representation’s connotative
meaning in the designer’s mind. This chapter proposes an implementable framework forconcept representation in CAD environments, to enable designers inform the system
regarding possible connotative meanings of spatial configurations, in a given context. This isconducted by representing and storing spatial configurations as high-level descriptions,enabling designers to encapsulate desirable design typologies in concise verbal expressions.
The proposed framework was implemented and tested in the context of JRGD, by storing

66 Published in “Computer Aided Design and Applications” ; see (Kahlon & Fujii, 2020b).

A Framework for Representation of RIs in a CAD System: a Case Study of JRGD

popular rock configuration typologies as short verbal descriptions, and retrieving them frommemory.
5.1.1 BackgroundTying desired sets of spatial relations under a single verbal description is an old-time design
practice, evident as early as in the classical Greek orders of architecture (Fig. 5-1), wherecertain proportions and parts are explicitly named as a single entity (i.e. Doric etc.). These
names form a conceptual framework for the design of artifacts, by serving as high-level
abstractions of multiple spatial relations. Such abstractions denote a range of desired design
solutions, while connoting with additional possible meanings that may be attributed to theartifact by the designer. In the above example, the description “Doric” denotes a certain setof column parts and their relative proportions, while connoting the design with the conceptsof masculinity and dignity often attributed to such columns (Onians, 1988).

Figure 5-1 The Greek orders; an early form of formalizing spatial relations; (source: Chitham, 2005).

Facilitating the above practice in current CAD systems will not only enable designers toconstruct digital conceptual frameworks, but will inform the system with respect to highlevel semantic attributes which the designer associates with a given spatial configuration.
How may we formalize this practice, to enable its support by current CAD systems? Various
disciplines such as structural and mechanical design have long recognized the potential andadvantages of informing systems of high-level abstractions, referred to as “features” of thedesign (Catania, 2007; Salomons, van Houten, & Kals, 1993; Shah, 1991). These refer mainly
to structural (Zamanian, Fenves, Thewalt, & Finger, 1991) and functional (Feng, Huang,
Kusiak, & Li, 1996) properties of a given configuration of the designed artifact. We propose
to approach the conceptual descriptions used by designers as a type of visual feature of thespatial configuration.
This chapter examines the practice of assigning spatial configurations with high-level
conceptual descriptions it in the context of JRGD; this has served as suitable grounds for an
initial investigation of this practice, owing to two main considerations: (1) its frugal nature85

5

consisting of a relatively small number of well-defined elements, and (2) its flexibility withrespect to the structure and usage of conceptual descriptions.67
As an abstract form of art, JRGD makes extensive use of conceptual descriptions denoting a
specific design typology, to the extent of offering a composition catalog for designers, as areference for selecting and positioning rocks in the garden space (Slawson & ZoÌen, 1991).
These descriptions are not arbitrary names, but rather connote with high-level meanings
that are attributed to the design. In Figure 5-2(c) we present an example of a configuration
attributed with the concept “Dry Waterfall”. This attribution implies on certain spatial
relations (for example: verticality, downward flowing texture etc.), while tying theconfiguration with connotative meanings external to the designed artifact (the concept ofwater, natural scenery etc.). By analyzing the relation between the spatial configuration andits description in existing compositions, we may progress towards formalizing this practice offorming conceptual descriptions, to implement it in CAD systems.

Figure 5-2 Examples for common typologies serving as high-level conceptual abstractions in JRGD; (a)“Buddhist Triad” (Tōfukuji temple, Kyoto), (b) “Crane Island” (Tōfukuji temple, Kyoto), and (c) “Dry
Waterfall” (Senshūkaku garden, Tokushima; source: japanesegardening.org).

5.1.2 Aim
The aim of this study is to enable users to inform CAD systems regarding possible connotative
meanings of spatial configurations, by storing interpretations within formal descriptions.
5.1.3 Significance and Contribution
The main contribution of this study is the proposed computational framework, which enables
users to assign meaning to the digital representations of their designs, by adding a layer ofhigh-level semantic descriptions. This framework expands the notion of meaning in CAD
systems, enabling designers to embed conceptual information into their digital models.
Among the potential implications are: (1) enabling to store and share conceptual frameworks
and desirable design typologies among designers, (2) contributing to the development of co-Compared with the rigid nature of concepts in Greek architecture, for instance, which allows minimal freedom for designers
when applying the concepts in their designs.
67

86

A Framework for Representation of RIs in a CAD System: a Case Study of JRGD

creative design systems, which are capable of understanding high-level conceptual
abstractions, and (3) supporting automatic semantic enrichment processes in CAD systems.

5.2 Method
This study follows the constructive research methodology, which relies on pragmatist views
in its attempt to bridge between existing theories and practical problems, via the creation of
artifacts (Crnkovic, 2010). Accordingly, in our attempt to address the problem of relating
high-level concepts with structures, we follow a similar process, as outlined below.
In order to establish the proposed framework for tying interpretations with structures wehave: (1) studied this practice in the context of JRGD design, by conducting a literature
review of the traditional manuals (Slawson & ZoÌen, 1991; Takei & Keane, 2001) and by
documenting rock configurations in classical JRGs; (2) devised a standardized syntax toexpress common concepts as sets of lower-level entities; (3) digitized a collection of small
rocks using a desktop 3D scanner and stored them as mesh geometries, as a preparatory stepfor the implementation; (4) implemented the framework by integrating the 3D CAD
environment with a logical inference system; (5) constructed a set of formal concepts andattempted to automatically match them with spatial configurations using our system. 68
5.2.1 Scope
This study focuses solely on the spatial configuration aspect of rock compositions in JRGD,
excluding other JRGD elements from consideration (such as the moss, gravel etc.); while theother elements greatly contribute to the design and affect its interpretation by users, thetraditional manuals of JRGD teach us that the rocks serve as the foundation for the design
activity, and are strongly viewed as the backbone of the design (Van Tonder & Lyons, 2005).69
Accordingly, we have chosen to begin developing the framework by focusing on the rocks,
while keeping in mind the need for extending it to include additional elements in the future.

5.3 The Proposed Framework
The proposed framework is used to construct high-level concepts by combining multiple
lower-level entities (Fig. 5-3). This framework is inspired by Gero’s FBS framework (Gero,
1990) and Gardenfors’s Conceptual Spaces framework (Gärdenfors, 2000). We define fourmain entities: behaviors, relations, meanings and concepts. Each entity is assigned with a
68 A useful outline of the steps in constructive research, which we draw on, can be found in (Lehtiranta et al., 2015).
69 Evidently, the classical manual for general Japanese garden design opens with the words “The art of setting stones”,

reflecting their centrality in this art form (Takei & Keane, 2001).

87

5

formal syntactic representation70, as given in Table 4. The formal syntax enables to harness
logical inference systems for matching spatial configurations with high-level descriptions. A
valid matching of a concept with a spatial configuration is inferred by logically deriving theexistence of the associated lower-level entities in the system.

Figure 5-3 A possible partial formalization of the concept “Dry Waterfall” using our framework.71
Table 4 Syntax and representation of our basic entities.

EntitySyntaxExampleBehavior
Relation
Meaning
Conceptrock(A,has_behavior(type,value))rock(A,has_relation(type,name,B))rock(A,has_meaning(name,B))
concept(concept_name,A,B,C)rock(A,has_behavior(width,1))rock(A,has_relation(size,taller_than,B))rock(A,has_meaning(listening,B))
concept(teacher_and_students,A,B,C)

5.4 Implementation and System Behavior
To implement the framework, we have created a live connection between a 3D environment(Rhinoceros 3d) and an inference system (SWI-Prolog). This implementation enables users
to: (1) create concepts based on pre-defined relations and meanings, (2) generate random
spatial configurations from a digital rock collection, and (3) automatically match given spatialconfigurations with existing concepts. The manner of creating concepts and matching themwith spatial configurations, as well as the system’s structure, are explained below.
5.4.1 Concept Creation
Concepts are represented by rules written in Prolog; a concept is created by combining several
lower-level entities, using the syntax presented previously in Table 4. Users can create
meanings and concepts by selecting and combining relations from a pre-defined relation pool
stored in a knowledge base, via a simple graphical user-interface (GUI), referred to as“concept editor” (Fig. 5-4). In general, all semantic descriptions as well as the newly createdconcepts, are stored in the knowledge base. Relations are divided into three categories (size,
proportion and position) and are either dual or triad (between two or three objects,
accordingly). Table 5 presents the different sub-types for each relation type, while Table 6
further presents three different relations that are associated with a single sub-type.

70 In this, we follow the syntax of the logical programming language Prolog.
71 See Figure 5-2.

88

A Framework for Representation of RIs in a CAD System: a Case Study of JRGD

Figure 5-4 Creating and managing a concept knowledge base by utilizing an automatic parser.

Table 5 Object features and their corresponding predefined relations.

Relation Type

Relation Sub-Types

Size
Proportion
Positionheightself-proportions
side

width
proportion similarity
proximity

depth
proportion difference
overlap

Table 6 Explicit definition of a linguistic description dealing with spatial relations.72

Relation Sub-Type

Relation

Condition

Height“taller”“significantly taller”“tallest”

H1>H2
H1/3>H2
H1>H2 and H1>H3

5.4.2 Matching Concepts with Spatial Configurations
The implemented system enables to automatically match a given spatial configuration ofrocks with a high-level concept, according to the concepts currently defined in the knowledge
base. The process of using the system consist of four main steps, as shown below (Fig. 5-5).

Figure 5-5 Matching concepts with spatial configurations using the system.

In order to enable this matching process, we: (1) read the geometric data from the CAD
environment; (2) parse it as facts in Prolog syntax, to describe the current state of the spatialconfiguration, and store these in the knowledge base; (3) convert the information stored in
the knowledge base into a *.pl Prolog file; (4) run this file to be evaluated by SWI-prolog,
returning the result of the inference process to the user. An overview of the complete system

72 H1, H2, H3 represent the heights of three elements (rocks).

89

5

is presented below in Figure 5-6, and an example of the system’s behavior using a concrete
example is provided in Figure 5-7.

Figure 5-6 Overview of the implemented system.

Figure 5-7 Basic concept-matching for a given configuration via our computational system.

5.5 Results and Discussion
5.5.1 Results
The ability of the system to store interpretations of structures was demonstrated by: (1)defining a set of basic dual and triad spatial relations and meanings, (2) utilizing the above
relations to define a set of eight concepts listed in Table 7, (3) randomly generating spatialconfigurations consisting on three rocks, and (4) auto-evaluating these configurations using
the inference system and recording the matching concepts given as output. Below are four
examples for automatic matchings between configurations and concepts produced by thesystem, as well as a concise breakdown of each concept into lower-level entities (Fig. 5-8).

90

A Framework for Representation of RIs in a CAD System: a Case Study of JRGD

Table 7 The eight concepts defined for testing our implementation.

NumberConcept

NumberConcept

12
34

concept(parent_watching_brothers,A,B,C)
concept(mother_protecting_children,A,B,C)
concept(a_man_with_his_pets,A,B,C)
concept(parents_and_child,A,B,C)

5
6
7
8

concept(teacher_and_students,A,B,C)
concept(couple_with_pet,A,B,C)
concept(a_mountain_range,A,B,C)
concept(mountains_in_the_sea,A,B,C)

Figure 5-8 Examples of automatic matchings between a concept and a spatial configuration; (a) “a mountain
range”, (b) “parent watching brothers”, (c) “a man and his pets”, (d) “mother protecting children”.

5.5.2 Evaluation
When evaluating our system, we: (1) explain how to interpret the results by referring to two
matchings presented above in Figure 5-8, as representative examples; (2) compare it withseveral related systems which take a different computational approach.
First, in order to explain how to interpret the results, we focus on the configuration presented
in Figure 5-8(a). This arrangement was matched with the concept “a mountain range”, via
identifying consecutive overlapping between elements, as well as similarity in orientationand differences in height. Visual overlap is the spatial expression associated with themeaning “two mountains”, which served as the basis for defining the corresponding concept,
along with the demand for a height difference. Therefore, when the system tried to match the91

5configuration with the concepts of “a mountain range”, it identified two couples of “twomountains”, resulting in a successful match with the presented configuration.
For further clarification, we now focus on the composition presented in Figure 5-8(b). This
spatial arrangement was matched with the concept “parent watching brothers”, bysuccessfully matching its rocks with the three meanings of “parent”, “watching” and“brothers”. Each of these demanded a different set of spatial relations: the meaning “parent”
is associated with having a similar vertical orientation, as well as with the demand for being
taller, as fulfilled by the large rock in relation to the smaller ones. Further, the meaning“watching” is expressed by the large rock being positioned relatively far from these, and themeaning “brothers” is expressed by the height similarity between the two small rocks. All ofthese are then combined to generally match with the concept of “parent watching brothers”.
Finally, while this study has taken a traditional AI approach, relying on logical inference asa means for relating meaning with spatial configurations, other researches have approachedsimilar tasks from machine and deep-learning perspectives; this was done both via
supervised processes and unsupervised processes. For example, Karimi et al. (2018) haveused the well-known VGG-16 to detect the potential meaning of sketches (supervised
learning), while Krijnen and Tamke (2015) used outlier detection to identify the coregeometric characteristics of architectural elements such as walls etc. We believe that the key
difference between the two approaches lies in the fact that, while machine learning-based
practices can be seen as a means for feature extraction in this context, our approach is better
seen as a form of “feature construction”; this is due to the fact that meaning is not merely
detected in the configuration, but is also embedded in it by the designer via the creation ofconcepts. Each of these, however, is subject to natural limitations: logical inference demands
a rigorous elaboration of each concept, supervised-learning requires many samples as a basis
for training and unsupervised learning generally ignores important semantic attributes
which enable the intelligibility of a categorization to a human designer. Consequently, we seethem as rather complementary in attempting to relate structures with meanings. Accordingly,
we aim to gradually integrate the other approaches into our work, as further discussed in
5.5.4.
5.5.3 Possibility for Generalization
With respect to the generalizability of the proposed framework - since the framework does
not make any assumptions regarding the nature of the elements under discussion, it isgeneralizable, to a large extent, for a wide range of artistic or design domains consisting of
spatial configurations (architecture, sculpture etc.), including those of a lower dimensionality(graphic design etc.). Yet, utilizing this framework in-practice in a different context would
require a preliminary three-step process of: (1) determining which design elements are to be
represented in the framework, (2) defining the domain-specific behaviors of these elements,
92

A Framework for Representation of RIs in a CAD System: a Case Study of JRGD

and (3) defining the relations between these elements which are domain-specific, given thesebehaviors. In implementing the framework for assigning meanings to spatial configurations
in JRGD, we had followed a similar process of: (1) identifying the rocks as our elements offocus, (2) defining their behaviors such as dimensions, location etc., and (3) defining therelevant relations between them (size, distance etc.). Once this preliminary phase has been
completed, we began assigning meanings to spatial configurations by combining multiple
relations into single meanings. These in-turn were used to structure higher-level concepts,
as presented.
5.5.4 Future WorkWhen discussing our future work, we would like to: (1) mention a possible future direction
for further developing the proposed framework from the perspective of JRGD, (2) propose anadditional future direction from a broader view which may be applicable for any other field
in which the framework is implemented, and (3) conclude with a potential method for testingand verification of computational systems implemented based on our proposed framework.
First, in the context of JRGD, we have chosen to focus on rock elements, and have restricted
our scope to a limited number of variables, i.e. mainly size and proportion. Considering theboundless variety of rocks in nature, incorporating additional rock features such as shape,
texture and color, may enable us to dramatically expand the range of expression in oursystem. We aim to address this in our future research, possibly by integrating a featureextraction module consisting of a convolutional neural network component, to auto-identify
visual features effectively and phrase them as formal entities using our syntax. Moreover,while this study has focused on the selection and placement of rocks, it is both possible anddesirable to further represent additional garden elements (gravel, moss etc.), in order toenable a more comprehensive description of the relation between spatial configuration andmeaning in the garden. Indeed, while rocks undoubtedly serve as key elements in JRGD73,
many compositions receive their meanings from additional elements that are incorporated
into the design.
When examining the framework and the implementation as a whole, another important
aspect which calls for further research is the possibility of auto-formulation of concepts.
Although manual formulation using a GUI is possible, it is a time-costly task which demands
designers to reflect upon their conceptualizations, analyze them and then re-construct themusing the proposed syntax. These burdens can be gradually removed from the process byfurther developing classification modules, to automatically derive formal concepts fromexisting design representations, guided by an input from the designer. This may be seen as

73 Refer back to 5.2.1.

93

5

a type of auto-feature extraction, as already conducted in CAD/CAM processes (Henderson &Anderson, 1984; Liu & Chen, 2002).
Finally, an effective method of evaluating systems constructed using our framework would
potentially consist of a human-in-the-loop-based practice. Since the framework aims toenable designers to communicate conceptual structures in a formal manner, it is importantthat new concepts will be verified either by their creator or by a fellow designer from a closelyrelated discipline, to confirm that the formal description and its spatial expression indeed
match in a human-intelligible manner. Such verification processes may generally consist of:(1) selecting a concept to be examined, (2) auto-generating a large number of random spatialconfigurations, (3) matching the selected concept with these while filtering out irrelevant
configurations, (4) presenting the subject with the remaining configurations which matched
the concept for evaluating the adequateness of each via grading, and (5) using these grades
to revise the original concept by adding further restrictions and demands onto the spatialconfiguration, to correspond with the configurations ranked highly by the testing subject.

5.6 Conclusion
A framework for storing metaphoric interpretations of structures was proposed, implemented
and tested, in the context of JRGD. The framework enables to formulate and store high-level
metaphoric descriptions, and their spatial interpretation, within concise linguistic
expressions. These expressions (referred to as “concepts”) are representative of metaphoricphrases which constitute the agent’s vocabulary, used in interpretation. As such, theirformalization facilitates the basis for knowledge representation of interpretation processes
in design. This marks a step towards modeling interpretation activity, towards its
implementation in computational design systems.
However, a realistic implementation of interpretation in a computational system demands
the capacity to automatically assign our stored concepts, when designing. The next project
explores the ways in which designers assign interpretations in practice, for modeling thisprocess based on empirical data from design-cognition.

94

Chapter 6 Towards Modelling RI as a Situated
Activity: A Case Study of JRGD74
In the previous chapters we have established a thought-framework for interpretation activity,and proposed a way to represent single interpretations within computational systems. This
chapter aims to further our understanding of interpretation of structure, by observing how
designers assign interpretations in-practice, when designing. Accordingly, it asks thefollowing question: how can we model the assignment of RIs in-action, in conceptual design?
We record and analyze novice designers as they engage in interpretation, during a conceptual
design task of designing a miniature JRG. In this, we focus on the common practice ofdrawing analogical mappings between structures and linguistic descriptions (i.e. themetaphorical interpretation). We then develop a framework for relating physical structureswith linguistic descriptions in-action.
The main contribution of this study is a conceptual toolkit for systematically inquiring into
cognitive phenomena, focusing on interpretation of structure in design. Since this toolkit isgrounded in theoretical design models, as well as in empirical data from design activity, itboth deepens our theoretical understanding of interpretation practices and enhances ourability to model them, for their implementation in artificial agents.

6.1 Introduction
In recent years there is a growing interest in constructing autonomous agents for conducting
design tasks (Cai, Tang, & Li, 2019; Groenewolt, Schwinn, Nguyen, & Menges, 2018).
Considering the potential of CAD tools to support conceptual design, research is conducted
to develop computational systems for aiding in ideation and exploration (Jowers et al., 2008),
encouraging conceptual shifts (Karimi et al., 2018) and more. Utilizing empirical data forformalizing practices of conceptual design can significantly contribute to further developmentof such systems.
In this study, we approach interpretation by integrating theoretical models of situatedcognition (Clancey, 1997; Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004) with empirical data from design
activity. Specifically, we focus on interpretation of structures of physical entities in spatialconfiguration design, in the context of JRGs, as a case study (Fig. 6-1). Simple interpretations

74 Presented at the “Design Computing and Cognition ‘20” conference, December 2020; see (Kahlon & Fujii, 2020b).

6

are formally represented and their contribution to design activity is considered, from theperspective of situatedness in design.

Figure 6-1 Spatial configuration and interpretation in JRG; (a) Mt. Hōrai in at Ryōgen-in, Kyoto & in apainting by T. Tessai; (b) composition by a subject & a photo of Yellow Mountain (Huangshan), China.

6.1.1 Spatial Configuration and Interpretation
The initial design phase of artifacts is often guided by a symbolic description, generated by
the designer in attempt to mentally frame the design activity, and give it coherence as awhole (Hey & Agogino, 2007). Such descriptions, which often take the form of metaphor or
analogy (Casakin, 2006), are the product of a continuous interaction between the designer
and the artifact, as an act of interpretation in-action. The practice of producing and using
these descriptions, referred to in this work as RIs, is fundamental to conceptual design
activity (Goldschmidt, 1988).
6.1.2 Situatedness a Basis for Approaching Interpretation of Structure
Situated models for design (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004), which are based on the situatedapproach to cognition (Clancey, 1997), consider design activity as an interaction between theexternal world and the internal world of the designer. Accordingly, they can potentiallyexplain the emergence of conceptual interpretations from designers’ interaction with theirenvironment. We utilize this approach, and specifically the situated function-behaviorstructure framework (situated FBS; Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004), to analyze the manner inwhich designers employ RIs during design activity.

6.2 Aim, Objectives and Scope
This chapter aims to shed light on the manners in which designers assign RIs, when engaging
in conceptual design activity. Our main objectives are: (1) document conceptual design
activity, (2) identify how designers assign RIs consisting of symbolic descriptions toambiguous formations of physical entities, (3) construct a basic vocabulary for describing RIs
from the perspective of situated cognition, and (4) utilize it to relate RIs with subsequent
courses of action in design.

96

Towards Modelling RI as a Situated Activity: A Case Study of JRGD

6.3 SignificanceThis study contributes to our understanding of visual interpretation in conceptual design, byrelating RIs with their analogical basis, in the context of the design situation in which they
emerged. Consequently, it may aid in: (1) constructing design agents capable of actively
supporting conceptual design activity, for implementation in future CAD systems, byinterpreting design representations in-action; (2) adapting current situated design models
for describing visual interpretation activity.

6.4 Method
In accordance with our aim and objectives, we: (1) document an activity of designing a modelof a miniature JRG; (2) extract analogies used to facilitate dependencies between design
elements, and their underlying conceptual metaphors, by analyzing the design protocol; (3)identify key-elements in relating structure and interpretation across the three design worldsof the situated FBS framework (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004), with the aid of other formal
models for design; (4) discuss the contribution of these key elements to subsequent design
activity.
6.4.1 Task and Setup
We devised a task of spatial configuration using a table-sized model of a JRG (Fig. 6-2).
Subjects were asked to design a “garden” to their liking by selecting and positioning rocks
from a small collection, with the constraint of refraining from stacking rocks (as in traditional
JRG). The main design challenge lay in: (1) construing the task by defining the design
theme75; (2) coordinating the selection and placement of rocks with one’s interpretations. The
task is situated in the sense that the designer develops all of the above on-the-fly, whileinteracting with the model.

75 The subjects need to construe the meaning of “a garden”; similar to the work by (Goldschmidt, 1988) mentioned in 2.1.4.

97

6

Figure 6-2 Experiment environment: setup and documentation.

The task was deemed suitable for the purpose of this study for several reasons, and mainly
for: (1) JRGs’ frugality, which renders them as a manageable environment for effectively
exploring interpretation activity, considering the limited amount of design elements etc., and(2) the abstract and representational character of JRGs, which naturally encourages
interpretation.
Sessions were generally capped at 30 minutes, to constrain the conceptual complexity
involved in the design (however extended if the subject asked to continue in order to complete
his/her design).
6.4.2 Data Collection and Processing
We employ the think-aloud method, instructing participants to design while expressing theirconsiderations and deliberations, by voicing out their internal dialogue. Speech and actions
are recorded using video cameras from two angles (top, front).
To facilitate designing in a think-aloud style, we preceded sessions with basic preliminary
guidance. As explained by Rankin: "The importance of practice cannot be overemphasized.
The subjects need to be introduced to the thinking aloud task before they can be expected toperform it" (Rankin, 1988, p.125). Accordingly, subjects were first asked if they are familiar
with designing in this manner, and whether they have done it before. In cases where a subject
did not have practical experience in the think-aloud method, we held a practice run with asimple task (for example, selecting a rock out of the collection which they like etc.). Insteadof modeling (i.e. demonstrating) the manner in which they should think aloud, subjects were
simply prompted to share more details, when their speech seems too-concise or rather
reserved (Gibson, 1997). In such cases, we did not provide specific directions on how to do so,
nor direct feedback on their performance.
Sessions were transcribed from the audio recordings. To establish a rich documentation, ourtranscriptions included literal utterances (by the subjects and the observer) and descriptivecomments by the observer. Images presenting various states of the model were extracted
from each video. Each design move, defined as an operation on knowledge (Goldschmidt,98

Towards Modelling RI as a Situated Activity: A Case Study of JRGD2014), was represented by a single image. The audio-visual data was synthesized into textimage sequences, as a unified documentation of the design session.
6.4.3 Data Analysis Using State Diagrams
The amount of information relevant to interpretation activity, even in a brief design session,
can be daunting. In order to understand the relations between events in design, it is usefulto establish a visual representation system. Visualization aids in getting a better
understanding of a design session, by exposing unnoticed connections between actions,decisions etc. Since we are concerned with relating the structure with its interpretation, we
need to keep track of small changes made to the structure over short periods of time, alongwith changes in the interpretation. Tracking the design process in this manner, enables us
to expose informative relations between structures and their interpretation.
Towards this aim, over the course of our research we have developed an assistive visual
representation method which we term as “state diagram”. State diagrams reflect:►

the objective state of the structure►

the assignment, aggregation, alteration and emergence of interpretations of it►

the relations between the above

A state diagram is generally composed of a collection of states, representing a single orseveral tightly-related subsequent design moves, extracted using protocol analysis. Eachstate is dissected into three layers, according to the three worlds of the situated FBS
framework76, so that: (1) the structure, i.e. the physical entities are represented at the 1st
layer (external world); (2) interpretations and descriptions of the structure are represented
at the 2nd layer (interpreted world); (3) intentions regarding future states of the design are
represented at the 3rd layer (expected world). An example for a state diagram is given below.77

76 By (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004); refer back to 2.2.3.
77 This analysis method is further discussed and demonstrated in chapter 6.

99

6Figure 6-3 State diagram reflecting the relations between interpretation and structure;relying on (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004); right: notation used in session analysis.78

When constructing state diagrams, we always analyze the activity chronologically, in theorder of the events as they have occurred in practice. However, it is important to note that,currently, there is little importance to time as-such, i.e. to the actual duration of each action
performed by the subjects. Accordingly, time durations are not graphically reflected in these
diagrams. This is due to the fact that the same actions may be performed in different speedsby different subjects, depending on the subjects and their circumstances. Therefore, insteadof focusing on time durations, we focus on the chronological sequence of events. This helps us
in graphically mapping the manners in which the relations between the objective structure
and its subjective interpretation are co-developed throughout the session.
6.4.4 Participant Selection
A total of 10 individuals were recruited for conducting the deign task. All participants holdat least a bachelor’s degree in a visual design discipline (for example, Architectural Design,
Industrial Design etc.). With respect to the skill level of the participant - most sessions wereconducted with novice designers, with minor practical experience in design offices or inarchitectural firms.
It is important to emphasize, however, that the task chiefly aimed at eliciting interpretationin the context of conceptual design in general, to enable us to understand the basic structureof this activity. From this perspective, neither superior design experience nor specificbackground knowledge about JRGD were necessary. Therefore, while the study could

78 Expanded upon in 6.7.

100

Towards Modelling RI as a Situated Activity: A Case Study of JRGD

theoretically benefit in future stages from including highly-skilled designers as participants,
the chosen skill level of the participants is appropriate for this study.79

6.5 Identifying Interpretations and their Analogical Basis
6.5.1 Interpretation and Analogy
As previously mentioned, a powerful strategy by which designers structure theirunderstanding of design tasks is via the usage of conceptual descriptions, such as RI. One
basis for effectively assigning such descriptions is the existence of similarities between
attributes and relations among the design elements and those among other entities,
belonging to a domain which the designer is familiar with (source). This enables to intuitively
project these onto the existing structure (target), as a form of analogy-based interpretation.
Furthermore, as similarity-based mappings between objects or entities, analogies serve as
the basis for analogical reasoning. Analogical reasoning enables us to extend our knowledge
from a familiar domain (source) into a less-familiar one (target), via retrieving such mappings
and utilizing them for making further inferences (Holyoak & Thagard, 1996). Accordingly,
they can serve as drivers for reasoning in interpretation.
6.5.2 Three Levels of Analogical Mapping
Analogical mappings are generally classified into three types, based on the level at whichsimilarity is identified: attribute mapping (AM), relational mapping (RM) and structure
mapping (SM80)(Gentner, 1983; Holyoak & Thagard, 1996). We rely on these for extracting
and analyzing analogical mappings from design sessions. Below is a brief explanation
including a simple example for each.
In AM, two things are deemed similar owing to a shared attribute, for example: an orange
and a basketball are both round and thus similar in this respect. In RM, similarity isidentified between relations, e.g. on a higher level, for example: a bear cub and a kitten areboth younger than their parents, and therefore share this relation. In SM, similarity occurs
on an even higher level of abstraction. Gentner provides the example of similarity between ahydrogen atom and the solar system - both contain an element which revolves around another(Gentner, 1983).

79 In fact, this also benefitted us by enabling to constrain the complexity of the activity to some extent. Additionally, see theimportant related work by Schön, which relied on participants from a similar skill level (Schön, 1993).
80 Alternatively referred to as “system mapping”.

101

6

6.5.3 Extracting Interpretations from Design Sessions
On the basis of the above classification, RIs were extracted from design sessions via protocol
analysis, while consulting the visual documentation. We now present several interpretations
at varying levels of complexity, each accompanied by the analogy employed at the time offormation (Fig. 6-4). These are then summarized in Table 8, which also provides a simplified
formalization for possible analogical mappings corresponding with the RI.
Interpretation 6-4(a) presents a rock referred to by a subject as “an old storyteller”. Old age
was attributed to the rock owing to its rugged surface form, resembling the rough surface ofan elderly person’s wrinkled skin, i.e. a simple AM was employed.
In 6-4(b) we see a slightly more complex RM, under which the larger rock is interpreted as“a background” for the smaller one, justified by their spatial relations of front and back. In
the accompanying image, a large bush serves as a “background”, for a smaller one.81
Finally, 6-4(c) relies on a SM in which the similarity between the target and its source occurs
on the level of human experience. Visitors to Honpukuji Temple (explicitly referred to by the
subject) begin by climbing a staircase bounded by a narrow hall, which then leads to a vast
open space. This contrast elicits a feeling of surprise and discovery, which the subject tried
to embed in the design by placing a row of similarly-sized rocks leading to a significantly
larger one.

Figure 6-4 Examples for RI in design and possible associated sources:(a) “old person”, (b) “a background”, and (c) “journey of discovery”. 82

Interpretations, however, are not merely passive labels attached by designers to the artifact
on analogical (or any other) grounds. They are, in fact, powerful drivers for developing a
conceptual understanding of the design activity, by helping to structure the relations between
design elements (Hey et al., 2008). This is highly noticeable in cases where the analogy

81 While this mapping is established based on the existence of simple spatial relations, it may be further elaborated by finding

additional similarities between the source and target. For example, the flatness of the larger element may suggest the flatnessof a canvas, as a background for a painting etc.
82 See Table 8 for further details; sources: (c) Honpukuji Temple, Tadao Ando, Awaji island, Japan (japan-magazine.jnto.go.jp).

102

Towards Modelling RI as a Situated Activity: A Case Study of JRGD

exposes a hierarchical order, which guides the designer’s understanding of the current
situation, as discussed in the following section.
Table 8 Interpretations & their supporting analogies.83

FocusedAspect“an old
apparent
storyteller”
age“a background visual(object)”
composition“journey ofuser
discovery”
experience

Item InterpretationabcAnalogical Mapping
rough-texture(old-person)→rough-texture(rock-a)behind(background,foreground)→ behind(rock-a,rock-b)
journey(user,rock-sequence)→ journey(user,space-sequence)

Type
AM
RM
SM

6.6 Relating Structure and RI via Element Dependencies
Interpretation by analogy often invites attributes and relations from external reality, into
the designer’s internal world. By projecting these onto the design elements (whether
explicitly or implicitly), the designer begins to conceptually understand the design as a
unified construct, which corresponds in some manner to constructs in the external world. Theinternal construct may then be further interpreted and reasoned about, based on thedependencies between its elements.
We first introduce the notion of design worlds in the situated FBS framework, as a basis foranalyzing interpretation activity. This is followed by concrete examples of interpretations
from design sessions which are structured hierarchically, as well as the contribution of theseto the designer’s understanding of design activity.
6.6.1 Hierarchical Relations in Analogies Used by Participants
We begin by extracting and analyzing simple analogies which include a notion of hierarchy.
Several examples, used by participants during design sessions, are provided below in Figure
6-6.
In what sense are these of a hierarchical nature? While in each RI different relations occur
between the design elements84, in all underlie conceptual superiority-inferiority relations,reflected in the dependencies of certain elements on others (Kahlon & Fujii, 2019b). Thesecan be identified from various perspectives: for example, in 6-6(a) children may depend on
the old man for guidance (social), while in 6-6(e) the growth of petals depends on the existenceof the body of the flower (part to whole).

83 This is complementary to Fig. 6-4.
84

For example, 6-6(a) entails an age difference, while 6-6(e) a part-to-whole relation.

103

6

Figure 6-5 Interpretation via analogy containing a hierarchical component.

The identification and selection of some dependencies rather than others during RI activity
is related with the notion of aspectual shape (Searle, 2004), and is beyond the scope of thisstudy. It is important to emphasize, however, that regardless of a specific aspect a designer
may focus on, utilizing an analogy of a hierarchical nature results in the projection of roles
upon the design elements. These roles help to further structure design activity, as explainedin the following sub-section.
6.6.2 Structuring the Interpreted World via Roles
Since RIs (such as the above) determine the meaning of design elements for the designer,
they also determine their potential contribution to the design activity, from the internal
perspective of the designer. Consequently, they are essential building blocks of ourinterpreted world. Therefore, relating RIs with their grounding in the external world can aid
in understanding and describing the interpreted world. This can be done on the basis ofhierarchical dependencies, revealed by metaphoric roles.
Before proceeding, however, it is important to further elaborate the notion of RI: (1) thecomplete symbolic description assigned to the composition, which generally frames the theme
for the design, will be referred to hereafter as “RI”; and (2) the function description projected
onto a physical design element, by relating it with a referent external to the design, will bereferred to as “role” (see Table 9).
Now, consider the example in Fig. 6-7 below, in which the designer had interpreted a tworock composition as “rock with plants growing under it”. Under this RI, one rock (e1) is simply
seen as a rock (r1), while the other (e2) as plantation (r2) growing under the former. The rocks
in the external world thus correspond with roles in the interpreted world.

104

Towards Modelling RI as a Situated Activity: A Case Study of JRGD

Figure 6-6 Correspondence between entities in the external and interpreted worlds.85

This simple correspondence, however, goes beyond mere denotation. Brereton has pointed
out the importance of “negotiation” between material and abstract representations inconceptual design, which provides designers with opportunities for further structuring
current representations (Brereton, 2004).86 Each description assigns an element with a role,
which is to be conceptually fulfilled by its bearer. Fulfillment of a role may be seen as
maintaining certain relations with other elements, as to correspond with their external worldreferents. This can be understood on two different levels: first, the interpretation imposescertain spatial relations between the elements. For example, continuing with Fig. 6-7, oncethe small rock has been assigned with the role of “plantation growing under…”, it is expected
to sit beneath the larger one, and perhaps close to it. More fundamentally, however, we canuncover a powerful conceptual metaphor, which underlies the hierarchical relations resulting
from the assigned roles, and thus guides design activity. Hierarchy implies dependency, anddependency implies control. Accordingly, moving the larger rock for some reason will entail
considerations regarding its subordinate “plant” rock. The dependency from the internal
world is thus translated into dependency in the external world, and the two worlds are linked
by metaphoric roles.

6.7 Modelling RI in-Action from a Situated Perspective
Smith and Gero note that, when perceiving, agents interact with focused objects to constructinterpretations regarding their potential, rather than their current identity or denotation(Smith & Gero, 2001). This is, of course, highly related with the act of “seeing as”, which
served as a basis for the discussion so far. Objects’ potentials, reflected by their interpretation,
may be further described as their possible contribution to the design process. This potential
is determined by a combination of objective attributes and relations as well as subjective
impressions of these, i.e. via interaction between the external and interpreted worlds.
Therefore, RI can only be fully accounted for by representing both the former, the latter, andthe relation between them.

85 On the basis of the situated FBS framework by (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004).
86 And thus, providing opportunities for structuring their interpreted world.

105

6

We propose a structured approach for representing and analyzing RI in design, based on
empirical data from design activity, as well as theoretical models for situated design (Gero &Kannengiesser, 2004) and analogy-based design (Qian & Gero, 1996). We begin by defining
key terms (Table 9) and provide an example for the graphical notation used in our analysis(Fig. 6-7).
Table 9 Important terms for modeling RI activity and their definition.

Term

Definition

Element
Attribute
Expected Behavior
Role

An indivisible physical part of the design, or its representation87
A single property of an element88
A behavior which is to intended to be brought about by design activity89
Interpretive function description of an element as defined by a RI
Descriptive expression assigned to an element or its role in the course ofdesign by the designer, in an explicit manner
The domain of discourse which is implied by the protocol
A segment of the design session after which change is observed

FeatureDomainState

Figure 6-7 Notation used in analysis; left: a transition between two states90; right: session analysis legend.

6.7.1 Situated Interpretation and Action
We now present and discuss several important aspects of interpretation activity, from theperspective of situated design. We focus here on three operations named: role assignment,
constructive elaboration, and detachment.
Role assignment consists of naming design elements as to denote referents external to thedesign. In Fig. 6-9 the subject began by considering size (“I will pick a smaller one”) with thegoal of creating “a small place for people to walk around”, followed by the suggestion of ageneral domain of interest (“I really like modern cities”). The structure was thus assignedwith the role of a city (r1), which prompted a size-based selection (“pick something bigger”) ofa thin element (e2) to serve as a “skyscraper” (r2), also based on a proportion attribute (a1).
Consequently, an element (e6) was added as a “smaller building” (r3).

87 Similar to “primitive element” in (Qian & Gero, 1996).
88 Similar to attribute in (Qian & Gero, 1996)
89 As in the situated FBS framework.
90 Notice that these are the worlds of situated FBS (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004).

106

Towards Modelling RI as a Situated Activity: A Case Study of JRGD

Figure 6-8 Role assignment; e2 and e6 are interpreted as a skyscraper and a building, accordingly.
Table 10 Complementary to Figure 6-8; Selected states and their representation.91

State Utterance
t6
t10
t11
t15

Representation“I will pick a smaller one… I really like very modern
cities like Tokyo and New York”“to symbolize the image of city… I would pick somebigger thing to help create...the framework”“it looks like...how to say...a building, a tallskyscraper”“and also…some smaller ones beside the skyscraper”

f1=feature(e1,small)
f4=feature(X,metropolitan)
r1=role(S,city)
f5=feature(e2,bigger)
r2=role(e2,skyscraper)
a1=attribute(e2,proportion)
r3=role(e6,building)Figure 6-9 Simultaneous roles assignment; role projection from gestalt perception.92

91 The full transcript for this session is given under A.2.3 in the Appendix.
92 The full transcript for this session is given under A.2.2 in the Appendix.

107

6

Figure 6-10 RI elaboration based on initial roles assigned to an element.
Table 11 Complementary to Figure 6-10; selected states and their representation.93

State

Utterance

Representation0“like an old man”
“has some stories to tell”“maybe he has suffered a lot”
“we can see…small bumps”“and maybe some…”“...(these are the) next generation around
him…the children are listening to his
stories…they are sitting around”“…they should be face to face”

r1=role(e1,old-man)
f1=feature(r1,has-stories)
f2=feature(r1,suffered)b1=behavior(a1,bumpy)
X=?
X= e2; r3=role({e2,e3},children);
f3=feature(r3,next-generation);
f4=feature(r3,sitting); f5=feature(r3,listening)b2=behavior(r3,face-to-face)

t
t1
t1
t3
t5
t6-7
t8

In Figure 6-10 we provide an example of role assignment for multiple elements, induced bygestalt perception. The subject saw a “connecting line” 94 , which then prompted theinterpretation of each rock as a “dot” (e1, e2, e3), resulting in the selection and addition of anelement to continue the perceived line (e5).

93 The full transcript for this session is given under A.2.1 in the Appendix.
94 Notice that this element only exists only in the interpreted world.

108

Towards Modelling RI as a Situated Activity: A Case Study of JRGD

After assigning roles to design elements, it is also possible (and in fact common) to extend
the interpretation, by constructively elaborating roles for the other elements as well, as abasis for their selection and positioning. This can be seen in the short segment, given above
in Figure 6-11. The designer deemed the first rock (e1) as “old man” (r1), and expanded its
description by adding that “it has some stories to tell” (f1) etc. These interpretativedescriptions, grounded in the designer’s RI by the AM95, have directed the next course ofaction - the designer chose to add rocks (e2,e3) as “children” (r3) to “listen to his stories”, andfinally determined they should be “face to face” (b2), thus removing an incompatible element,
which was not “facing” the old storyteller (e4).

Figure 6-11 “Flower and fallen petal”; a simple example of attribute detachment. 96

Detachment deals with the intuitive transference of entities (attributes, features, roles etc.)from one element to others, during the design process. As an example, we present Figure 612 in which the initially selected rock (e1) was removed, only to be replaced by a different
rock positioned in the same location (e2). The original rock helped the designer to establish
the position for the first element in the space, but could not stand due to its form. Its position
attribute was transferred to the next element, which served as the first element in the actual
final composition that represented a flower.

6.8 Discussion
We have attempted to systematically approach RI activity by identifying entities which lie at
its core. These entities were then used to model design sessions, in a manner which enables
to trace some of the contributing factors for the assignment of different RIs. We now focus on

95 The mapping here can be formulated as [rough(rock-surface)→rough(elderly-skin)]96 The full transcript for this session is given under A.2.7 in the Appendix.

109

6

the relevance of the three phenomena, presented in the previous section, to understanding
interpretation in-action.
First, when discussing the issue of concept formation, Gero asks “where do concepts comefrom?” (Gero, 1998a). Analogically, we can raise the following important question: where do
RIs come from? Viewing interpretation as an act of attributing meaning to design elements,
and considering the importance of metaphoric roles for RI, it may be useful to first attempt
to explain how metaphoric roles are attributed. As shown in Fig. 6-9, while roles often havean analogical basis, their emergence in the design process cannot be accounted for merely on
the basis of analogical relations, but only as an interaction between different design worlds.
In this specific case, the role emerged at least as a product of: (1) the focused domains of
discourse, i.e. scale, metropolitans etc.; (2) the decision to start with a large element, “to set
the framework”; and (3) the form of the rock. This points to the potential of expanding thesituated FBS framework to include discursive factors contributing to the design. For example,
the current domain of discourse, which helps in shaping the course of action, and thus may
affect or trigger different processes and transformations.
Second, Clancey (1997) maintains that one core phenomenon in situatedness is thereassignment of meanings, as a result of perceiving changes in the environment. Constructive
elaboration thus enables the extension of interpretation over a period of time, during which
reconsideration and revision can take place. This is consistent with the emphasis on theimportance of time extension in perception processes, as propagated by Neisser (1976). For
example, in Fig. 6-11 the physical properties of the rock first served to construct a
spontaneous RI (“old man”) which was further sophisticated by elaborating suitable roles forthe other elements (“children listening to his stories”). This was not done in a strict serial
manner, but rather as an act of coordination, characterized by a simultaneous adjustment of
the RI and the spatial relations. Hence, both the structure and the RI were conjointly
conceived and reconceived.
Third, the phenomenon of detachment may reflect designers’ tendency to try and maintainpositive aspects of a structure, while essential changes are made to it. This is rendered
possible by projecting properties of certain elements onto others, as an act of establishing an“element lineage”, linking generations by inheritance 97 . The subject’s attachment to theinitial placement in Fig. 6-12 resulted in its “survival”, despite other inevitable changes (i.e.
replacing an unstable element).
All of the above point to the strong potential of analyzing RI activity from a situatedperspective, which enables to understand complex events in design activity as a result of

97 We thank Barbara Reicher for suggesting this metaphoric description of the phenomenon.

110

Towards Modelling RI as a Situated Activity: A Case Study of JRGD

several, lower-level factors. We believe that further inquiry into recurrent patterns ininterpretation, based on the proposed modeling approach, can lead to identification ofimportant processes which are essential for RI activity. This may aid in formalizing suchprocesses to be used in intelligent computational design systems.
6.8.1 Implications
The main implications are now briefly discussed. In recent years, research is conducted todevelop computational design support systems which can effectively propose automaticinterpretations to visual content. Such systems can benefit from the identification of keyentities and phenomena which characterize interpretation as a situated activity. The former
can be used for creating explicit representations in a knowledge base, to enable further
reasoning; the latter for considering new interpretation strategies, based on empirical datafrom designers.
The system developed by Karimi et al. proposes alternative visual interpretations for
sketches made by a designer (Karimi et al., 2018). In a related manner, the system by Jowers
et al. enables recognition and manipulation of sub-shapes, as a basis for re-interpretation(Jowers et al., 2008). These systems, for instance, may be further developed to consider
potential roles of design elements, as well as deeper sets of relations between them, as a basis
for interpretation in conceptual design. Such efforts may be assisted by existing research on
the role of metaphor and analogy in design (Casakin, 2006; Hey et al., 2008), and specificallyon formally relating metaphoric descriptions with spatial configurations (Kahlon & Fujii,2019).
Furthermore, in other design fields such as engineering design, analogy is often used forconcept generation, by locating “functionally relevant” (Fu et al., 2015) sources, to inform or
inspire the designer regarding the task at hand. Given that the designer is reasoning withrespect an existing structure, the ability to locate relevant sources by analogy is restricted by
the manner in which the structure is encoded (Linsey, Laux, Clauss, Wood, & Markman,
2007). Including high level descriptions (when encoding), such as metaphoric roles of
elements, can enhance our ability to relate sources with targets; by enriching the descriptionof the structure with possible interpretations, as to identify similarities on a conceptual level.
6.8.2 Limitations
We mention several important aspects of the work which demand attention in the next stepsof development, the first being the complexity of the structures under consideration. In
contrast with the previously mentioned framework by Qian and Gero (1996), which discusses
complex elements (referred to as “substructures”), we currently account only forinterpretation of single elements (“primitives”) and thus only deal with relatively simple
structures. However, while JRG design activity does not enable actual physical attachment

111

6

between elements to create compound objects, it is possible to consider compositions ofseveral rocks as substructures, once they are visually grouped in a certain manner (Van
Tonder & Lyons, 2005). Complexity may be further considered at the element-level as well,
via enabling representation at different degrees of abstraction, encouraging different RI (byincreasing the variety in our rock collection, or by repeating the task with different design
elements).
Additionally, it is important to acknowledge a knowledge gap which should be filled, in orderto implement our insights in artificial agents. Although computational systems can draw on
this work for enhancing their ability to assign interpretation98, it is necessary to go beyond
the identification of these, and towards modeling their complex interactions, which are an
essential part of how designers engage in RI.

6.9 Conclusion
A systematic approach for studying the assignment of interpretations in design was proposedand demonstrated, via conducting and analyzing a simple design task in the context of JRGD.
Our approach enables to map important relations between structures and interpretations, as
they emerge and change, when reasoning in design. Consequently, it enables to track andidentify various factors which drive the assignment of interpretations (as reflected in our
analysis and discussion of interpretation-related phenomena). It can thus be regarded as avaluable tool for drawing insights from design-cognition, towards enabling artificial agentsto assign interpretations during design activity.
However, tracking specific contributing factors99 is insufficient for describing how designers
navigate through and reason in interpretation activity. This is due to the fact that these areembedded within subjective mental frames, which underlie (and thus strongly drive) our
reasoning processes. Therefore, to truly understand how designers assign interpretations, weneed to try and take their perspective of the design process. The next project deals with thischallenge.

98 By integrating the various factors that we have identified as contributive to interpretation.
99 Such as the domain of discourse, physical properties of elements etc.; refer back to 6.7.

112

Chapter 7 Interpretation as an Act ofWorldmaking
In the previous chapters we have laid the foundation for systematically approachinginterpretation activity by: (1) providing a theoretical thought-framework for its description,(2) proposing a formal framework for representation of interpretations, and (3) suggesting apractical modeling approach for inquiring into how designers assign interpretations, when
designing. In this chapter, we further deepen our inquiry by studying the ways in whichinterpretation activity itself is subjectively experienced by the designer. Accordingly, we
approach the following question: how can we model the designer’s perspective during theassignment of RIs?
As previously shown, when interacting with structures 100 , designers often rely on
metaphorical descriptions as interpretive devices. Interestingly, these may result in theformation of loose narratives which frame the task at hand, utilized as powerful devices for
gaining high-level conceptual understanding (and thus control) of the design process. As such,these narratives bear important information about the designer’s perspective, when
designing. This chapter proposes a way to model this practice of forming interpretive
narratives, by harnessing state-of-the-art models for situated design, as well as theories fromdiscourse analysis and the philosophy of mind.
The task of designing a miniature JRG is repeated, this time in teams. We observe how
subjects work in couples and weave simple narratives, as interpretive frames, and introduce
an approach for modeling this practice, as a means for looking into the designer’s mental
world. This results in a new view of interpretation of structure, as an act of world making.
We thus propose a notion that we term as “narrative worlds” – interpretive worlds used togain high-level control of the design process. This notion not only extends our reach beyond
the components and into the dynamics of interpretation, but also opens a window to themental image held by the designer, which underlies and thus shapes the design process. As
such, it advances our understanding of the subjective dimension of interpretation activity,
towards the enhancement of artificial agents targeting interpretation.

100 The reader should keep in mind that by “structure” we refer either to the artifact or its representation.

7

7.1 Introduction
In 1979, Jane Darke pleaded for embracing subjective aspects into the study of design
processes (Darke, 1979). The plea was answered, resulting in research work which closely
examined design from the perspective of the designer. One subject of study in which
subjective factors were acknowledged was the study of interpretation.
Goldschmidt, for example, has demonstrated how architectural design students construed
the same task in very different manners, when designing a small residential unit that needed
to conform to the idea of a “cube” (Goldschmidt, 1988). Another key-example can be found in
the work by Schön, who proposed that different designers inhabit different “design worlds”,
shaped by their individual knowledge and design experience (Schön, 1988).
Our work aims to further these efforts of (to borrow Darke’s phrase) “looking into thedesigner’s head” (Darke, 1979, p.43). Widely-used approaches for mapping design processes,
such as Linkography (Goldschmidt, 2014), provide us with tools for describing design from athird-person perspective. However, if we are to fully understand interpretation activity, thesemust be complemented by methods which inquire into the designer’s first-person perspective.
We take the general view of interpretation as designers’ attempt to make sense of the current
situation, in-line with Krippendorff’s description of design as a process of ‘sense-making’(Krippendorff, 1989). A powerful form of sense-making in design relies on the usage of
metaphors. Conceptual metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 2003) enable designers to gain highlevel control of the design process (Hey & Agogino, 2007) by conceptually framing tasks undera unifying theme, thus suggesting new perspectives on design situations (Casakin, 2006).
The full power of metaphor comes into play when it serves as the basis for weaving
metaphorical narratives. Narratives can aid in managing complex situations, by enabling us
to frame them in an intelligible, memorable manner (Bowman & Crawford, 2018).
Considering that design regularly deals with complex situations, it is important to study how
may narratives be used as interpretive conceptual tools, to navigate the design process.
As sense-making in design is tightly-linked with the important notion of synthesis (Kolko,
2010a), we study how designers employ narratives to synthesize observations, judgments,
insights etc., into coherent wholes. Our main objective is to examine the manners in whichinterpretations form and develop via what we call “narration-in-action”, to deepen our
understanding of the designer’s internal perspective of the situation.
We observe designers as they make sense of small sets of physical objects in real-time, during
a simple design task. We then utilize recent frameworks for modelling design processes (Gero& Kannengiesser, 2004), along with theories in discourse analysis (Fauconnier, 1994) and in114

Interpretation as an Act of Worldmaking

the philosophy of mind (Searle, 2004), to model interpretation as a process of linking external
and internal reality, via narrative.
The main contribution of this chapter is our notion of “narrative worlds” – these areenvironments in which the mental content involved in interpretation activity can beorganized and visualized. In these worlds, to borrow Uexküll’s phrase of his magic worlds “…fantastic phenomena mingle with the perceptually given things” (von Uexküll, 1934, p.67).
This new notion extends our ability to map and understand the design process, through theeyes of the designer.

7.2 Background7.2.1 Narration-in-action
Bruner has proposed a basic distinction between two modes of thinking and constructing
reality: the “logico-scientific” mode (grounded and rigorous, strives for verifiability) and the“narrative” mode (rather buoyant and free, aims at plausibility or believability) (Bruner,1986). This work looks at design through the lens of the second. How do designers utilize thisthinking mode in their work?
The narrative mode of thinking results in the production of narratives. To facilitate further
discussion, basic concepts from narratology are introduced. A narrative may be defined as“The recounting of a series of facts or events and the establishing of some connection between
them” (Childs & Fowler, 2006, p. 148). Notice that this definition is useful for discussing
narratives in design, as they often tie objects and events in a loose manner, without abiding
to a strict beginning-middle-end structure (Patrick, 2006). According to Chatman, a narrative
is fundamentally composed of a “story” and a “narrative discourse”. The former is concernedwith contents (setting and characters referred to as “existents”; actions and happenings
referred to as “events”), while the latter refers to the form in which it is communicated.
Narrative discourse is further elaborated into “process statements” (those which assert an
event) and “stasis statements” (those which assert the existence of an object in the story).
Finally, as communicative acts, narratives have both senders (the author, for example) andreceivers (Chatman, 1975).
In design, narratives can be used to bridge the basic processes of analysis and synthesis(Patrick, 2006). Considering the tight link between synthesis and sensemaking in design(Kolko, 2010b), as well our natural ability to create narratives and intuitively understandthem, narrative-making seems as an indispensable cognitive device for navigating throughdesign activity. Furthermore, the value of narratives extends well beyond the individual
designer, as pointed out by Lloyd: “storytelling appears to be a central mechanism in the

115

7

development of a common language in design teams” (Lloyd, 2000, p.357). In short, sharednarratives can facilitate the joint development of design solutions (Rao, Moore, Udekwu, &Hartmann, 2020). One of the ways in which narratives aid in sensemaking and navigating
design processes is by “framing” the activity. Dorst describes framing as the generation of a“hypothetical way of looking at the (design) problem” (Dorst, 205, p. 25). How does thisprocess take place?
According to Krippendorff, the process of sensemaking consist of a circular movement
between: (1) sensing, and (2) imagining a hypothetical context, for attributing meaning to thesensed data (Krippendorff, 1989). Kolko explains that these efforts of “finding clarity in chaos”(by synthesizing data into a coherent understanding) are often hidden from external
observers, as design synthesis is commonly done “in the head” (Kolko, 2010, p. 15). This poses
difficulties for understanding how designers engage in interpretation and framing. In theirwork on storytelling in design, Beckman and Barry have explained that designers generally
engage in this practice in two phases: (1) capturing the current situation “as is” within an
initial frame, which serves as a hypothetical context; (2) improving upon the initial frame via
reframing, which opens new possibilities for seeing the design problem (Beckman & Barry,2009). The ability to do so largely relies on our human capacities for interpretation.
Interpretation can be seen as a key process in design, spoken of by Goldschmidt as the “single
most important force in the shaping of design solutions”(Goldschmidt, 1988, p. 235). In thisresearch, interpretation refers to the assignment of symbolic (verbal) descriptions to physicalobjects, when letting one object stand for another. Designers often regularly engage in suchactivity, when working with design representations.101
This interpretive practice is facilitated by our ability to take objects as “epistemicallytransparent”, in the words of Liddament, i.e. to look beyond them, and grasp what they
picture, or represent (Liddament, 2000). When successful, we say that the designer engages
in an act of “seeing as”, a concept introduced into design theory by Goldschmidt in the context
of architectural design sketching (Goldschmidt, 1991), and on the basis of Wittgenstein(Wittgenstein, 1958). It is often the case that interpretations induced by such acts are done
via metaphor, used to draw conceptual mappings to other objects or domains. Since theseenable high-level control of design activity (Hey et al., 2008), they comprise an importantpart of our cognitive apparatus for successfully coping with design situations. Metaphoric
interpretation here means that the designer assigns the artifact (or its parts) with certain
descriptions, so that the literal meaning of the utterance is different from the intended
meaning (Searle, 1990).

101 For example, in architectural design a cardboard box may stand for a building.

116Interpretation as an Act of Worldmaking

We model the practice of gaining such control over a simple design task, by observing
designers as they interpret small collections of physical objects, serving as design
representations. Architectural designers work in couples and weave shared narratives, tomake sense of the design process, as they go, which can be thought of as “distributed
sensemaking” (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). When they form such narratives in realtime, we say that they engage in “narration-in-action”. Narrative here refers to the totalityof metaphorical interpretations and the manners in which they interrelate (story). The
designers are seen at once as both the senders and receivers of a narrative which is weaved
on-the-fly, via verbal utterances (narrative discourse).
7.2.2 Interpretation as World Making
Inspired by the work of Nelson Goodman (Goodman, 1978), Donald Schön, suggested toapproach designers’ work with design representations as an activity of world making (Schön,1988). According to Schön, the interpretation of representations involves the formation ofworlds: “...prototypes are inherently ambiguous, subject to multiple readings, each of which
involves the construction of a different design world” (Schön, 1993, p. 66). Since narrationin-action is an interpretive activity, which takes place when working with design
representations, we rely on his work as a springboard for our inquiry.
In Schön’s account, design worlds are dynamic constructs born out of the designer’sinterpretation, and include both design representations and our concepts of them. Their basic
constituents are:►elements (specific physical parts of the artifact being designed, or theirrepresentation)►

relations (between the elements and their parts)►

groupings (spatial gestalts unifying perceived objects)►

meanings (interpretations attributed to the elements, given certain relations,groupings etc.)►

types (prototypical sources of design knowledge; e.g., “basilica”)►

rules (derived from the designer’s types and used for reasoning; e.g., “rule of thirds”)

Schön refers to his objects of study as “worlds”, implying that he has a whole in mind, foundbehind these constituents. However, he does not tell us how the parts, taken together, form
these worlds as wholes.

117

7

To understand what constitutes a world, we turn back to Goodman’s famous account ofworldmaking (Goodman, 1978). Here, worlds are seen as products of language (in its broadest
sense), which serves as their primary substance: “We can have words without a world but noworld without words or other symbols” (Goodman, 1978, p.6). Jakob von Uexküll102 has taken
a similar position, the basic insight in his work being that worlds are made of signs whichhave meaning for a subject (Brentari, 2013; von Uexküll, 1934). In these views, language
systems facilitate the construction of worlds, by producing various descriptions of reality. A
key point shared by Uexküll and Goodman is that all worlds are world versions103 which,according to Goodman, can be regarded as worlds in themselves: “…for many purposes, rightworld descriptions and world-depictions and world-perceptions, the ways-the-world-is, or justversions, can be treated as our worlds” (Goodman, 1978, p.4). Finally, such versions arealways tied to a given perspective or “frame of reference”:"if I ask you about the world, you can offer to tell me how it is under one ormore frames of reference; but if I insist that you tell me how it is apart fromall frames, what can you say? We are confined to ways of describing whateveris described” (Goodman, 1978, p.3).
In this perspective, worldmaking can be seen as a discursive act of combining symbolic
components into wholes under a given frame. Thus, in considering worlds in general, andspecifically design worlds, the issue of framing requires careful consideration. Schön has
discussed the notion of framing in various works, explaining that the awareness of one’s
frame (via reflection) is critical for performing professionally (Schön, 1984), and that both“rules” and “types” (as he construed them) help in framing design situations (Schön, 1988).
However, his accounts of design worlds and framing remain somewhat disparate, and thelink between them is unclear.
We wish to bring these two strands together, by introducing a design world in which design
representations are conceptually framed through narrative. Referred to as “narrative worlds”,
these aid in viewing design worlds as organized wholes, via visualization of the links between
elements and their interpretations. In this, they shed light on the designer’s perspective of
the situation, and the way it is framed in real time. This endeavor demands the introductionof several conceptual tools for modeling both design processes and the discourse they entail,as discussed hereafter.
7.2.3 Taking the Designer’s Perspective
In-line with Schön’s approach presented above, which draws on the situated approach tocognition (Clancey, 1997; Clark, 1998; R. A. Wilson & Clark, 2009), Gero and Kannengiesser
102 A brilliant biologist and cyberneticist who has dealt extensively with the notion of worlds, which he called “Umwelt”.
103 This is Goodman’s phrase; occasionally appearing simply as “versions”.

118Interpretation as an Act of Worldmaking

have formulated the situated function-behavior-function structure framework (situated FBS)
(Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004).104 Since it acknowledges the interpretive aspect of designing,
we find this framework useful for this study.
Given its general nature, however, the framework cannot fully account for narration-inaction. The transformations in situated FBS occur between sets of abstract entities 105 ,independently of the values assigned to them in practice. In a broader sense, current tools
and methods for modeling design processes tend to emphasize the form of the process overits contents. Some of our most detailed analyses of design cognition106, or recent approaches
for mapping design events and connections between them107, take a similar approach. Since
narration-in-action contains a strong discursive component, we need to equip ourselves withmeans for attending this dimension of designing. We thus complement the above tools withconcepts from discourse analysis and the philosophy of mind, as explained hereafter.
The first concept which we arm ourselves with is that of “intentionality”, viewed as afundamental characteristic of the human mind (Crane, 2003; Searle, 1983). Not to be
confused with “intention” as purpose, “intentionality” refers the fact that our thoughts arealways thoughts of something, or about something. Further, the mind is said to engage in“intentional states”, such that these states have both a type and content (Searle, 2004). As asimple example for an intentional state, imagine that you see a car and wish to buy it. In thiscase, you are engaging in an intentional state of desire (type) which is directed at this specificcar (content). This study focuses on the manner in which interpretation is driven by thecontents of the designer’s intentional states.
For organizing this mental content, reflecting the designer’s perspective of the situation, werely on Fauconnier’s mental space theory (Fauconnier, 1994). Mental spaces are virtualenvironments which speakers create by using “space builder” phrases, which establish
contexts for conversation. By uttering the phrase “yesterday at the mall” we can build amental space for hosting additional details, that may appear in the following conversation.
For example, we can say that “John lost his wallet”, which will add both John and his walletto the space. In this sense, mental spaces can be thought of as abstract containers for entities
introduced in discourse. Mental spaces enable to visualize the interrelations between these
entities, by organizing them into larger wholes. In this chapter, these mainly consist of thedesign elements, their groupings and their interpretations. Thus, since we are interested in

104 Refer back to 2.2.3.
105 Namely - functions, behaviors and structures.
106 For example, in architectural design by (Akin, 1989).
107 Such as Linkography in (Goldschmidt, 2014).

119

7

how designers change their view of the design situation via framing and re-framing, we canuse mental spaces to track the negotiation of these different perspectives.

7.3 Method and Task
7.3.1 Approach
In contrast to the design task presented in the previous chapter, which consisted of individual
sessions, here designers worked in pairs. Working as a team enabled to elicit (and thus
record) key-utterances in a rather natural manner, since the subjects had to communicate byspeech when negotiating the task. Communication in design teams has been explored fromvarious perspectives, and at different resolutions. For example, Stempfle and Badke-Schaub
have studied patterns of regularity in team-communication, during a single-day design task.
Their sentence-by-sentence analysis included both a “macroperspective” and a“microperspective”108, and relied on classification of communicative acts (Stempfle & BadkeSchaub, 2002). Christensen and Ball have examined data from a five-day task to determine
how analogy-based design is affected by design background (Christensen & Ball, 2016). In
their case, design protocols were segmented and coded using the method proposed by Dunbar(1995). In another study, Song et al. have examined how interdisciplinary teams of design
students engaged in storytelling, by subjecting oral and written documentation to acomputational analysis of text coherence (Song, Dong, & Agogino, 2003).109
In line with the above, this work heavily relies on analyzing protocols, via segmentation andclassification of key communicative events. However, keeping in mind our aim of modelingthe designer’s perspective of the situation at critical moments of interpretation 110, a key
methodological difference with these is the level of analysis. Drawing on the terminology in(Stempfle & Badke-Schaub, 2002), this chapter takes a “nanoperspective”, and examines how
the narrative shapes the designer’s perspective of the situation at specific moments in time.
Design sessions are thus best seen as sources for extracting interpretation-related events,
rather than complete accounts of how design problems are solved from start to finish.
Moreover, we often draw our conclusions by comparing utterances with visual data (such as
bodily gestures like pointing etc.), as means for verification (Murphy, Ivarsson, & Lymer,
2012; Sweetser, 2007).

108 Focusing on occurrence of events along the design process vs. transitions between these, accordingly.
109 Evidently, this is one of the few inquiries into storytelling in design teams in current research.
110 For example, when framing or reframing occur.

120

Interpretation as an Act of Worldmaking

7.3.2 Task, Environment and Setup

Figure 7-1 Task environment and setup.

We have repeated our task of designing a miniature JRG 111 , this time with couples ofdesigners who worked as teams (Fig. 7-1). Sessions were generally capped at 60 minutes, toconstrain the complexity involved in interpretation.112 While some teams chose to divide theirtime into several short sessions and produce several different design alternatives, others
utilized it as a single, long session.
7.3.3 Participant Selection
All participants hold a bachelor’s degree in a visual design discipline (Architecture,
Industrial Design etc.) at minimum, with some holding a Master’s as well. Participants wereselected by their design background and work experience, from two groups: novice designers(less than 2 years of practical experience) and professional designers (more than 5 years ofpractical experience); under the assumption that this will enable to observe interpretation at
different degrees of complexity. To facilitate communication, invited subjects were asked inadvance to find a partner of an equivalent skill-level, that he/she would like to collaborate
with.
Six couples (12 individuals) were observed in total. Two sessions were chosen as case studies,and are presented in this chapter. While in all cases interpretation was employed, to someextent, the chosen sessions demonstrate the interactive nature of design, namely how
designers strive to conceptually frame the design internally, while considering and being
affected by external reality.

111 Here we mainly elaborate on the differences with the previous task; refer back to 6.4 for further details about the setup etc.
112 And extended up to 90 minutes, when the subjects asked to continue, in order to complete their design.

121

7

7.3.4 Data Processing
Each design session was fully transcribed from the audio recordings. Our transcriptions
included both literal utterances (both by the subjects and the observer) and descriptivecomments (written by the observer during the activity) regarding the subjects’ activity, e.g.
bodily action, apparent emotional state etc., in order to establish a rich documentation of thesession.
Still images, which are representative of design states, were then extracted from the video
data. Each physical design move is generally represented by a single image. While the term
“design move” was originally defined by Goldschmidt as an operation on knowledge(Goldschmidt, 2014), here we further specified it as a physical operation, thus equating a
move with a physical shift in the spatial configuration of the structure.
Finally, the audio-visual data was synthesized into a single text-image sequence, which werefer to as a “design strip”. A design strip serves a unified documentation of the design session,
which displays the development of the structure along the design process, as well as theaccompanying utterances reflecting the co-development of its interpretation.
7.3.5 Data Analysis
Processed data is then analyzed to track the usage of narratives as interpretive devices, forinquiring into the designer’s perspective of the situation. We have followed these steps:(1) segmentation: design strips were reviewed and divided into several meaningful
sequences of moves, which we refer to as “design sequences”. This is done via protocol
analysis, by focusing on the current goals and persisting domains of discourse which arereflected in it 113 . Each design sequence is composed of a series of design moves. Design
sequences are not uniform and may vary in length, intensity, and more.
(2) identification of interpretation related-events: these may be explicit (pointing at arock and saying: “this is a mountain”) or implicit (declaring that the sand is “a pool of water”,
which enables to infer that the rocks on it represent objects found in water); in accordancewith the research aim and scope, we specifically, focused on the manner in which ambiguous
arrangements of physical elements were attributed with interpretations, by letting themstand for another object.
(3) focusing on key-phenomena: by reviewing the textual narratives, points in the session
where surprising events occurred (“focused event”), were identified. Focusing on these, we

113 This can be thought of the “aboutness” of the sequence, i.e. what the discourse revolves around.

122Interpretation as an Act of Worldmaking

examined the changes in the designer’s perspective before and after the event, by relating
the structure, the gestalt imposed on it, and its metaphorical interpretation.
(4) textual narrative production: as a basis for placing focused events in a larger context,
we have written verbal descriptions, as a summary of the design process, referred to as a“textual narrative”. The textual narrative attempts to narrate the course of events, explicit
intentions and observed actions from a high-level perspective, as a means for understanding
the process as a whole. These narratives should not be seen as an analysis par excellence,but rather as a medium for providing an impartial yet non-fragmentary description of thesession. Accordingly, they are written in an objective tone by relying strictly on actual eventsand utterances, while striving to minimize interpretive distortion.114 Each part of the written
narrative is supported by quoting utterances of the subjects in the body of the text.
(5) organization and visualization: the textual narratives and the design strips are used
to further inquire into the entities involved in the focused event, as representative of thedesigner’s perspective at the relevant time. Using these, state diagrams115 were constructed,
as a series of “pictures” of the design. Note that, in this chapter, we have sophisticated ourstate diagrams by integrating the notion of mental spaces (Fauconnier, 1994), as a means totrace the structure of the discourse. We then use these to try and understand the focused
event from the subject’s perspective, in the context of both preceding and following activity,
by relating changes in the physical structure with changes in its interpretation.

7.4 Designing a Garden
We provide detailed accounts of events from two design sessions, which demonstrate how
designers engage in narration-in-action, accompanied by figures representing key-episodes
from the session. Figures contain numbered sequences of utterances (left column) andcorresponding images of the structure at this time (right column). When an importantutterance seems ambiguous, we have marked the verbal expression in a bold font, and thecorresponding part in the image in a white line. Occasionally, figures are accompanied by agraphical explanation, which provides a visual summary of certain important aspects.
Readers will find these helpful as complementary to the description of events in the text.

114 Which may be caused by drawing inferences where clear information is unavailable, mis-attributing intentions etc.
115 The reader can refer back to 6.4.3, where these were originally introduced.

123

7

7.4.1 Case 1: The Emergence of a Design World116
Harry and Neal are both novice architects who hold a Master’s degree. Harry, has internedin architectural offices both in Germany and in Japan (two years in total), while Neal has
interned for one year in a Japanese architectural firm.

Figure 7-2 From object focus to area focus. Loosely
defining the space which holds the newly created world.

Figure 7-3 Endowing the world
with the dimension of time.

Their session starts with a general discussion of the theme. Neal wishes to avoid traditional
JRGs, which he is personally less fond of. Preferring gardens which contain more greenery("natural garden"), he reaches for "something which reminds me...(of a) green thing", andgrabs a rock which he could see as a tree-top. By placing this "tree-rock" in the garden space,he concretizes the foundation for their design. This is followed by a brief failed-attempt ofseeing-as ("this really looks like (just) a rock"), to which Harry responds by proposing toreorient it to stand vertically, which would enable to see it as another tree. This prompts theimmediate identification of a third rock which can fulfill the same role by Neal ("this too").
Having determined a first interpretation, and projected it onto several elements, a world isabout to emerge. Harry proposes to progress by placing "them" randomly, i.e. he does not

116 The full transcript for this session is given under A.4.3 in the Appendix.

124Interpretation as an Act of Worldmaking

refer to a specific rock, but rather to the number of “tree-rocks” they have found. When threerock are positioned in the garden space, Neal suddenly blurts out in surprise - "that area
looks like a forest" (Fig. 7-2).
The interpretation of a "forest" is followed by a series of adjustments, during which Harry
concludes that "it is very interesting to put them vertically". Accordingly, he changes theorientation of the cornerstone of the garden, to match the orientation of the other elements.
Examining two “tree-rocks”, Harry further notices a height difference between them, which
he interprets as a being a "small tree" and a "bigger tree". He does not seem content withsimply acknowledging these differences, but goes on to explain their existence - "it’s close toa bigger one, so the seeds from the bigger one fell down, and then the smaller tree grew close".
The world is endowed with a dimension of time, and its elements are further linked on theinterpretive level (Fig. 7-3).
In a further attempt to tie the different elements together, a more detailed unifying
interpretation emerges. Ingeniously, Harry proposes that a bird carried the seeds of a tree
from one place to the other, which explains the spatial disparity of the tree groupings (morein 7.5.2, Fig. 7-11). Following this, the subject then reports - "for some reason right now, I
suddenly see...a path here or a street". This observation, which seem to have resulted fromfocusing on the groupings and negative space, serves to encourage further elaboration of thedesign world, by segmenting the space into meaningful units or subspaces (tree groups, pathsetc.).
7.4.2 Case 2: Emerging Narratives as a Way of Reasoning117
Nina and Dean are professional architects who have been running a joint practice for almost
ten years, during which they have worked closely and intensively (“24 hours…365 days”).
From the outset, their approach exemplifies the well-known tendency of designers forpushing the boundaries of the task. Dean opens the session with a spontaneous desire for“burying rocks”, explaining to Nina that he simply wonders “how good it (would) look” if they
had “mounds instead of rocks”.
While he buries the first rock in one corner, Nina concludes that the interaction between therocks and the sand seems key for designing in this task. They continue by adding anotherrock at the opposite corner from the first one, agreeing that it should be “showing a little bit”.
When examining the available rocks, the two mention (almost in unison) that they usually
prefer doing “several trials”. This is followed by a shared decision to use the current design
as a “first trial”, which Nina characterizes as focusing on how rocks are “placed in the sand”(Fig. 7-4).

117 The full transcript for this session is given under A.4.6 in the Appendix.

125

7

Nina then points-out the existence of “two types” of rocks in the current composition - buried
vs. partially-buried. The two agree that one rock should be “totally buried” and another “juststanding”. In what may be described as a visual interpolation on the diagonal axis of the tray,
they decide to “make a gradation of exposed and buried” rocks, further elaborating thecurrent theme. Since the rock placed in the back-right corner is slightly buried, Nina resolves
to add another one between it and the corner of the tray, to serve as the last element in thesequence (i.e. a completely exposed one). Three more rocks are added to complete the axial
gradation, resulting in a six-rock sequence along the diagonal (Fig. 7-5).

Figure 7-4 Setting the stage.

Figure 7-5 Elaborating the first concept.

126Interpretation as an Act of Worldmaking

Figure 7-6 Spontaneous adoption of elements.

Figure 7-7 Emergence of couples.

Dean completes the design by raking the sand in two stages. First, he creates a winding trail
along the diagonal (which Nina humorously characterizes as “the path of the emerging
rocks”), as if to weave the different rocks together. Then, he rakes the sand in the unused
space to create a pattern of horizontal lines, in parallel with the longer edge of the tray, toclear the messy parts caused by the creation of mounds, which Nina did not like. Nina halfjokingly wonders if they are “committing...a bad offense” by burying the rocks, and seems to
enjoy stretching the boundaries of the exercise. Dean mentions that mounds are commonly
found in traditional Japanese burying places, and concludes that that the two extremes ofthe diagonal can be seen as “life and death” (Fig. 7-5 bottom, enlarged in Fig. 7-8).

127

7

In their second trial, they return to Dean's previous idea to go “from one corner…(and)disperse” (mentioned in Fig.7-5). Nina observes that they are “making another diagonal”,
which she finds undesirable, since she would like to “make it a little bit more diverse” (withrespect to the previous trial). While attempting to redefine the spatial layout, she notices anaccidental line in the sand, caused by the raking action that had previously taken place, whenclearing the space. She finds this line suitable as a boundary for the dispersion of the rocks,
and decides to “create a ...void here” (i.e. to exclude rock placement on the right). Dean then“compresses” the rocks to the corner, perhaps to leave enough room for dispersing withoutcrossing the boundary line. Later during the session, Nina reflects on this matter of using
the line as a boundary element, wondering: “why am I affected by this line that was so
randomly created?” (Fig. 7-6).
The third and last trial opens with the observer’s suggestion to work separately on two
different compositions simultaneously and then try merging them, to which the subjects
gladly agree. While trying to set the “rules” for this trial, Dean jumps in and decisively places
a rock in the space. Nina responds by deciding to focus on “color” in this design, and picks up
a rock which has a “hybrid texture”, stating that she is “going to select these ones”. Dean
replies that these rocks (with the hybrid texture) are “like a family”, an interpretation which
Nina accepts (Fig. 7-7, 1).
Nina says she does not want to use other rocks (outside this family), yet notices that only twosuch rocks are available, with mild disappointment. Dean proposes to resolve this by finding“similar (rocks) in other colors, make families”, and Nina suddenly exclaims in surprise “ooh, we are already collaborating!”. Accepting Dean’s idea, she says that “families (are) verynice”, and they start grouping the available rocks into “families”, roughly by color/texture.
Nina adds that they “have an obsession for classifying”. Dean explains that this helps them
deal with the lack of constraints, since they are “used to working in context”, which sets a lotof limitations that structure the activity. He thinks that it’s good to “set the borders” andthen “play within” them.
Taking two rocks that are “clearly a family” (the rocks with the “hybrid texture” from the
beginning), Nina places them on her side of the tray. After a brief discussion, Nina suddenly
points to the lone cornerstone rock and says - “I don’t know which family is this one actually”.
Dean responds by proposing to create a family of “outcasts”, thus expanding the notion of afamily to include similarity on a higher-level, in relation to the other rocks (Fig. 7-7, 3).
Nina points out that currently the smallest family consists of two rocks. She then grabs tworocks (forming a family), one in each hand, and tries to place them in the space, when she
suddenly exclaims in discovery: “Ah! what about...if... this composition is about couples?”.
Dean agrees, and after some discussion, picks another “couple” (which he likes because they128

Interpretation as an Act of Worldmaking“are kind of concrete” and look like “fake rocks”) and places them in the garden. A bit later,
Dean points to the rocks in the front-right and back-left, refers to them as couples, and saysthat they “kind of talk together”, a point at which it seems that the concept of “families” hascompletely transformed into that of “couples”. He thus proposes to “keep...adding couples”
and says that he “like(s) couples”. Finally, he characterizes the design as a “dance of rocks”.
(Fig. 7-7, 7).

7.5 Narrative Worlds
We propose to see interpretation as an activity driven by the generation of interpretive worlds,
referred to as “narrative worlds”. Their description sheds some light on the manners in which
designers view and navigate design situations, when working with design representations.
As an initial example, see Figure 7-8 below. Here, rocks were placed by the designers in a
diagonal sequence, as to gradually emerge from the sand, from completely buried and up to
fully exposed. This composition was interpreted by the designers as “life and death”, thus
attributing each end-point of the sequence with an interpretation, while positioning all
elements within a shared conceptual framework.

Figure 7-8 A narrative world: “Life and death” or “the path of the emerging rocks”; case 2.

Let us step into these worlds in two stages. First, by introducing a simplified version of anarrative world formed in case 1. Second, by identifying several phenomena concerning their
inception and elaboration, demonstrated using the data from our design task.
7.5.1 A Picture of a Narrative World
Narratives formed when designing assign elements with conceptual descriptions asinterpretations. Such descriptions both reflect and affect how the designer sees the structure,
while changes made to the structure may cause changes in the description as well. In thissense, narratives in design are distributed over the physical and the mental. When designers
engage in narration-in-action, they are in fact attempting to organize both the structure andtheir interpretation of it, simultaneously. Considering that narratives are tools forsensemaking and synthesis, this activity is expected to converge into a coherent result, i.e.

129

7

into a satisfactory structure and a “good” narrative. 118 This convergence necessitates
maintaining certain links between physical elements and their interpretation, over thecourse of the activity.119 The narrative world aids in modeling the manners in which theselinks are formed at specific moments in time, when trying to harness the narrative to bridge
external and internal reality.

Figure 7-9 Visualizing the designer’s perspective using narrative worlds.

Figure 7-9 provides a simplified example of modeling the designer’s perspective, using thenotion of narrative worlds and mental space theory (Fauconnier, 1994). Two mental spaces
are drawn: M1 (external reality) and M2 (the narrative world); these are contained in theexternal and interpreted worlds of the situated FBS framework, accordingly (Gero &Kannengiesser, 2004). Recalling the event in case 1, where the designers have seen the space
as a “forest”, we model it as follows: since the external world contained several rocks prior to
the appearance of the “forest”, we placed three elements in M1 which represent these (eachcorresponding with a single rock in the physical space). As each rock was interpreted as a“tree”, we connected each element in M1 with its interpretive counterpart in M2 (eachrepresenting a single tree in the designer’s imagination). Further, since the trees were finallyseen as a forest, they are grouped within the narrative world, and linked to a forest element.
Finally, the fact that the designer had “seen” the forest implies a gestalt grouping of thephysical elements, noted by grouping the elements in M1, as well as by linking this group to
the forest in M2.

118 As explained by Bruner, the narrative mode of thinking aims at “good narratives” (Bruner, 1986); here we may think ofthese as either those which fit the designers’ view of the structure, enable to gain certain insight into new design solutions, or
simply ones that are readily accepted by the designer, based on other criteria.
119 For a discussion of synthesis and convergence, see (Alexander, 1964).

130Interpretation as an Act of Worldmaking

The link between an element and its interpretation was named as a “role link”, since theinterpretation determines the role that the element metaphorically plays in the larger
narrative. These links thus connect physical elements with their imaginary counterparts.
Establishing roles links is generally done by metaphorically naming an element (“this is atree”). From a narratological perspective, such utterances may be seen as verbal stasis
statements of the narrative discourse, introducing new existents into the story (Chatman,1975). Therefore, role links are not merely referential, but generative as well - the “tree” did
not exist as an entity in the narrative world before the rock was assigned with this role.
Furthermore, establishing such links shapes the designer’s perception of the original object
and its contextual space.
Finally, a clarification is due with respect to the entities populating these spaces. Two typesof elements are presented in Figure 7-9: physical (white) and interpretive (gray/black).
Interpretive elements are associated with specific types, noted in parentheses. For example,“tree” is associated with “pine tree” or simply “pine”. What is visualized in the narrative
world are not types, but rather type-instances. However, any interpretive element canpotentially be later taken as type, since the designer can draw upon it as a source ofknowledge for interpreting additional elements.
7.5.2 Generative Factors
This sub-section discusses the circumstances under which narrative worlds form and evolve,
during narration-in-action. As shown in 7.5.1, establishing role links populates the narrative
world with entities. This, however, does not tell us how the narrative world is structured asa whole. Suwa and Tversky have suggested that shifts in focus are important drivers fordesign (Suwa & Tversky, 1997). Indeed, we find that the formation of narrative worlds as
wholes is associated with shifts in levels of observation, in terms of groupings. Continuingwith case 1, after an initial interpretation was assigned (”tree”) by focusing on a single rock(”this looks like a tree-top”), the subjects resolved to freely place several rocks in the space.
This was immediately followed with seeing the design as a “forest” (Fig. 7-2). The emergenceof this forest, which served as the global interpretation (or setting) of the design, may bedescribed as follows: first, an interpretation was assigned to an individual element. Then,several elements were placed in the space, inheriting this interpretation, and consequently
perceived as a group. 120 Finally, a unifying interpretation was proposed. The forest setting
was thus generated as a consequence of re-perceiving the physical elements in under adifferent gestalt, which demanded adapting the interpretation by relating the parts (trees)with a new whole (forest). Similar events were observed in other sessions as well.

120 Of course, additional factors may be involved here; for example, the similarity between the elements etc.

131

7

Figures 7-4, 7-5 demonstrate how the professional designers go through a similar process inseveral phases. First a single type is created (buried rock). Second, an element is added in amanner which leads to the implicit creation of a second type (exposed rock). Third, theexistence of two types is explicitly acknowledged (”we have two types”). Finally, the subjects
decide to “visually interpolate” the two rocks, forming a diagonal gradation in surface
exposure. Here, the designers opened with an element-level observation, moved to atransitory phase of recognizing the existence of different types as components of a larger
potential grouping and, finally, unified these into a group via a strategy which placed theexisting elements and their interpretations as end-points on a larger sequence. For
clarification, we speak here of the initially placed rocks as types (rather than simply typeinstances) since the designers have clearly drawn on them as prototypical sources ofknowledge in producing their design.
Rather than strictly bounded or well-defined, narrative worlds seem fluid and open forfurther structuring. In our design task, this is highly prominent in the case of the professional
designers, which are prone to welcoming unintended elements into their world. Figure 7-6,
for example, demonstrates how the subjects serendipitously structure their narrative world,
as a response to an accidental line on the sand - the line is embraced and interpreted as a“boundary” between two areas of full and void, thus serving as a dividing line for the setting,which otherwise remains largely undefined.
Case 1 provides us with an additional interesting example for such flexibility. Here, thedesigners resolved to expand the interpretive framework by detaching from the physicaldimension, and introducing existents into the story which do not have any external
representation (tree-seeds and birds). This helped in enriching the narrative121, but more
importantly, in strengthening its integrity. The placement of elements in the space wasfurther justified by a chain of causation, in which both the physical and the purely mental
played a part.
Finally, a certain type of conflict (between types and rules) seems to play a central role instructuring the narrative world, continuously motivating designers, to coordinate theirperceptions and interpretations. More specifically, when the expectation of designers fromelements as type-instances conflicted with self-generated rules, the designers’ interpretive
faculties were triggered into action.

121 Which is interesting in itself from a perspective of creativity in design.

132

Interpretation as an Act of Worldmaking

Figure 7-10 Creative negotiation of interpretations via narrative.

An intriguing example for this is evident in the above sample from case 1: the subjects werebuilding a “forest”, where each rock was interpreted as “tree”. Further, two types of trees
were identified: “pine” and “opposite of pine” (deciduous). One subject noticed that a rockcharacterized as “pine” stood physically far from its group, and wondered why this is so (i.e.
how could it be that it “grew” out of the “pine area”). To resolve this, two new elements wereadded to the interpretation - a bird which carried a pine seed from across the forest (Fig. 710).

133

7

Figure 7-11 Visualization of negotiating different views via our approach, following (Fauconnier, 1994).

The above extract can be understood as a discrepancy between two mental spaces, as shownin Figure 7-11. M1 represents the designers view of external reality at the initial state, wherecertain rocks were grouped (those in the “pine tree area”) and others remained outside thegroup (e1,e7). M2 and M2’ represent two possible narrative worlds, and M4 is the narrative
world which result from these. In M2 the grouped rocks, as well as one rock outside the group(e7), are all assigned with the interpretation of “pine trees”. This space represents how thedesigner sees the situation on the interpretive level without considering the implicit rule “allpine tree should stand together”. M2’ on the other hand, represents the understanding of thesituation by considering the implicit rule. Accordingly, in this space, e7 also appears withing
the “pine tree” group, reflecting the designer’s expectation of following the rule. The conflictstems from the fact that, while the designer expects all pine trees to stand together, he
perceives a strong grouping which excludes one element (e7). M3 shows the designer’s
perspective after resolving the conflict – the fact that the implicit rule is broken is coped withcreatively on the interpretive level, by forming the bird story, which enabled e7 to both be outof the group on the perceptual level and in the group on the conceptual level.
Case 2 provides us with additional interesting occurrences of such negotiation andelaboration of the narrative. After establishing a general design strategy of “creating families”
of rocks, the designers started to group rocks by similarity, as preparatory categorization.
One subject then pointed at a rock and said that she cannot find a family for it. The othersubject found it unsatisfactory to leave it uncategorized, and relieved this tension byproposing a new category, and thus a new type called “outcasts”. Notice that this type was134Interpretation as an Act of Worldmaking

not defined positively, but rather negatively in relation to another type (Fig. 7-7, 3). Further,notice that the later frame concerning “couples” emerged after the subjects resolved to “makefamilies” but ran into difficulties, since in some cases the total number of “family members”
found was only two. This was spontaneously resolved by the decision to make “couples”.122
Notice that this session provided us with another example for framing (“dancing couples”)
which lacks the specification of a clear setting (as in their other sessions), which may be
explained by the professionals’ capacity for “dancing with ambiguity” (Leifer & Steinert,2011), as a means for maintaining flexibility in their design.

7.6 Discussion
In considering the basic nature of narrative worlds, the following description by Uexküll
seems enlightening:“If we now continue on our way, we shall enter worlds that feature very
effective phenomena which, however, are visible to the subject alone…Weshall call Umwelten of this kind magic worlds”(von Uexküll, 1934, p.67).
Narrative worlds are private “magic worlds” which structures the subject’s experience ofdesign representations. As such, they provide us with rich information of the designer’s viewof the situation. How do they enable us to take the designer’s perspective?
7.6.1 Implications
As explained in 7.2.2, Schön has provided us with a rich language for discussing the internal
world of the designer. Our proposed modeling approach draws on his work, as well as otherimportant conceptual tools, for making “pictures” of the designer’s perspective at a given
time. These pictures expose the way that the design situation is framed as multi-dimensional
construct, based on certain intentional (mental) content. Multi-dimensionality refers to thefact that the both the external and narrative worlds contain elements of their own (physicalvs. interpretive), each existing on its own plane and subject to certain groupings. In this view,
narration-in-action can be seen as the coordination of two somewhat autonomous planes ofperception and conception. This autonomy is made salient in extreme cases (as in Fig. 7-10)
in which the narrative is first formed based on external reality, but then enriched in a purely
imaginary manner. Such events make a strong case for considering design worlds as “worlds”,
exposing the narrative world as the designer’s internal playground for changing theirperspective of the situation.

122 Interestingly, this may have emerged not only from the mental conflict, but also from the bodily posture, considering thatthe subject was holding one rock at each hand, when conceiving of it.

135

7

Considering more realistic design tasks, such as Goldschmidt’s task of designing a residential
unit based on the concept of a “cube” (Goldschmidt, 1988), we can now raise questions
regarding interpretation from the designer’s perspective: if a house is said to be a “cubehouse”, what metaphorical roles do the different architectural elements play in expressing
the designer’s vision of a “cube” 123 ? Such questions, which are of great importance fordeepening our understanding of subjectivity in design, may be answered by modeling therelations between the architectural elements, their interpretations and their grouping, using
our approach.
Furthermore, while the above comments were made on a content-level, our modelingapproach proves as effective on a process-level as well. An important behavioral pattern isevident in the findings: the designers formulate a self-imposed rule (whether consciously ornot), which is then somehow violated by the state of external reality. In cases where thedesigners are unaware of the rule, it is discovered when the conflict arises. As previously
explained, awareness of the frame is necessary for performing professionally (Schön, 1984).
This explains the role of such conflict as a way to elicit latent thoughts and bring them into
awareness, to enable to consciously strive for coherence. More importantly, however, thismeans that awareness of the current frame cannot be complete without the awareness of ourunderlying rules which structure it.
In a broader sense, this work serves as a bridge between design theory, discourse analysis
and the philosophy of mind. In an era where the study of design cognition is in true need of
new tools and methods for moving forward (Hay, Cash, & McKilligan, 2020), and where newtechnology relies on insight from design cognition (Goel, Vattam, Wiltgen, & Helms, 2012),
such interdisciplinary efforts to establish new ways for inquiring into the mental realm seemof great value.
7.6.2 Limitations and Future Work
Key limitations and possible future directions are discussed. First, our description of
narrative worlds serves as an account of the designer’s perspective, and enables us to derive
information about the frame held at a certain moment. However, much work will be required
to elaborate the notion of a “frame”, and enable its explicit description. Considering Beckman
and Barry’s two-phase process of framing and re-framing (Beckman & Barry, 2009)124, it
seems that describing the components and boundaries of frames are essential forunderstanding design innovation processes. Doing so would require to move beyond themetaphorical interpretation and include additional layers, which contribute to it as a whole.
As an example, consider the social aspect of the activity (e.g. the way designers see their

123 Which can be seen as representative of the project’s narrative or frame.
124 Of capturing the process within an initial frame which is then improved upon.

136

Interpretation as an Act of Worldmaking

personal role during the task) which surely shapes the current frame. This aspect could be
hypothetically studied by harnessing additional tools from pragmatics (Levinson, 1983;
Searle, 1969), for understanding the context in which the discourse is embedded.
Second, our task was designed to reduce the complexity involved in real design situations,and enable a deep analysis of narration in action. Our choice of JRGs has enabled to achievethis, at the cost of setting aside the important aspect of function. This aspect should be
carefully integrated into further inquiries, while keeping in mind the need for providing
sufficient opportunities to engage in interpretation. As a midway, we propose the possibilityof designing miniature gardens which are associated with interpretative practices, but are
not limited to viewing. For example – in Chinese traditional gardens one can sit, walk around,observe and even touch the decorative rocks (D. Zhang, 2018). To facilitate interpretation andframing, while enabling subjects to attend to technical aspects, we recommend that the task
duration is significantly increased.
Finally, since designers are not only the senders but also the receivers of their own narratives,
understanding this practice requires an account of both how the narrative is “written” (viaspeech) and how it is “read” (via hearing). These actions can be seen as the generation of thenarrative discourse and what Bruner has referred to as the “virtual text”125, accordingly(Bruner, 1986, p. 25). This study has focused mainly on the “writing” as opposed to “reading”,
which may require to employ additional methods, to expose the internal image which
designers see according to their specific “reading” 126. Recalling Krippendorff’s “hermeneutic
circle” of sensemaking (Krippendorff, 1989, p.13), it seems that the designer is caught in a
double-loop - sensing and synthesizing the structure on one level, while being aware ofchanges in the interpretation on another level. The challenge of achieving a realistic accountof narration-in-action thus may require us to adopt the lens of second-order cybernetics (Herr& Fischer, 2019; Scott, 2004), and it’s tools for modeling self-observing systems.

7.7 Conclusion
A new approach for modeling the ways in which designers conceptually frame andunderstand interpretation activity was proposed, demonstrated and discussed. A key
component of this approach is the notion of “narrative worlds” - interpretive worlds whichenable to map and visualize important relations between external and internal reality indesign. Tracing the emergence and transformation of these worlds aids in understanding how

125 One’s individual rendering of the narrative discourse in his/her imagination.
126 A potential method would be sketching, as it enables subjects to express their thoughts freely, given a sufficient skill-level.

137

7

designers subjectively view the structure during interpretation activity, thus shedding lighton how they reason about it, via interpretation.
In a broader sense, our modeling strategy is grounded both in empirical data and in existingknowledge of design cognition, discourse analysis and intentionality. As such, it serves as abridge between several domains of thought, which seem essential for studying issues ofsubjectivity in design. Therefore, it lays an important foundation for drawing insights fromdesign cognition, towards the enhancement of future computational design systems.

138

Chapter 8 Discussion
This chapter opens with a unified account of the main contributions of this work, which
deepen our understanding of interpretation activity as a whole. Next, we discuss of theknowledge gap in current models for design which our work begins to fill. This is followed bya clarification of our achievement and of the originality of this work. Finally, we discuss theimplications of our findings to design research and practice, and the main limitations of thiswork, as a basis for future research.

8.1 Contribution: General View of Interpretation of Structure
The core contribution of this work is the vocabulary and thought framework forunderstanding the activity of interpretation of structures. Our newly proposed notions
introduced throughout the work, which contribute to this effort, can be unified by framing
interpretation activity as an act of world making, in which designers produce interpretive
worlds. We have referred to these worlds as “narrative worlds” (NWs).127 In short, NWs are
abstract constructs which relate physical entities and their interpretation in a structured
manner. As such, they can be used for systematically inquiring into the agent’s mental imageof the physical structure, during interpretation activity.
Fig. 8-1 below places the notion of NWs within the larger context of current models for design
agents. The figure aims to provide an intuitive understanding of how NWs extend our
possibilities for computation within artificial design agents, by fluidly bridging external
reality and internal (mental) reality. The bottom layer128 refers to the world in which theagent is physically embedded, and that may be accessed by the agent via the layers above it.
The structure is also found in this layer. Above these are three processes of sensation,
perception and conception, continuously executed by the agent (Gero & Fujii, 2000).
Focusing on the conceptual layer, we first see that the designer conceives of the artifact byusing natural language. Our ability to use natural language serves as the basis forconstructing both the situated FBS worlds (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004), and the NW itself.
The NW is constructed in real-time by the agent, via interpreting the structure using verbal
descriptions. Notice that we have positioned the NW above the situated FBS worlds. The
reason for this is that, while worlds in situated FBS deal directly with descriptions of the

127 As introduced in chapter 7.

128 Regarding the notion of the “substantial world” see (Fujii, 2019).

8

structure itself129, the NW rather deals with the mental image projected on the former (viametaphor) by the designer. We can understand the NW as the conceptual sphere in whichsome of the content from the situated FBS worlds is mentally organized as a coherent imageof the structure.
This image contains some of the mental content designers hold internally, reflecting how theysubjectively view the structure. 130 We believe that this content is highly valuable forunderstanding designers’ subjective perspective, with respect to the designed artifact.
Furthermore, as we have demonstrated in chapter 7, the mental image can be captured
within symbolic descriptions, to a certain extent. Accordingly, it can be represented in formal
language. This possibility is represented by drawing an arrow from the NW to the formal
language component. Formal language, and specifically a future formalized model of NWs,
leads to the derivation of knowledge via computation. Computation here refers to reasoning
about interpretation of structures by manipulating symbolic descriptions. Finally, thederived knowledge serves as a basis for action.

Figure 8-1 Placing the narrative world within current frameworks for artificial design agents.

Finally, in Figure 8-2 we schematically relate important notions that were introduced
throughout the work, as well as several key-ideas from existing research on the topic, with
the notion of NWs. This is done by placing them in four general categories, with respect totheir contribution in forming NWs.

129 Its functions and behaviors, and the manners in which these are interpreted etc.
130 We expand on this in 8.4.

140

Discussion

Figure 8-2 A general view of interpretation in conceptual design as an act of world making.131
Table 12 Summary of terms and notions introduced in this work.132

Type

Term

Explanation

Narrative
world
(NW)

The NW is a mental environment which is
metaphorically
imposedonthestructure, and shapes the designer’s
conception of it. The basic entities
composing the NW are design elements
and roles. A NW is generally formed byassigning roles to more than one design
element.

7

RIs

During role assignment, concepts areassociated with the structure, so that thestructure stands for the referent of theconcept (see below). RI refers to thesymbolic logical construct which
metaphorically relates a high-level
concept with low-level spatial relations.

5

MentalConstructs
in RI

Ch.

Importance
The NW both unifies the activity ofinterpretation of structure within asingle-thought framework and ties itwith the notion of Mental Spaces(Fauconnier, 1994), thus offering apractical way to model interpretation
activity which is grounded in discourse
analysis.
The internal structure of RIs, as
formulated in our framework, isessential to account for the way inwhich
agentsinternallyjustify
matchings between the artifact and theconcept. Without it, we cannot
realistically represent interpretations
withing a computational system, since
the representation will lack grounding.

131 Notice that NWs encompass our various insights; separation into substantial and conceptual level according to (Fujii,2019).
132 Complimentary to Figure 8-2.

141

8

Role assignment

Mental
Processes
in RI

Constructive
elaboration

Detachment

Shifting levels of
Focus

Conflict
resolution

Flexibility
boundaries

ofTendencies &Driving Forces
in RI
Main
secondaryelements&

Complementary
potential

Refers to the act of assigning asymbolic description to a
design element, so that thedesign element stands for thereferent specified in thesymbolic description.133

6, 7

Once a role has been assigned,
the agent may assign additionalroles to other elements to 6
elaborate or enrich the original
interpretation.
Refers to a design strategy bywhich an attribute or role is
6transferred between design
elements.
Refers to the phenomena ofswitching between different
gestalts; an important driver for7
design in general (Suwa &Tversky, 1997), and specificallyfor interpretation.
Refers to the natural tendencyof the agent to negotiate
conflicting views, which is 7
evident as a causal factor whichshapes interpretation activity.
Refers to the agent’s openness
in drawing the boundaries of
the NW, by responding to
unexpected happenings during
the design process.134

7

A main element is an element
which the agent would like tomaintain as a part of thestructure independently ofother elements. Secondary
elements depend on main
ones.

4

Refers to the ability of anelement
to
shape
the
interpretation of another in the
structure. Finds its roots in theconcept of Affordance (Gibson,
2014; Maier & Fadel, 2009).

4

142

An action that agents take to form
NWs. Assignment frames the agent’sview of the design element, defines its
potential within design activity andresults in a mental projection of certain
qualities onto the structure, driving
interpretation and action.
Demonstrates that the agent’s actions
not always arbitrary, but may dependon previous events. This points to thefact that reasoning is essential foraccounting for interpretation in design.
Provides an economical strategy forconstructively adjusting the structure
while maintaining the desirable
aspects of its interpretation.
The formation of NWs has been
observed following shifts in the level offocus, pointing to the potential
importance of such shifts as generative
events in interpretation activity.
Conflicts are basic drivers in RI, andimportant for the constructions of
NWs. The actions of the agent can beunderstood in some cases, by
examining conflicts preceding them.
Such flexibility is critical for modelingthe regulation of potential changes in
the NW, as a result of interaction withthe environment; strongly correlatedwith the important phenomenon ofreflection-in-action (see Schön, 1984).
This distinction serves as afundamental property of the agent’s
perception and experience of thestructure. The implementation ofinterpretation in an artificial agent
would necessitate a capacity formaking this distinction.
Important for understanding thedependency which existing between
design elements during interpretation
activity, which is partially derived fromtheir spatial relations. Proposes acriterion for filtering and selecting
design elements during interpretation
activity by artificial agents.

Discussion

We believe that the notion of NWs serves as an important missing link in current attempts
to model design from a computational perspective. This claim is laid out and supported in thenext section. Finally, Table 12 above provides a summary of terms and notions introduced inthis work, and their importance in deepening our understanding of interpretation of
structure, with respect to their contribution to the idea of NWs as interpretive mental
constructs.

8.2 Considering the Designer's Perspective in Computational
Models for Design
In the previous section, we have described NWs as a device for organizing the relations
between the structure and its interpretation, enabling us to inquire into the agent’s mental
image of the structure. We have further claimed that it fills a knowledge-gap in our current
ability to model design activity. This sub-section describes this gap, and the way it is bridged
by the notion of NWs. We do this by placing the work within the prevailing approaches fordesign computing.
How do we begin to model design for its implementation in computational design systems?
Such a discussion would do well to open with the important work done by Christopher
Alexander. With the aim of establishing a model for design processes from a computational
perspective, Alexander has proposed to model design as a three-layered process of interaction
between "form" and "context" (Alexander, 1964). The former refers to the physical body of theartifact which is being designed, and the latter refers to the environment which setsrequirements on it.
The top layer of this model consists of the "actual world", which seems to refer to the objective
current state of the world and the artifact 135; the middle layer consists of the designer’s
mental representation of it. According to Alexander, in non-computational design processes,
the artifact is created by working on the middle layer, which is derived from the top layer as"a conceptual interaction between the conceptual picture of the context which the designer
has learned and invented...and ideas and diagrams and drawings which stand for forms."
The problem with this process, in Alexander's view, is that the designer's image or mental
picture of the design is highly imprecise: in his words, it is "almost always wrong" (Alexander,
1964, p77). To rectify this, he suggests to add the bottom layer, which consists of aformalization of the designer's mental picture. (Fig. 8-3)

133 For example, referring to piece of model cardboard as a building.
134 See, for example (Rietveld & Brouwers, 2017).
135 This layer is not explicitly defined by Alexander in this work (Alexander, 1964).

143

8

In Alexander’s model, the mental picture is seen as a mere mediator, secondary to thecomputational level on which he places strong emphasis. He thus somewhat disregards theimportance of mental representations in design activity, under the assumption that once thedesign problem is sufficiently clarified and formally represented, it can be dealt withcomputationally, without need for the designing agent.

Figure 8-3 A three-layered view of design activity; as proposed by (Alexander, 1964).

Alexander’s three-fold distinction between the objective state of the world, its mental
representation by the agent and its computational formalization are important forestablishing the basic relations between design as a human activity and computation.
However, in attempting to convert design problems into computational representations, itsomewhat throws out the baby with the bathwater. A key part of Alexander’s thesis is thatdesign problems are increasing in their complexity, to the extent where they exceed themental capacities of human designers. While there is some truth in this statement, almost
60 years later it remains a fact that human designers are still superior to computational
design systems in many design tasks, and perhaps above all in conceptual design. Therefore,
if we appreciate designer's natural intelligence and ability to deal with design problems (seefor example: Cross, 1999), it is hard to see how we can achieve human-level success in design,
via this approach. Alexander himself admits that "It is not possible to replace the actions ofa trained designer by mechanically computed decisions" (Alexander, 1964, p.75).
The problem lies in the fact that human behavior, which is highly adaptive, is not likely to
be captured computationally in Alexander’s bottom layer, which is strictly mathematical,
formal and rigid. Indeed, his third layer consists of mathematical graphs which describe
linkages and dependencies between variables. Such fixation strongly contrasts with later
understanding of design activity, which emphasizes the importance of reflection-in-action for
performing professionally (Schön, 1984). Moreover, it is well-known that human-driven
design processes generally consist of a continuous expansion, exploration as well as reconception of the problem and solution spaces (for example: Rowe, 1986, p.109). By removing
interpretation activity from his model, Alexander’s approach fixates the problem andsolution spaces, resulting in a one-way process of conversion into formal representation,
followed by computation. These are not in accord with our current understanding of how

144Discussion

design processes are navigated successfully by professional designers, which are rather
characterized by high flexibility (Cross, 2001), thus exposing the weakness of his model.
In the 1990's, an important framework for design computing was proposed by John Gero,
named as “the Function-Behavior-Structure framework” (Gero, 1990). Still widely used in
the field to this day, this model served as a milestone in formalizing design processes as setsof basic entities and transformations between them. The value of this model lies in the factthat it enables to describe design processes as the product of low-level entities, which can betheoretically represented within a computational system. While the model did not include
the important aspect of mental representation in design, it nonetheless marked an importantachievement in the field of design computing, enabling to describe, formalize and inquire into
design processes in a systematic manner.
Somewhat in parallel, a shift towards "situated" approaches for studying and understanding
human activity has seeped into engineering paradigms. These approaches, which
acknowledged the importance of the agent and its internal state, have produced successful
designs for control systems which are capable of handling real-time tasks.136 Accordingly,
they inspired a reevaluation of our current models for design activity, leading to the
expansion of Gero’s original framework.
In 2004, Gero and Kannengiesser proposed a model for design activity, termed as "thesituated function-behavior-structure framework" (situated FBS), which is the current stateof-the-art model for situated design (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004) 137 . In addition to theoriginal components of function, behavior and structure, the new model consisted of three
worlds: “external”, “interpreted” and “expected” (Figure 8-4). Alexander's "actual world"
somewhat corresponds with the external world here, while his "mental picture" can bethought of as a mental construct involving both the interpreted and expected worlds.138 In
addition, a memory component is included, which accounts for the fact the all mental
representations are continuously constructed and reconstructed within the agent’s memory,thus named “constructive memory”.

136 See (Clancey, 1997), also refer back to 2.2.
137 Refer back to 2.2.3.
138 Since it is derived from the "actual world" based on our interpretation, while including our expectations regarding futurestates of the artifact.

145

8

Figure 8-4 Design worlds of the situated FBS; adapted from (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004).

In this model, we see a shift towards acknowledging the importance of the designer’s firstperson perspective in describing and formalizing design activity. The representation of design
processes now includes certain aspects of the designer’s view of the design problem,
describing design as a set of transformations between somewhat objective (external) andsubjective worlds (interpreted, expected). Generally speaking, their model postulates thatdesign activity can be described as a set of transformations between functions, behaviors andstructures, across these worlds, while using the constructive memory.
While their model provides us with essential tools for modeling design in a realistic manner,it lacks in its ability to describe the designer’s mental image which is formed during theprocess of interpreting structures. As we have explained and demonstrated throughout thework, during interpretation activity designers may develop a metaphorical image of theartifact.139 This image cannot be represented using the situated FBS framework, for two
main reasons: first it does not provide us with sufficient vocabulary for describing entities on
the interpretive level (for example, the metaphorical roles of element). Second, it does not
inform us with respect to how the mental image is structured by designers in-practice, within
the constructive memory. Such knowledge must be derived empirically by studying design
activity.
In this work we have addressed both of the above issues, by identifying several key entities
which enable the designer to engage in interpretation on a metaphoric level, as well byutilizing empirical data for proposing a description of their organization into a coherent whole,reflecting and informing us regarding the mental image held by the designer. This resulted
in the notion of NWs, which provides us with tools for describing how the designer views the
structure metaphorically when designing. The nature of this image and its importance aredescribed in the following sections.

8.3 Achievement
In order to elucidate the notion of NWs and their place in understanding design andinterpretation activity, we briefly recap on our insights from the previous section.

139 See Chapters 6, 7.

146

Discussion

As explained above, Alexander rightfully acknowledges the need for a formal account of thedesigner’s mental picture, for design computing140 (Alexander, 1964). However, his model
eventually does away with the subjective mental picture of the designer, replacing it with arigid mathematical representation. Therefore, his account neglects the importance of thesubjective perspective of the designer for achieving real-time success in design processes.
Second, in a more recent work, Gero & Kannengiesser have embraced interpretive processes
as integral to design activity (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004). However, while their model istheoretically capable of accommodating the mental image of the agent, it does not tell us how
the image itself is organized or structured. Accordingly, we are proposing an account which
deepens our understanding of the mental picture itself. What exactly is the NW, and how
does it aid in describing the mental image held by the designer, when engaging ininterpretation activity?
First, when designers engage in conceptual design, they use certain design materials as
representational devices. In this, they continuously engage in acts of “seeing as”, in which
the material objects are taken as “epistemically transparent” (Liddament, 2000).141 In simple
words, instead of the mere object itself, the designer “sees” another object, which appears asa mental projection facilitated by his/her subjective interpretation. 142 This experience isfundamentally private143, and manifests itself via complex mental images in the designer’sinternal world.
The Biologist Jakob von Uexküll has proposed the notion of an “umwelt” to refer to the private
sphere of existence of organisms in general, spanned by their possibilities for interaction withthe environment. In his seminal work “A stroll through the worlds of animals and men”, hehas further proposed the notion of “magic worlds”144, which we see as helpful in clarifying
the nature of NWs. As an example for these worlds, he mentions children playing outdoors
and seeing a tree as a demon, due to certain visual features which they associate with a scary
face. Such experiences are, of course, determined by the interpretation assigned to the treebark (von Uexküll, 1934). In the same manner, the designer’s experience of the structure
opens the door to “magic worlds”, which are only experienced by him/her.
The existence of such worlds poses a problem for design theory and research. How can we
begin to describe such private worlds which are solely experienced by the subject, butnonetheless shape design and interpretation activity?145. According to Fujii:
140 Notice that, in this, he indirectly mentions the interpretive aspect of design.
141 Refer back to 2.1.3.
142 Recall our example of an architect working with a scale model of a building made out of cardboard; the architect “looks

through” the cardboard and “sees” the future building.
143 Of course, it may be shared by several individuals using language, to some extent.
144 Previously mentioned in 7.6.
145 See further in 8.4.

147

8

“It is essential to construct a bridge connecting ontologically subjective
experience and epistemologically objective explanation so as to take upfindings from the former for discussion in modern scientific inquiry aimingat public understanding of something”(Fujii, 2019, p.16).146
Based on this, we rephrase the above question as follows: how can we bridge subjective
experience and epistemologically objective knowledge of interpretation in design? Clearly, if
we are to do so, we must make an effort to understand how designing is experienced from theperspective of the designer, during interpretation processes. Such an effort may give us aglance into the designer’s internal world.
It is fair to say that Uexküll, mentioned above, has approached the study of worlds from a
post-humanistic perspective.147 As a result, he gave little attention to the uniquely humanmental capacities of utilizing epistemic transparency and construct worlds of arepresentational nature. According to current philosophy of mind, one of the basic propertiesof our mental states is their “directedness” or “aboutness”, i.e. the fact that they are directed
at certain things such as objects, concepts, states of affairs etc.148 Returning to the matter ofinterpretation in design activity, if the designer engages in mental states when interpretinga structure metaphorically, what is the content of his/her intentional states, and how is itorganized?
The NW serves as a means for answering the above questions, by mapping certain
components of the designer’s subjective perspective in an objective manner, using symbolic
descriptions. We would like to emphasize that the NW does not pertain to directly represent
the mental image itself - it is rather a device for modeling some of the contents of the image,and the manner in which it is organized. Of course, some important mental aspects are notincluded in our account149, and require attention in future research.150 The key point here isthat interpretation activity involves the attribution of certain qualities, features, roles etc. tothe design elements, and that NWs enable us to map out complex interpretations formed bythese and held by designers, during design activity151. In this, it opens the door to the agent’s
subjective perspective on the design situation, and how he/she metaphorically views andexperiences the structure. The next section enables us to look into the organization of a NW
as a reflection of the agent’s intentional states.

146 Notice that, while the above is expressed in the context of architecture, it applies to design activity as a whole.
147 Generally referred to as biosemiotics.
148 See, for example (Crane, 2003) ; refer back to 7.2.3.
149 For example, the sub-symbolic level; see (Fujii, 2019).
150 Further discussed in 9.2.
151 Such mental images can be held explicitly or implicitly.

148

Discussion

8.4 Narrative Worlds and Intentionality
In order to elucidate the manner in which NWs structure the designer’s understanding ofdesign activity, via their intentional states, we expand on an example from chapter 7152. In
this example, an imaginary forest was seen by the designers, while engaging in interpretation
activity. Figure 8-5 elaborates on the progression of the interpretation, as a series ofconsecutive steps. In this we have also added the aspect of “direction of fit”, whichcharacterizes intentional states according to Searle, as explained below (Searle, 2004). How
does Figure 8-5 aid in taking the designer’s perspective in interpretation?

Figure 8-5 NWs as a bridge between world and mind.153

First, notice that while previously we have referred to the mental spaces M1 and M2 as“external world” and “NW”, here we refer to them as “world” and “mind”, to conform with
152 Previously given in Figures 7-2, 7-9.
153 This expands on Figure 7-2 by including the notion of “direction of fit” by Searle, indicated by arrows (Searle, 2014).

149

8

Searle’s account of intentionality. Second, while the previous figures from the design session
only reflected the final state resulting from the assignment of roles, here we see the actual
process in which they subsequently appear. Third, while previous links between elements
and their interpretation were non-directed, here they are directed. The directions of thearrows indicate what Searle refers to as the “direction of fit” of intentional states. In short,some intentional states deal with content targeted at matching the world which exists
independently of them (referred to as world-to-mind relation), while others aim towards
fitting the world into the content of the mental state itself (referred to as mind-to-world).154
By understanding Figure 8-5 in this manner, we can see how various events in the course ofinterpretation are reflected in it, as follows: when a designer assigns a role for an element(for example in states 1-2), he/she imposes an interpretation on it, in a manner of mind-toworld. Such assignment can be thus understood as a mental projection of subjective content
onto the “objective” design elements. In some cases, the attempt for interpretation fails, andthe object is perceived as is, in a world-to-mind manner (for example as in state 3).
Even more interesting, however, is that that such a description as in Figure 8-5 enables us
to see how the understanding of the artifact is formed via a kind of weaving between themind and the world, and raise deep questions regarding the dynamics of interpretation. Thiscan be seen in state 6, where the designer points to the back-left area of the tray, andinterprets both rocks there as composing an imaginary forest. Notice that, in this case, it is
not clear whether the designer first visually perceived a gestalt which resulted in thegrouping of the imaginary elements, or that the similarity between the imaginary trees
caused the designer to perceive the gestalt. Accordingly, we have drawn two links indexedwith the number 4, to represent this ambiguity. In this the NW both reflects intentional
content (for example, by capturing the matching of grouping across the worlds, which is an
essential component of the designer’s understanding), as well as serves as a tool for further
inquiry into fleeting events during the design, which may otherwise go unnoticed.
This account of interpretation as an intentional activity enables us to further restate andfinally address the question raised in 8.3: consider an agent who employ “seeing as” during
interpretation. If this agent engages in mental states which are directed, what are they
directed at? First, it is clear that such mental states are not solely directed at the structure(see 8.3). It would be more accurate to say that the agent’s thoughts are partially directed at
the existing structure (world) and partly at the desired artifact (mind). For clarification, since
the desired artifact does not yet exist, the designer’s thought cannot be directed at it, but
only at a mental representation of it. While some part of this representation may be derived
rather directly from the physical object, certain aspects of it strongly depend on interpreting
154 As examples for these different relations, consider the intentional states of belief and desire, accordingly.

150

Discussion

and thus remain completely private. These private entities, such as roles, grouping etc., as
we have described them, are organized as a symbolic construct in the designer’s mental world.
The NW enables us to clearly describe such constructs, and as such, facilitates a systematic
inquiry into them.

8.5 Implications
We have proposed an approach for modeling certain aspects of the mental image used bydesigners during interpretation activity, framed under the notion of NWs. In addition, we
have identified key-entities and processes which are essential for the study of interpretationof structures, each contributing to our efforts for understanding, modeling and eventuallyformalizing interpretation in design. The main implications are discussed below:(1) For design theory and practice, with emphasis on design cognition: The notion of
NWs may serve as a fundamental device for inquiring into the mental image held by theinterpreting agent. This device may be used by design theorists dealing either withsituatedness in design or with interpretation-in-action, for modeling the subjective view of
the agent, with respect to external objects. Such modeling aids in visualizing and thus getting
insight into the changing manners in which the agent understands the relations between the
structure and its interpretation. 155 This also supports our initial claims regarding thepotential of utilizing situated approaches to cognition for studying design activity.
Second, this work can serve as a basis for extending the situated FBS framework, to include
not only descriptions of structures, but also those which indicate how agents conceptually
understand them on a metaphoric level, within the interpreted world. This can aid in
integrating the important aspect of metaphoric interpretation into current computational
design models, which may result in increased flexibility and control within CAD systems forconceptual design.
Finally, NWs can potentially be used by design educators/practitioners as a conceptual toolfor gaining insight into the manners in which design processes are driven by interpretationof structures. Donald Schön, a prominent researcher in design cognition, has suggested that
performing professionally requires one to be aware of his/her current perspective, which
structures both thinking and action (Schön, 1984). Yet, he did not suggest a concrete method
for gaining such awareness. 156 Additionally, Suwa has proposed the idea “constructive
perception” for describing the ways in which designers engage in interpretation, viaorganizing of spatial gestalts (Suwa, 2003). While he suggested that this interpretive ability
155 Refer to Figure 7-11, for example.
156 Perhaps since he presupposed this ability as a criterion for professionalism.

151

8

may be teachable via reflection (reminiscent of Schön’s work mentioned above), he did notlay out a concrete process or method for doing so, i.e. for teaching designers how to reflect on
their interpretations. Considering that NWs enable to organize and visualize the relations
between objects, spatial gestalts and interpretations (which often remain implicit), we believe
they have the potential for fulfilling this task of bringing one’s interpretations into awareness.
However, their ability to do so should be evaluated based on empirical data concerning theusage of NWs by educators/practitioners in their work.
(2) For knowledge engineering and artificial intelligence in design: Our modelingapproach as well as the entities identified in this work 157 , which are essential forsystematically describing interpretation activity, may be used both by knowledge engineers
and by developers of CAD support systems targeting conceptual design, for enhancing thecapability of artificial agents to deal with the interpretation of structures.
Specifically, the above improve on our current ability to relate representations of structureswith interpretations, using symbolic descriptions. Such descriptions can then be regarded as
high-level features of the structure within the CAD system. It is important to notice that our
proposed representation of interpretations consists not only of simple and direct couplings
between structure and interpretation 158 , but in fact have an internal logical structure.
Accordingly, they can extend the abilities of current CAD systems to automatically reason
during design processes, via simple integration with current inference engines.159
Furthermore, in a broader sense, our efforts and achievement can inspire researchers toengage in interpretation-oriented feature engineering, by drawing on our work both forreference regarding possible targets for formalizations, and for concrete examples of how such
entities may be related on a symbolic level.
Finally, the notion of NWs invites the construction of design agents which can relate objective
structures with subjective interpretations, by maintaining rich internal representations.
These representations can then be coordinated with changes made to the environment, as
the artificial agent engages in designing. This may help in the development of situated design
agents, which, despite many efforts, are yet to be implemented within computational systems.

8.6 Back to the GardenThis work inquired into our human capacity for interpretation, and the ways in which it
structures our thinking and action. In this sense, it has strived to be context-free. Accordingly,
157 Refer back to Table 12.
158 As in state-of-the-art systems; see, for example (Karimi et al., 2018); refer back to 2.4.
159 As demonstrated in Chapter 5.

152Discussion

the previous section has considered the general implications of this work, for design cognition
and for artificial intelligence in design.
In another sense, however, it is also contextualized: first, right from its inception, theresearch was greatly inspired by the traditional practices of JRGD; second, the design tasks
which were studied, while not demanding strict adherence to traditional rules and practices,were in fact conducted in the context of JRGs. For these reasons, it seems fruitful to reflect
on the relation of our results and the actual practices of JRGD, which originally motivatedour inquiry.
Let us return to the fundamental instruction regarding rock placements in JRGs160:“Choose a particularly splendid stone and set it as the Main stone…following
the request of the first stone, set others accordingly” (Takei & Keane, 2001,
p.181).
Taking the above as characteristic of the Sakuteiki’s instructive style, it is important to point
out its somewhat loose nature, which demands designers to draw on their cognitive resources
and actively participate in its execution. For example, while the instruction guides thedesigner to select a “splendid” stone, it does not define what a splendid stone is. The
responsibility for interpreting this phrase, and acting accordingly, remains with the designer.
When we initially presented this instruction, we concluded that the instructive style of the
Sakuteiki renders JRGD as a proper object of study for this work, since it emphasizes theinterpretive aspect of design activity. Note, however, that this instructive style also leaves us
with a vague picture of how one can/should bring the instructions into action, when engaging
in JRGD.
In fact, a close examination reveals many difficulties with the generality of the text as adesign manual. For example: in the case where one sees several “splendid” stones, howshould one choose between them? How is the chosen rock to be placed in the garden? What is
actually meant by the “request” of the stone, and how should one “listen” to it? What criteria
should one follow when attempting to set the other rocks “accordingly”?
Given that our goal is to formalize interpretation in design, is there any hope for capturing
such complex design practices as JRGD for their implementation in computational design
systems? Does our work tell us anything that can help us find our way through the mist ofthese convoluted texts, and enable to model JRGD activity? Surprisingly, the approach that
we have taken in this work, which views design through the lens of situatedness (Clancey,

160 Initially presented in 2.6.1.

153

8

1997; Clark, 1998; Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004) and intentionality161(Searle, 1983), can bothenlighten us regarding the difficulty with the instructions, and suggest a pathway for their
future formalization.
When introducing the notion of NWs, we have viewed designing as a mind-world interaction.
This view can shed light on the fundamental difficulty with the traditional manuals - what
is confusing about instructions such as the above is that they intertwine the mind and theworld, in a manner which implicit and therefore hard to disentangle (note that this may be
have been deliberate, considering that these were secret texts; Slawson & ZoÌen, 1991). For
example, when guiding one to choose a “splendid rock” as a first step, we intuitively
understand choosing as a one-way cognitive task done by the agent on the world. A deeper
look, however, reveals that one cannot hold to this simplistic view of the act of choosing choosing depends upon perceiving, and perceiving means interacting with the world (seeing,
touching etc.). Additionally, the possibility to perceive depends on the presence of the rock ina nearby place, so it can be perceived in the first place. Moreover, the process of perceiving
itself is obviously insufficient for making a choice – one usually needs further cognitive
processing, which often involves certain criteria for making the choice. 162 By this view, eventhe simple act of selecting a rock, which is presented in passing as an action to be executedby the agent, reveals itself as a complex time-extended event (Neisser, 1976), composed outof dense loops of interaction between mind and world.
With the above distinction in mind, and remembering Figure 8-5, we can start to break down
and make sense of the traditional instructions, as sets of transactions between the mind andthe world. As an example, let us continue with the instruction to “choose a…splendid stone”– this can be further broken down into processes of world-to-mind, in which one perceives
and recognizes the existence of the rock and its properties (reflected in our modeling approachin its appearance in the designer’s “external world”), followed by a mind-to-world responsein which the designer interprets this rock as “splendid” or not (reflected by the link of theformer and an element in the NW, which determines its interpretive role). In this manner,
we can continue and inquire into the activity by studying such events of interaction, and theways in which they interrelate during design activity. This points to the potential of ourmodeling approach for making sense of such complex design practices, by properly construing
and visualizing them as systems of activity of agents within environments, with which they
continuously interact through their intentional capacities.
Furthermore, the notion of NWs can specifically shed light on the ways in which ourexperience of JRGs as artifacts is structured under different interpretations. McGovern

161 As an interaction between the mind and the world.
162 These may be explicit or implicit.

154

Discussion

emphasizes that the garden of Ryōan-ji 163 is “strongly multidimensional in its semioticorganizing principles and communicative purpose” (McGovern, 2004, p. 347). To support thisclaim, he provides us with various examples of different readings which the same elements
afford – for instance, the lines in the sand can be seen either as “static” or as “flowing” (i.e.
suggesting movement). He further proposes that the whole garden of Ryōan-ji can beapproached and experienced differently via two distinct metaphors, which the viewer canemploy; namely: (1) “rocks are mountains”, or (2) “rocks are writing” (McGovern, 2004, p.357).
Taking either of these as an interpretive device compels the viewer to project different setsof relations, groupings and meanings onto the design elements, thus resulting in a different
experience of the structure. Our NWs can serve as practical tools for mapping the ways inwhich our mental representations are organized, as a consequence of embracing suchdifferent perspectives. In this case, each of the above metaphors may correspond with its own
NW, in which the rocks are assigned with different meanings, under different gestalts.
Therefore, our modeling approach can serve as a tool for inquiry into the ways in which themental and the physical interrelate, by visualizing the effects of adopting specific interpretive
perspectives on the general organization of internal representations in the mind of the viewer.
Such work can draw on existing research regarding gestalt perception in JRGs (Van Tonder& Lyons, 2005) for describing the ways in which various configurations elicit different
gestalts groupings (corresponding with clusters of elements in our mental spaces), which isessential for establishing a proper description of our experience JRGs.

8.7 Limitations & Possible approaches for Addressing Them
We discuss various limitations of the work, which we see as major hurdles in striving towards
our goals. We suggest a potential approach for overcoming each of these, in future works on
the topic:(1) Degree of complexity with respect to the design task and scope:►Complexity of structures under consideration: this work has attempted to lay
the foundations for handling interpretation of structures in a systematic manner,which is, as thoroughly discussed in the introduction, a highly complex activity.
Accordingly, we limited our scope to studying the interpretation of basic structures.
By basic we mean that:

163 Widely regarded as an exemplar of JRGs.

155

8

o

elements of the structure cannot be modified (for example by dividing them,distorting their shape etc.), and in this sense they are “primitive” (see Qian &Gero, 1996)oeven in the case when several elements are joined into a group, we generally
consider all elements as the members of a single structure which is analyzed.
However, in reality, when we design, we create many different groups, whichinterrelate in complex ways (Qian and Gero refer to these as “substructures”).

While the current design task does not allow designers to physically attach elements
into sub-structures, it may nonetheless enable a deeper study of interpretation at amore detailed level, if we further include the various ways in which elements arevisually grouped during visual perception (see Van Tonder & Lyons, 2005).
►

Complexity of design elements under consideration: complementary to theabove, to realistically model interpretation activity we may need to further consider
the design on the element-level as well. As we learned from Schön, and later fromBrereton, the choice of physical material in conceptual design isof great importance, since they shape the production of mental representations (Schön,
1992; Brereton, 2004). In our study, the level of abstraction is somewhat fixed anduniform. Therefore, it may be fruitful to enrich it by either adding new types of design
elements, which are of higher or lower degree of abstractness (in the case of JRG these
may be the moss patches, plantation etc.), or by conducting a similar analysis of adifferent design task, which demands working with changing degrees of abstraction(for example, architectural design which included both work with physical materials
and sketches).

►

Focused aspect of design activity: The current task places strong emphasis ofvisual aspect of artifacts, and the manners in which structures can be described on
the basis of behavior. However, it does not sufficiently address the aspect offunction. 164 We are considering to reformulate the task for designing Chinese
Traditional Gardens, which place emphasis on rock formations and attend tofunctional aspects, such as the user’s interaction with the architectural space.

►

Accounting for changes in viewpoint: our design task was conducted in thecontext of JRGs. As previously mentioned, 165 these gardens consider the user’s
viewpoint in their designs, thereby embedding the architectural space withexperiential qualities which are discovered via usage. The physical presence of users

164 For a useful definition of function in design, the reader can refer to (Gero, 1990).
165 Refer back to 2.6.1.

156

Discussion

in the space and the changes in their viewpoint greatly enrich the interpretive aspect,since the elements can be seen from different angles and perceived under various
gestalts (which invite reinterpretation). In our design task, subjects can view eachrock from various perspectives prior to placing them in the space, by examining themwith their hands. However, since their view of the garden remains somewhat fixed (asthey are instructed to use a seat), rocks placed in the garden are generally perceived
from a single point of view. In future research, it is desirable to enable the subjects tochange their perspective of the physical model, as to facilitate consideration of thestructure from multiple perspectives. In the case of subjects working in couples, thismay require to work in a larger scale, since the current size does not afford to freely
examine the model without intruding the partner’s personal space. Furthermore, it
may be necessary to integrate the fact that objects are interpreted differently fromdifferent perspectives into our modeling approach. This may be done by utilizing
concepts from phenomenology, which deal with changes in experience as a result ofshifts in perspective.166►

Limited scope with respect to situatedness of the agent: our work has drawn
on the approach of situated cognition (Clancey, 1997; Clark, 1998) for modeling design
activity (Gero & Kannengiesser, 2004). A key characteristic of this approach is therecognition of momentary states and circumstances as a driver of cognitive processes.
Such circumstances were taken into account in the work, by relating interpretations
with events which preceded them, and thus contributed to their emergence. However,
it is difficult to overemphasize the relation of interpretation and meaning with thecontexts in which they emerge. In this work, we have only done so in a limited
manner. 167 It may be possible to further integrate such aspects of context using
pragmatics. 168 Taking other perspectives, such as the effect of bodily states on
cognitive activity, may require to harness current theories in embodied cognition.169
We believe that, while there are numerous layers which interact in highly complex
ways, some may have greater impact than others on interpretation activity in design.

(2) Methodological Limitations in Data Acquisition and Analysis►

Reliance on protocols & the double-sided nature of language: in studying
interpretation activity based on protocols, we should consider that language is not
merely used as a passive descriptive tool for interpretation, but has generative effects

166 For example, see (Sokolowski, 2000).
167 For example, by noting the domain of discourse.
168 See, for example (Searle, 1969).
169 Such as in (Shapiro, 2011).

157

8

on shaping interpretation activity.170 This may be addressed either by including such
effects in the model (subsumption) and/or by attempting to collect interpretation data
only after the design session, as a reflection of subjects on their design process(neutralization).
►

Data analysis: Considering the complexity of interpretation, processing the data andidentifying patterns is highly difficult and time consuming. Therefore, a fullformalization of the core knowledge acquired in this work is of high importance for
future work, to enable computational analysis of the data. This will require theidentification of a suitable knowledge representation, which can accommodate the key
entities and relations which we have presented as essential for modelinginterpretation activity.

(3) Applicability of Findings to the Implementation of Computational Agents►

Selection among multiple interpretations: our findings enable to represent andstore interpretations within computational systems. However, since any structure
may have multiple interpretations (see 1.3), constructing an artificial agent forinterpretation would necessitate the additional capacity to select among multiple
possibilities, given a certain structure. While human subjects do this rather naturally,
the underlying mechanism seems highly complex, and involves an interaction
between one’s knowledge and mental states, as a response to current events. These,in turn, shape the agent’s momentary preferences, which may determine (or at least
constrain) the range of interpretations to choose from. We believe that here lies the
key for integrating such capacities into computational systems, i.e. in the ability toprefer one interpretation over another, on a certain basis. Accordingly, we suggest to
strive towards this goal by taking an approach of "human-in-the-loop", and inform thesystem regarding the preferability of certain possibilities over others. In practice, we
may let human subjects feed certain preferences into a computer system, so that thesecan guide the filtering and selection of interpretations. This problem may beapproached technically by integrating sub-symbolic computational modules (9.2), for
capturing complex patterns of preference by taking input from the designer.

170 For example, see (Vygotsky, 1986).

158

Chapter 9 Future Work & Conclusion
The previous section concluded with various limitations of the work, and possible ways toaddress them. This section discusses the concrete measures we intend to take in thesubsequent steps of this research. The proposed notion of NWs has enabled us to form partial
descriptions of the mental image held by the designer, during the act of interpretation. This
image has certain explanatory power, aiding us to make sense of complex mental constructs
and organize them within a comprehensible symbolic framework. However, considering ourmain goals (i.e. to deeply understand human cognition, and to implement our insights within
artificial agents), to make progress, we believe it is essential to:►formalize these descriptions into a computational model (for implementation in
artificial agents), and►complement the above computational model with a sub-symbolic layer ofrepresentation (for realistically describing the mental image).

The importance of the above for future research, and the manners in which we may approach
them, are discussed in the following sub-sections.

9.1 Formalizing our Model
We describe one essential direction which our future work is planned to take. NWs, as wellas their associated entities, aid in describing interpretation of structures in a systematicmanner. As we have seen in Chapter 8, representing interpretation activity using NWs allows
us to both organize key entities involved in interpretive processes, and visualize them as anintelligible construct. However, the current account of NWs lacks in two main aspects. First,
in its ability to be implemented in a computational system, for enhancing artificial agents
engaging in interpretation. Second, in our ability to expose complex patterns which emerge
during interpretation activity, by reading their content. These are briefly discussed hereafter.
First, we strongly believe that implementing the ability to represent and reason with respect
to NWs can greatly enhance current computational systems, and their capacity to engage ininterpretation in conceptual design. At the moment, NWs are described as semi-formal
constructs, by providing an account of their general entities and relations (mental spaces,
design elements etc.). However, such an account is insufficient for implementation in acomputational design system. A computational implementation would require a fullformalization of the notion of NWs and the key entities which compose them. While this task

9is feasible, further research is required in order to determine what knowledge representation
framework can effectively host these worlds. As we have shown in chapter 7, interpretation
may involve the existence of several, conflicting worlds. Therefore, it is important that the
selected knowledge representation framework would have the capacity for representing suchinconsistencies. Accordingly, we suggest to begin by closely examining systems associatedwith modal logic and possible world semantics.
Second, regarding our current ability to identify patterns within NWs - considering the
cumulative complexity of the entities which appear during design sessions, processing thedata and identifying patterns is highly difficult and time consuming. A full formalization of
the core knowledge acquired in this work, may greatly aid in our future work, since it will
open the possibility for representing and thus analyzing the data computationally. Thisfurther support our claim regarding the need for formalization of the constructs proposed inthis work.

9.2 Beyond Symbolic Representation
The second direction we intend to take in our future work deals with the need for adding a
sub-symbolic layer to our model. What do we mean by a sub-symbolic layer, and why shouldsuch a layer be added? First, it is important to introduce the difference between symbolic andsub-symbolic layers of conception. According to Fujii, when describing the manner in which
agents experience the world, we can distinguish between three main conceptual layers:
symbolic, sub-symbolic, and non-symbolic (Fujii, 2019). The symbolic layer generally refers
to storing and manipulating symbols which stand for mental concepts, “grounding” them inmemory and consciousness (see also Clark, 2005). The sub-symbolic level, on the other hand,refers to patterns of neural activity which underlie such symbolic assignments. We leave thethird layer to the end of the discussion.
This work has approached interpretation of structures by focusing on the first layer, andprovided an initial account for the symbolic representation component in mental images
which are formed during interpretation. However, mental images are not likely to becompletely reducible to pure symbolic descriptions. Our internal representations often
contain and rely on additional sub-symbolic components, which involve complex associative
patterns, mental imagery and more (see Kosslyn & Moulton, 2009). Therefore, drawing acomplete description or representation of mental pictures in interpretation activity would
necessitate to account for this essential, albeit complex, aspect as well.
In dealing with symbolic descriptions, we have taken the approach of formalization of keyentities involved in interpretation, followed by their implementation within logical inference160

Future Work & Conclusion

systems. Dealing with the sub-symbolic level will require taking a different approach, moving
away from reliance on symbolic representation and towards sub-symbolic representation.
This will demand the use of suitable computational methods, and may be facilitated byutilizing artificial neural networks, which have proven highly efficient in dealing withrepresentation and identification of complex patterns, in both verbal and visual data. Of
course, we do not mean to replace the symbolic level of description, which is necessary forreasoning etc. (see Newell, 1980), but rather to complement it via integrating the two.
Integrated computational systems of this nature are often referred to as “hybrid systems”,
and the practice of forming such systems is referred to as “neuro-symbolic integration”
Current research in artificial intelligence frequently emphasizes the potential of suchintegration, i.e. of symbolic and sub-symbolic systems, for developing intelligent artificial
agents. We quote Nils Nilsson’s conclusion in his article dealing with the famous physicalsymbol system hypothesis:“Here is my prediction about the future of physical symbol systems in AI:
They will take on a partner (as Brooks proposes). AI systems that achieve
human-level intelligence will involve a combination of symbolic and nonsymbolic processing”(Nilsson, 2007, p.17).
Finally, the third level of non-symbolic conception refers to our experiential awareness of theworld and of ourselves. This aspect of our experience, which may reflect our highest level ofconsciousness171, is far from being well-understood and formalized. Furthermore, it is unclear
whether such awareness is a precondition for the intelligent behavior that we are trying tomodel. Hence, focusing on the first two layers seems sufficient in attempting to enhancecurrent agents engaging in interpretation activity, and imbue them with higher degrees ofintelligence.

9.3 Conclusion
We set on this project of studying interpretation with the double-aim of: (1) enhancing
computational design systems for conceptual design, and (2) deepening our understanding of
human cognition. The project has taken an integrated approach of utilizing state-of-the-art
models of design-cognition along with empirical data from design activity. These have served
a firm ground for developing a conceptual framework for understanding interpretation
activity, from a holistic perspective.

171 Commonly associated with the perspective of “strong AI” (Friedenberg & Silverman, 2006).

161

9

The basis for the conceptual framework proposed in this work is a notion which we havereferred to as NWs. Generally speaking, these are mental environments in which internalinterpretive content is organized, with respect to states of affairs in external physical space.
These are further enriched by the identification and description of additional components
which play key-roles in interpretation, proposed throughout the work.
Together, the above extend our understanding of interpretation activity in a twofold manner:
first, by aiding in both organizing and visualizing certain aspects of the intentional content
involved in it, i.e. world-to-mind relations which are essential for its understanding. Second,by demonstrating the potential of symbolic representation in systematically describing
interpretive practices as partially logically structured constructs.
As discussed throughout the work, past models for design-computing have underestimatedthe importance of the subjective mental image held by designers, in describing design activity.
Recent models for situated design, which have begun to acknowledge the importance of theagent’s perspective as a causal factor in design activity 172 , have yet to provide us with
sufficient tools for describing the actual mental content involved in it. Such tools areespecially important for future computational design systems which target conceptual design,
as interpretation plays a major role within it. This dissertation provides us with a conceptual
toolbox for studying, analyzing, and describing interpretation, while considering theperspective of the agent, and as such begins to fill this gap.
The new understanding which emerges from this study therefore opens the door to embracing
subjective mental representations as potential components of future computational design
systems. In this, it serves as a step towards “humanizing” CAD systems, by endowing themwith representational capabilities central to interpretive practices. These can enhance theirability to automatically reason with respect to design representations, when engaging inconceptual design.
Beyond this contribution to computational design models, our thought-framework facilitatesa systematic approach for the organization and visualization of symbolic components which
are involved in interpretation practices. As such, it contributes to current research on design
cognition, by augmenting our capacity to deeply inquire into interpretive processes, which
are one of the cornerstones of the human capacity to design.

172

This perspective can generally be thought of as his/her internal reflection of external reality (Fujii et al., 2013).

162

References

References
Abe, K., Sakamoto, K., & Nakagawa, M. (2006). A Computational Model of the Metaphor Generation
Process. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, (2), 937–942.
Akin, O. (1989). Psychology of Architectural Design. London: Pion.
Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 28-45;
73-83.
Barr, A., & Feigenbaum, E. (1981). The Handbook of Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 1). Stanford:
HeurisTech Press.
Beckman, S., & Barry, M. (2009). Design and Innovation through Storytelling. International Journalof Innovation Science, 1(4), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1260/1757-2223.1.4.151
Borges, J. L. (1975). On Exactitude in Science. In A Universal History of Infamy. London: Penguin
Books.
Bowman, G., & Crawford, L. (2018). Narrative Reframing on Complex Projects. In Academic Design
Management Conference (pp. 949–957). London.
Box, G. (1979). Robustness in the Strategy of Scientific Model Building. In Robustness in Statistics(pp. 201–236). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-438150-6.50018-2
Brachman, R. J., & Levesque, H. J. (2004). Knowledge Representation and Reasoning. San Francisco:
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-55860-932-7.X5083-3
Brentari, C. (2013). How to make worlds with signs. Some remarks on Jakob von Uexküll’s Umwelt
theory, 7, 8–21. https://doi.org/10.4396/20130701
Brereton, M. (2004). Distributed Cognition in Engineering Design: Negotiating between Abstract andMaterial Representations. In G. Goldschmidt & W. L. Porter (Eds.), Design Representation (pp.
83–103). London: Springer London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-85233-863-3_4
Brooks, R. (1986). A robust layered control system for a mobile robot. IEEE Journal on Robotics andAutomation, 2(1), 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1109/JRA.1986.1087032
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds Possible Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 3-105.
https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.38.6.676
Burks, A. (1949). Icon, index, and symbol. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 9, 673–689.
Cai, C., Tang, P., & Li, B. (2019). Inheriting Spatial Features of Chinese Garden Based on Prototype
and Multi-Agent System. CAADRIA 2019 24th International Conference of the Association for
Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia, 1, 291–300.
Casakin, H. P. (2006). Assessing the use of metaphors in the design process. Environment andPlanning B: Planning and Design, 33(2), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3196
Catania, G. (2007). Form-features for Mechanical Design and Manufacturing. Journal of Engineering

163

10

Design, 2(1), 21–43. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09544829108901668
Chadwick, D. (1999). Crooked Cucumber: The Life and Zen Teaching of Shunryu Suzuki. New York:Broadway.
Charters, E. (2003). The Use of Think-aloud Methods in Qualitative Research: An Introduction to
Think-aloud Methods. Brock Education : A Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 12(2),68–82.
Chatman, S. (1975). Towards a Theory of Narrative. New Literary History, 6(2), 295–318.
https://doi.org/10.2307/468421
Chen, M. chu, & Liu, Y. tung. (1996). Symbolic/neural hybrid approach to multiple shape recognition.
Proceedings of the Annual Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, 158–162.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ssst.1996.493490
Cheng, K. (2018). More situated cognition in animals: Reply to commentators. Comparative
Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 13, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.3819/ccbr.2018.130007
Childs, P., & Fowler, R. (2006). Routledge Dictionary of Literary Terms (3rd ed.). New York:
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1292/jvms.57.911
Chin, K. S., & Wong, T. N. (1996). Knowledge-based evaluation for the conceptual design
development of injection molding parts. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 9(4),359–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/0952-1976(96)00028-0
Chitham, R. (2005). The Classical Orders of Architecture. New York: Routledge.
Christensen, B., & Ball, L. (2016). Creative analogy use in a heterogeneous design team: The
pervasive role of background domain knowledge. Design Studies, 46, 38–58.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2016.07.004
Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated Cognition: On Human Knowledge and Computer Representations.
Cambridge University Press.
Clark, A. (1998). Being There: Putting Brain, Body, and World Together Again. Cambridge: MITpress.
Clark, A. (2005). Beyond the Flesh: Some Lessons from a Mole Cricket. Artificial Life, 11(1–2), 233–
244. https://doi.org/10.1162/1064546053279008
Coyne, R., Rosenman, M. A., Radford, A., Balachandran, B. M., & Gero, J. S. (1990). KnowledgeBased Design Systems. Sydney: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Crane, T. (2003). The Intentional Structure of Consciousness. Consciousness: New Philosophical
Perspectives, 1–27. Retrieved from http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/13474/
Crnkovic, G. D. (2010). Constructive research and info-computational knowledge generation. Studies
in Computational Intelligence, 314, 359–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-15223-8_20
Cross, N. (1999). Natural intelligence in design. Design Studies, 20(1), 25–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(98)00026-x

164

References

Cross, N. (2001). Design Cognition. In Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education(pp. 79–103). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043868-9/50005-X
Daniels, Z. A., Frank, L. D., Menart, C., Raymer, M., & Hitzler, P. (2020). A framework for
explainable deep neural models using external knowledge graphs. In T. Pham, L. Solomon, &K. Rainey (Eds.), Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Multi-Domain Operations
Applications II (p. 73). SPIE. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2558083
Darke, J. (1979). The Primary Generator and the Design Process *. Design Studies, 1(1), 36–44.
De Kleer, J., & Seely Brown, J. (2014). A Qualitative Physics Confluences, 24(1984), 7–83.
Dewey, J. (1884). The New Psychology. Andover Review, 2, 278–289.
https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.47-0570
Dorst, K. (2015). Frame Creation and Design in the Expanded Field. She Ji, 1(1), 22–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2015.07.003
Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In
The nature of insight. (pp. 365–395). Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press.
Eco, U. (1986). Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
87-129.
Eco, U., & Paci, C. (1983). The Scandal of Metaphor: Metaphorology and Semiotics. Poetics Today,
4(2), 217–257.
Eisenhard, J. L., & De Schepper, M. S. (2000). Approximate Life-Cycle Assessment in Conceptual
Product Design. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers andInformation in Engineering Conference. https://doi.org/DETC2000/DFM-14026
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review, 87(3), 215–251.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215
Fauconnier, G. (1994). Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Feigenbaum, E. A., Buchanan, B. G., & Lederberg, J. (1970). On Generality and Problem A Case
Study Using the DENDRAL Program.
Feng, C.-X., Huang, C.-C., Kusiak, A., & Li, P.-G. (1996). Representation of functions and features indetail design. Computer-Aided Design, 28(12), 961–971.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4485(96)00027-9
Friedenberg, J., & Silverman, G. (2006). Cognitive Science: An Introduction to the Study of Mind.
Sage. Thousand Oaks, 311-397.
Fu, K., Murphy, J., Yang, M., Otto, K., Jensen, D., & Wood, K. (2015). Design-by-analogy:
experimental evaluation of a functional analogy search methodology for concept generation
improvement. Research in Engineering Design, 26(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-0140186-4

165

10

Fujii, H. (2019). MAAI: Dynamic Equilibrium in Architecture. New Generation Computing, 37(3),285–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00354-019-00068-w
Fujii, H., & Aoki, Y. (2003). Dual Deep-Structure to Associate a Shape with its Linguistic
Description : A Hypothetical Framework and an Experimental Implementation, 2(1), 115–121.
https://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.2.115
Fujii, H., Nakashima, H., & Suwa, M. (2013). Proposing Designology. 5th International Congress ofInternational Association of Societies of Design Research, 2232–2243.
Fukuda, T., & Saito, F. (1996). Motion control of a brachiation robot. Robotics and Autonomous
Systems, 18(1–2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8890(96)00002-4
Gallagher, S. (2001). Philosophical Antecedents of Situated Cognition. In The Cambridge Handbookof Situated Cognition (pp. 35–52). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816826.003
Garcez, A. d’Avila, Gori, M., Lamb, L. C., Serafini, L., Spranger, M., & Tran, S. N. (2019). Neuralsymbolic computing: An effective methodology for principled integration of machine learningand reasoning. IfCoLoG Journal of Logics and Their Applications, 6(4), 611–631. Retrieved
from http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.06088
Garcez, D. S. A., Broda, K. B., & Gabbay, D. M. (2002). Neural-Symbolic Learning Systems:
Foundations and Applications. London: Springer-Verlag.
Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual Spaces. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2076.001.0001
Gentner, D. (1983). Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy. Cognitive Science, 7,
155–170. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0702
Gentner, D., & Smith, L. (2012). Analogical Reasoning. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopediaof Human Behavior (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 130–136). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012-375000-6.00022-7
Gero, J. (1990). Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design. AI Magazine,
11(4), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v11i4.854
Gero, J. (1996). Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. Knowledge-Based Systems, 9(7), 435–
448. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-7051(96)01054-4
Gero, J. (1998a). Concept Formation in Design : Towards a Loosely-Wired Brain Model, 11(1998),
429–435.
Gero, J. (1998b). Conceptual designing as a sequence of situated acts. In Lecture Notes in Computer
Science (pp. 165–177). https://doi.org/10.1007/bfb0030450
Gero, J., & Fujii, H. (2000a). A Computational Framework for a Situated Design Agent , Part B :Constructive Memory. Knowledge-Based Systems, 13(6), 361–368.
Gero, J., & Fujii, H. (2000b). Computational framework for concept formation for a situated design

166

References

agent. Knowledge-Based Systems, 13(6), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-7051(00)000769
Gero, J., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design
Studies, 25(4), 373–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2003.10.010
Gibson, J. (2014). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. https://doi.org/10.2307/989638
Goel, A. K., Vattam, S., Wiltgen, B., & Helms, M. (2012). Cognitive, collaborative, conceptual andcreative - Four characteristics of the next generation of knowledge-based CAD systems: A study
in biologically inspired design. CAD Computer Aided Design, 44(10), 879–900.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2011.03.010
Goldschmidt, G. (1988). Interpretation: its role in architectural designing. Design Studies, 9(4), 235–
245. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(88)90009-9
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The Dialectics of Sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123–143.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534381
Goldschmidt, G. (2014). Linkography: unfolding the design process. London: MIT press.
Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1-22.
https://doi.org/10.1139/g76-080
Groenewolt, A., Schwinn, T., Nguyen, L., & Menges, A. (2018). An interactive agent-based
framework for materialization-informed architectural design. Swarm Intelligence, 12(2), 155–
186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11721-017-0151-8
Gürer, E., Özkar, M., & Çağdaş, G. (2014). The role of interpretation in basic design. A|Z ITU, 11(1),158–173.
Hawking, Stephen, W. (2001). The Universe in a Nutshell. New York: Bantam.
Hay, L., Cash, P., & McKilligan, S. (2020). The future of design cognition analysis. Design Science.
https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.20
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time (Translated). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Henderson, M. R., & Anderson, D. C. (1984). Computer recognition and extraction of form features: A
CAD/CAM link. Computers in Industry, 5(4), 329–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/01663615(84)90056-3
Herr, C. M., & Fischer, T. (2019). Design cybernetics and CAAD research. Intelligent and Informed Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Computer-Aided Architectural Design
Research in Asia, CAADRIA 2019, 2, 541–550.
Hey, J., & Agogino, A. (2007). Metaphors in Conceptual Design. Proceedings of the ASME 2007
International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in
Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2007 September 4-7, 2007, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, 1–10.
https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2007-34874
Hey, J., Linsey, J., Agogino, A., & Wood, K. (2008). Analogies and metaphors in creative design.

167

10

International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 283–294. Retrieved fromhttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.161.4709&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Hilario, M. (1995). An Overview of Strategies for Neurosymbolic Integration. In Workshop on
Connectionist-Symbolic Integration:From Unified to Hybrid Approaches at the FourteenthInternational Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
Holyoak, K., & Thagard, P. (1996). Mental Leaps. Massachusetts: MIT press.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1201_8
Hsiao, S.-W., & Tsai, H.-C. (2005). Applying a hybrid approach based on fuzzy neural network andgenetic algorithm to product form design. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics,
35(5), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2004.10.007
Huang, H. Z., Liu, Y., Li, Y., Xue, L., & Wang, Z. (2013). New evaluation methods for conceptual
design selection using computational intelligence techniques. Journal of Mechanical Scienceand Technology, 27(3), 733–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-013-0123-x
Huhns, M. N., & Acosta, R. D. (1992). Argo: an Analogical Reasoning System for Solving Design
Problems. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering Design, (February), 105–143.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-660562-4.50010-8
Jastrow, J. (1892). Studies from the Laboratory of Experimental Psychology of the University of
Wisconsin. II. The American Journal of Psychology, 4(3), 381. https://doi.org/10.2307/1411617
Johnson, M. (1990). The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jowers, I., Prats, M., Lim, S., McKay, A., Garner, S., & Chase, S. (2008). Supporting
Reinterpretation in Computer-Aided Conceptual Design. EUROGRAPHICS Workshop on
Sketch-Based Interfaces and Modeling, 151–158. https://doi.org/10.2312/SBM/SBM08/151-158
Jung, C. G., von Franz, M.-L., Henderson, J. L., Jacobi, J., & Jaffe, A. (1964). Man and his Symbols.
New York: Dell Publishing, 1-94.
Kahlon, Y., & Fujii, H. (2019). A Framework for Concept Formation in CAD Systems: A Case Studyof Japanese Rock Garden Design. Computer-Aided Design and Applications, 17(2), 419–428.
https://doi.org/10.14733/cadaps.2020.419-428
Kahlon, Y., & Fujii, H. (2020a). Framework for metaphor-based spatial configuration design: a casestudy of Japanese rock gardens. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis andManufacturing, 34(2), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060419000295
Kahlon, Y., & Fujii, H. (2020b). Towards Modelling Interpretation of Structure as a Situated
Activity: A Case Study of Japanese Rock Garden Designs. In J. S. Gero (Ed.), Design Computing
and Cognition ’20. Springer.
Kalay, Y. E. (2004). Architecture’s new media: Principles, theories, and methods of computer-aided
design. Cambridge: MIT press. https://doi.org/10.1080/17533015.2011.584886
Kannengiesser, U., & Gero, J. (2012). A Process Framework of Affordances in Design. Design Issues,

168

References

28(1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00123
Kant, I. (1998). Critique of Pure Reason. (P. Guyer & A. W. Wood, Eds.). Cambridge University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804649
Kao, J. T., Bergen, L., & Goodman, N. (2014). Formalizing the Pragmatics of Metaphor
Understanding. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(Vol. 36, pp. 719–724).
Karimi, P., Grace, K., David, N., & Lou Maher, M. (2018). Creative Sketching Apprentice:
Supporting Conceptual Shifts in Sketch Ideation. In Design Computing and Cognition ’18 (pp.
721–738). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05363-5_39
Kelly, N. (2011). Constructive Interpretation in Design Thinking. The University of Sydney.
Kim, S. G., Yoon, S. M., Yang, M., Choi, J., Akay, H., & Burnell, E. (2019). AI for design: Virtual
design assistant. CIRP Annals, 68(1), 141–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2019.03.024
Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension: a computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin &Review, 7(2), 257–266.
Kolko, J. (2010a). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design
Issues, 26(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15
Kolko, J. (2010b). Sensemaking and Framing: A Theoretical Reflection on Perspective in Design
Synthesis. In D. Durling, R. Bousbaci, L. Chen, P. Gauthier, T. Poldma, S. Roworth-Stokes, &E. Stolterman (Eds.), Design and Complexity - DRS International Conference.
Kosslyn, S. M., & Moulton, S. T. (2009). Mental Imagery and Implicit Memory. In K. Markman, W.
Klein, & J. Suhr (Eds.), Handbook of Imagination and Mental Simulation. New York:
Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203809846.ch3
Krijnen, T., & Tamke, M. (2015). Assessing Implicit Knowledge in BIM Models with Machine
Learning. In Design Modelling Symposium Modelling Behaviour (pp. 397–406). Springer.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24208-8_33
Krippendorff, K. (1989). On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or on the Proposition that “Design Is
Making Sense (of Things).” Design Issues, 5(2), 9–39.
Kühnberger, K. U., Wandmacher, T., Schwering, A., Ovchinnikova, E., Krumnack, U., Gust, H., &Geibel, P. (2007). Modeling human-level intelligence by integrated cognition in a hybridarchitecture. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 277.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors We Live by. London: The University of Chicago Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/414069
Lamb, L. C. (2008). The Grand Challenges and Myths of Neural-Symbolic Computation. Dagstuhl
Seminar 08041, Recurrent Neural Networks: Models, Capacities, and Applications.
Lehtiranta, L., Junnonen, J.-M., Kärnä, S., & Pekuri, L. (2015). The Constructive Research
Approach: Problem Solving for Complex Projects. Designs, Methods and Practices for Research

169

10

of Project Management, (1993), 95–106.
Leifer, L., & Steinert, M. (2011). Dancing with ambiguity: Causality behavior, design thinking, andtriple-loop-learning. Information Knowledge Systems Management, 10(1–4), 151–173.
https://doi.org/10.3233/iks-2012-0191
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of Topological Psychology. (C. Morgan, Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Publications in Psychology.
Liddament, T. (2000). The myths of imagery. Design Studies, 21(6), 589–606.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(00)00003-X
Linsey, J. S., Laux, J. P., Clauss, E., Wood, K. L., & Markman, A. B. (2007). Increasing Innovation: A
Trilogy of Experiments Towards a Design-by-Analogy Method. In ASME 2007 International
Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering
Conference (pp. 145–159). ASMEDC. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2007-34948
Liu, C.-H., & Chen, Z. (2002). CAD-based automated machinable feature extraction. In Proceedingsof 27th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers (pp. 558–562). IEEE.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACSSC.1993.342578
Lloyd, P. (2000). Storytelling and the development of discourse in the engineering design process.
Design Studies, 21(4), 357–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(00)00007-7
Ma, K., Francis, J., Lu, Q., Nyberg, E., & Oltramari, A. (2019). Towards Generalizable NeuroSymbolic Systems for Commonsense Question Answering, 22–32.
https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/d19-6003
Maier, J. R. A., & Fadel, G. M. (2009). Affordance based design: A relational theory for design.
Research in Engineering Design, 20(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-008-0060-3
Mansfield, S., & Richie, D. (2009). Japanese Stone Gardens: Origins, Meaning, Form. Tuttle
Publishing.
Mao, J., Gan, C., Kohli, P., Tenenbaum, J., & Wu, J. (2019). The Neural-Symbolic Concept Learner.
Iclr 2019, 1–28. Retrieved from https://openreview.net/pdf?id=rJgMlhRctm
Mason, Z. J. (2004). CorMet: A Computational, Corpus-Based Conventional Metaphor Extraction
System. Computational Linguistics, 30(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1162/089120104773633376
McComb, C. (2018). Towards the Rapid Design of Engineered Systems. In J. Gero (Ed.), Design
Computing and Cognition ’18 (pp. 3–18). Springer Nature.
McGovern, S. (2004). The Ryôan-Ji Zen Garden: Textual Meanings in Topographical Form. Visual
Communication, 3(3), 344–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357204045787
McGrenere, J., & Ho, W. (2000). Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concept. In Proc. of Graphics
Interface (pp. 179–186). Montreal. https://doi.org/10.1039/b107967k
Miles, J. C., & Moore, C. J. (1994). Practical Knowledge-Based Systems in Conceptual Design.

170

References

London: Springer-Verlag.
Minsky, M. (1986). The Society of Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Mitchell, J. R., & Radford, A. D. (1987). EAVE, a generative expert system for detailing.
Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 14(3), 281–292.
https://doi.org/10.1068/b140281
Mohanty, S. (1997). Literary Theory and the Claims of History. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Mohebbi, A., Baron, L., Achiche, S., & Birglen, L. (2014). Neural network-based decision support forconceptual design of a mechatronic system using mechatronic multi-criteria profile (MMP).
Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Innovative Design and Manufacturing,
ICIDM 2014, 17, 105–110. https://doi.org/10.1109/IDAM.2014.6912679
Moulianitis, V. C., Dentsoras, A. J., & Aspragathos, N. A. (1999). Knowledge-based system for theconceptual design of grippers for handling fabrics. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design,
Analysis and Manufacturing: AIEDAM, 13(1), 13–25.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060499131020
Munjulury, R. C., Staack, I., Berry, P., & Krus, P. (2016). A knowledge-based integrated aircraft
conceptual design framework. CEAS Aeronautical Journal, 7(1), 95–105.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13272-015-0174-z
Murphy, K. M., Ivarsson, J., & Lymer, G. (2012). Embodied reasoning in architectural critique.
Design Studies, 33(6), 530–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.06.005
Nakagawara, C. (2004). The Japanese Garden for the Mind: The “Bliss” of Paradise Transcended.
Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs, 4(2), 83–102.
Narayanan, S. (1999). Moving right along: a computational model of metaphoric reasoning about
events. Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 121–127.
Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and Reality: Principles and Implications of Cognitive Psychology. San
Francisco: W.H.Freeman & Co Ltd.
Newell, A. (1980). Physical symbol systems. Cognitive Science, 4(2), 135–183.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(80)80015-2
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall.
Nilsson, N. J. (2007). The Physical Symbol System Hypothesis: Status and Prospects. 50 Years ofArtificial Intelligence, 19(3), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77296-5_2
Onians, J. (1988). Bearers of Meaning. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Patrick, P. (2006). Design as Storytelling. TechTrends, 50(4), 72–82.
Peirce, C. S. (1998). The Essential Peirce. (N. Houser, Ed.). Indiana University Press, 477-491.
Qian, L., & Gero, J. (1996). Function–behavior–structure paths and their role in analogy-based

171

10

design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 10(4), 289–
312. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0890060400001633
Rankin, M. (1988). Designing Thinking-Aloud Studies in ESL Reading. Reading in a Foreign
Language, 4(2), 119–132.
Rao, V., Moore, G., Udekwu, O., & Hartmann, B. (2020). Tracing stories across the design process : astudy of engineering students ’ engagement with storytelling in an undergraduate humancentered design course, 7342418.
Rietveld, E., & Brouwers, A. A. (2017). Optimal grip on affordances in architectural design practices:an ethnography. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 16(3), 545–564.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-016-9475-x
Robbins, P., & Aydede, M. (Eds.). (2009). The Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition The
Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Rowe, P. G. (1986). Design Thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Salomons, O., van Houten, F., & Kals, H. (1993). Review of research in feature-based design. Journalof Manufacturing Systems, 12(2), 113–132. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/02786125(93)90012-I
Sánchez, V. G. C., Vergara, V. O. O., Salgado, G. R., & Domínguez, H. D. J. O. (2011). Do you want to
be in fashion? Go hybrid using neurosymbolic systems. IEEE Potentials, 30(3), 24–29.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MPOT.2011.940234
Sarkar, S., Lore, K., & Sarkar, S. (2015). Early Detection of Combustion Instability by NeuralSymbolic Analysis on Hi-Speed Video. In COCO’15: Proceedings of the 2015th International
Conference on Cognitive Computation: Integrating Neural and Symbolic Approaches (pp. 93–
101).
Sassure, F. de. (1959). A Course in General Linguistics. (C. Bally & A. Sechehaye, Eds.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Schön, D. (1984). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Schön, D. (1988). Designing: Rules, types and worlds. Design Studies, 9(3), 181–190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(88)90047-6
Schön, D. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation.
Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-7051(92)90020-G
Schön, D. (1993). Learning to Design and Designing to Learn. Nordic Journal of Architectural
Research, 1, 55–70.
Schön, D., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies,
13(2), 135–156.
Scott, B. (2004). Second-order cybernetics: an historical introduction. Kybernetes, 33(9), 1365–1378.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03684920410556007

172

References

Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438
Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Searle, J. (1990). Metaphor. In A. Martinich (Ed.), The Philosophy of Language (2nd ed., pp. 408–
429). New York: Oxford University Press.
Searle, J. (2004). Mind: A Brief Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shah, J. . (1991). Assessment of features technology. Computer-Aided Design, 23(5), 331–343.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-4485(91)90027-T
Shapiro, L. (2011). Embodied Cognition. New York: Routledge.
Shortliffe, E. (1976). Computer-Based Medical Consultations: MYCIN. New York: Elsevier.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Singaravel, S., & Philipp, G. (2018). Deep Component Based Neural Network Energy Modeling. In J.
Gero (Ed.), Design Computing and Cognition ’18 (pp. 21–36). Lecco: Springer Nature.
Slawson, D., & ZoÌen. (1991). Secret Teachings in the Art of Japanese Gardens: Design Principles,
Aesthetic Values. Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Smith, G., & Gero, J. (2001). Situated design interpretation using a configuration of actor
capabilities. In J. Gero, S. Chase, & R. MA (Eds.), CAADRIA 2001 (pp. 15–24). Key Center of
Design Computing and Cognition, University of Syndey, Sydney.
Soegaard, M. (2002). The Glossary of Human Computer Interaction : 5. Affordances. Retrieved fromwww.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-glossary-of-human-computerinteraction/affordances
Sokolowski, R. (2000). Introduction to Phenomenology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Song, S., Dong, A., & Agogino, A. (2003). Time Variation of Design “Story Telling” in Engineering
Design Teams. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 03).
Spivak, D. I., & Kent, R. E. (2012). Ologs: A categorical framework for knowledge representation.
PLoS ONE, 7(1), 1–52. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0024274
Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams - An analysis of teamcommunication. Design Studies, 23(5), 473–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00004-2
Stones, C., & Cassidy, T. (2010). Seeing and discovering: how do student designers reinterpretsketches and digital marks during graphic design ideation? Design Studies, 31(5), 439–460.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.05.003
Summers, R., & Dybowski, R. (1994). Artificial neural networks: from black-box to grey-box
modelling. In Proceedings of 16th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in
Medicine and Biology Society (pp. 1061–1062). IEEE.

173

10

https://doi.org/10.1109/IEMBS.1994.415324
Sun, J., Kalenchuk, D. K., Xue, D., & Gu, P. (2000). Design candidate identification using neuralnetwork-based fuzzy reasoning. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 16(5), 383–
396. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-5845(00)00017-X
Suwa, M. (2003). Constructive perception: Coordinating perception and conception toward acts ofproblem-finding in a creative experience. Japanese Psychological Research, 45(4), 221–234.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5884.00227
Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches?
A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18(4), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142694x(97)00008-2
Sweetser, E. (2007). Looking at space to study mental spaces. In Methods in Cognitive Linguistics(pp. 201–224). https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.18.15swe
Taha, I. A., & Ghosh, J. (1999). Symbolic interpretation of artificial neural networks. IEEE
Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 11(3), 448–463.
https://doi.org/10.1109/69.774103
Takei, J., & Keane, M. (2001). Sakuteiki, Visions of the Japanese Garden: A Modern Translation ofJapan’s Gardening Classic. Tuttle Publishing.
Tan, G. W., Hayes, C. C., & Shaw, M. (1996). An Intelligent-Agent Framework for Concurrent
Product Design and Planning. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(3), 297–306.
https://doi.org/10.1109/17.511840
Thagard, P. (2005). Mind (2nd ed.). Cambridge: MIT press, 1-58.
Tommelein, I. D., Levitt, R. E., & Hayes-Roth, B. (1989). Sightplan: An Artificial Intelligence Tool toAssist Construction Managers with Site Layout. In Proceedings of the 6th ISARC (pp. 340–347).
San Francisco. https://doi.org/10.22260/ISARC1989/0043
Tong, C., & Gomory, A. (1993). A Knowledge-Based Computer Environment for the Conceptual
Design of Small Electromechanical Appliances. Computer, 26(1), 69–71.
https://doi.org/10.1109/2.179161
Van Tonder, G., & Lyons, M. (2005). Visual perception in Japanese rock garden design. Axiomathes,15(3), 353–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10516-004-5448-8
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1993). The Embodied Mind. Massachusetts: MIT press.
von Uexküll, J. (1934). A Stroll Through the Worlds of Animals and Men. Instinctive Behavior.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. London: MIT press. https://doi.org/10.3233/BEN-19925106
Watts, A. (2017). Out ofYour Mind: Tricksters, Interdependence and the Cosmic Game of Hide-andSeek. Boulder: Sounds True.
Weick, K., Sutcliffe, K., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking.

174

References

Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(4), 625–636.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322
Wilson, R. A. (2004). Boundaries of the Mind: The Individual in the Fragile Sciences: Cognition. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, R. A., & Clark, A. (2009). How to Situate Cognition. In M. Aydede & P. Robbins (Eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook of Situated Cognition (pp. 55–77). Cambridge University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Yamada, S. (2009). Shots in the Dark: Japan, Zen, and the West. University of Chicago Press.
Young, L. F. (1987). The metaphor machine: A database method for creativity support. Decision
Support Systems, 3(4), 309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9236(87)90102-3
Yumer, M. E., Chaudhuriy, S., Hodgins, J. K., Kara, L. B., Chaudhuri, S., Hodgins, J. K., & Kara, L.
B. (2015). Semantic shape editing using deformation handles. ACM Transactions on Graphics,
34(4), 86:1-86:12. https://doi.org/10.1145/2766908
Zamanian, K., Fenves, S., Thewalt, C. R., & Finger, S. (1991). A feature-based approach to structuraldesign. Engineering with Computers, 7(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01208341
Zhang, D. (2018). Classical Chinese Gardens: Landscapes for Self-Cultivation. Journal ofContemporary Urban Affairs, 2(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.25034/ijcua.2018.3654
Zhang, W. Y., Tor, S. B., & Britton, G. A. (2001). A prototype knowledge-based system for conceptual
synthesis of the design process. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,
17(8), 549–557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001700170137
Zhang, W., Yang, Z., Jiang, H., Nigam, S., Yamakawa, S., Furuhata, T., … Kara, L. (2019). 3D Shape
Synthesis for Conceptual and Optimization using Variational Autoencoders. In Proceedings of
the ASME 2019 (pp. 1–10). Anaheim.
Zumthor, P. (2006). Thinking Architecture. Basel: Birkhauser Publishers for Architecture.

175

11

Appendix
A.1 Instructions Given to Subjects in Individual Sessions
The observer opened each session by asking the subject to take a seat in the chair next to thedesk. The following instructions were then read from a tablet device, one by one, making surethat the subject understands each item:►

In front of you there is a tray with sand and a box with rocks to be placed in the tray.

►

Please use the above to create a design for a miniature garden.

►

Please refrain from placing one rock on top of another, or outside the sand tray.

►

Other than that, the activity is generally free of constraints.

►

Accordingly, the design may or may not have a theme or “concept”.

►

The total time available is half an hour; this may be extended if you wish to continue.

►

During the whole activity, you are asked to use the “think-aloud” method.

►

In order to become acquainted with this method, we will begin with a short practicesession. Please find and pick up a rock which you like. While doing so, try to explain
why you chose it, what is interesting about it etc., as you go.

Notice that the last instruction was given only for subjects who did not have previous
experience with designing in a think-aloud style. Following these, the observer asked thesubjects if they had any questions, and answered these questions. Typical questions were“are we expected to use all rocks?” and “do we need to make a traditional garden?”. The
observer clarified that, except the above, there are no additional demands or expectations
from the design. When all questions were answered, the subjects were instructed to begin
designing.

A.2 Transcripts from Individual Sessions
We provide the full transcripts from the individual design sessions below. Each sub-section
corresponds with one full design session, by a single subject. When the subject produced morethan one design solution, we have separated the transcript into compositions, each
introduced in curly brackets in the form {composition no., starting time}. For the first176

Appendix

composition in each session, the starting time is omitted. Additionally, the observer’s
comments appear in square brackets, for example: [a comment].

A.2.1{1st composition} I want to make them follow one rock, like that. I try to make the color in agood balance like this, maybe these two are dark and this one is a little bit whiter than that
one, but I think maybe this one should be bigger, to make it more balanced. That one is too
big…like that. [so you’re thinking about the color and also the size] yeah, and also I gavethem a theme, and everything maybe follows the theme [so the leader is the big one and then
you try to match them with the big one] yes..[that’s nice] also in some rock gardens there is
not just one group, so maybe I can make another one to balance all the things, all the rockbalance, maybe like….and it’s like they’re two face to face, but its’ not so good because they
are sharp but this one is like a round rock [because its round you feel it doesn’t fit?] yeah,
but this one is good in size, but the color maybe…maybe should be whiter, like that, I’ll justuse this one. I should add more rocks to balance, should be like that…maybe here is like a
triangle, like this, and also the size of each group. [ah, so looking at the group as one pieces]yeah, I like the size of it, but it’s really not suitable for all of these rocks [I really agree],maybe like this. And also, for each small group I try to make some look comfortable, andmaybe that depends on the direction of each rock [so you’re trying to adjust the direction
inside the group] yeah, but this one is not that good, maybe this one is too big, put it just likethat maybe. Maybe like that, make it smaller and this one looks bigger [I think it’s a nicecombination]. Maybe I can make a new theme{2nd composition, 3:50} I really like that one [the big one?] yes, because I think the shape isgood, and it’s like its telling something [yeah it has many sharp corners]. This one also looks
good, it can be the main, ah… the main stone in the next theme. Because, its also like that,it has some story [you see something special in this one…] yes [so what do you think is special
in this one] I think it’s like an elder man or an elder woman who has a lot of stories that we
can see from his facial expression, his face is expressing something, and maybe he has
suffered a lot of things, that we can see from this small, how to say that? [bumps?] yeah, andit will be the leader, and maybe for that he should have some…some…next generation aroundhim [you mean the children…] yes the children are listening to his stories [I like you story]
yeah the are sitting around. And I think what is important is the position of each small stones,
because just now I want to put, I’m thinking about to put it here or here, but if I put that inthat position, it looks not balanced, it look not comfortable for me, but if I put it here it looks
balanced, but because of the theme, that the children are listening to the story, if I put it here
maybe it’s not so suitable for the theme, because of they are listening they should be face toface, but maybe it’s not a face to face position, but for the balance it looks good. Maybe I need

177

11

some small pieces, maybe that’s enough. Maybe I don’t even need this one, maybe just likethis [when you think about the balance, what is more important for you? You think about theposition?] hmmm, yes position and size, and the size should be someone bigger and someone
smaller like this, and the medium one, they are like maybe something to adjust the wholebalance of these stones [and you’re always thinking about the smaller ones] yes, smaller ones,
maybe we can say that each kind of stones has their rules, the bigger one maybe represents
the theme, and the smaller one maybe represent the balance, to help complete the theme,
and the medium one, adjustment, to supply the whole theme as well as balance maybe,
hmmm maybe we can change to another? [yeah we can do one more]{3rd composition, 9:00} this one should stand, that’s is like a background of something, like it
is holding something, hmm…...maybe because I chose this one first, so the next stones I
choose should be smaller ones, but if I didn’t decide to use this one at first, maybe I can use
some other bigger stones, and so this one will not be necessary, because of the balance [sowhen this is the first one, you’re thinking about this like the main part of the composition,
so you don’t want to put something which is bigger, because it changes the…] yes, because it
will also shatter its function [I understand]. The color is not balanced, and I think this one
can also be a new theme, like its also telling something [yes, the shape is kind of special I
think] and this one also, if you can give it a story, you can use it as a main one. Maybe here,
and then under the shelter of the bigger one, it will not stand…[maybe we can just put
something behind, ah that’s good]. And also, for each small piece you can change or adjust
the position or the angles of it, and it will give some different kind of insight I think, maybe
like this, like this one it looks like it steeps down this side, and this one to this size [so eachrock has its own direction] yes, but they are both pointing to the center. Maybe I can also still
adjust it…[the smaller one are hard to handle] sometimes you can’t really find a suitable one
or a perfect one, this one…the shape of this one is good, but the width is a little bit…not sogood, that’s just like this, in two directions. That looks not good….[I think its
interesting…when you feel it’s not good like in this case, do you have any reason?]
hmmm…reason…[if you just feel that, that’s also ok…] just feels not comfortable, emotional
feeling, not comfortable [I get it].
{4th composition, 13:10} when I see this one, I think it should be accompanied with some plant,some green stuff [around it?] yes, I don’t know why. Maybe because I’m under the influenceof Chinese gardens, I get this idea [ah they put some plant around the rocks…] yeah. Not
good… [you don’t like this combination?] I don’t, don’t like it very much, maybe its mypreference that one big one, one main one, should be with some small pieces, maybe here,
because it looks like this side is bigger and this side is small, so I just get the balance of thewhole thing, so I add something here, so it will be balanced, like big and big, a lot of things
and a lot of things…maybe just these two can be a combination? [Ok].

178

Appendix

A.2.2{1st composition} So I picked the first rock as this one, because among all other rocks, it kindof has a different kind of color, which is lighter than others, and I guess it is the most irregularshaped rock, hmmm, to me. I don’t know where to put it so I put it around the central partof this tray and, just thinking about this…the second one I picked in terms of the size it’s asimilar size, and to in order to create the contrast I guess, because I don’t know where to
start, but creating a contrast it might be a start of the design, for me. [that’s nice] so the color
you see its quite different, it creates this contrast. In terms of the position of this second rock,
I put it on the other side which is kind of symmetrical [it’s true, its symmetrical in the whole
space] yeah, but now I’m thinking about the third one…yes, for the third one I also picked asimilar shape, not a similar shape but same kind of color, oh same kind of size, and the color
tone is also a bit different. I think that will be my first try of this garden design, well it’s justthree rocks [it can also be just three] yeah, yeah I’m not sure but my perception towards rockgardens in japan its kind of three or four, but not a lot of rock [that’s true]. I think thesethree rocks, and the size of rock is kind of proportional to the size of the tray, and…as I
explained why I put them where it is, about the first two rocks, the third rock I just put it aaround, a bit to the left of the three, because if I put it in the middle it will be a regulartriangle, and that doesn’t look like a nice design to me [so you prefer it to be asymmetrical]
yeah [ok]. Yeah I mean a regular triangle is more like a symbol to me [ah a symbol forsomething] yeah a symbol for something, so its not a good design to me, just aesthetically [ahbecause it makes you think about the symbol] yes, and that it’s just too regular for me [that’s
a nice insight]. Yeah, because also, because I know I have three opportunities to design thiskind of, this garden for today, so I want to try a different color for the first time [that’s nice,so each rock has a different color, and together they create something]. Yeah, it’s all aroundthe center of the tray, and yeah, I think, when I look at the tray, my focus first of all is on thecenter part of this tray. So I think my first perception and my intent just makes me want to
put something around there [yeah, it feels maybe very empty so you want to put something
in there…] yeah or I’m not sure what to do actually, so I probably focus on the center more,rather than the corners [yeah I think as a starting point it makes sense to me too, so do you
want to try another one] yeah [ok so let’s clean that up].
{2nd composition, 4:50} Hmmm…can I also explain the reason of why I didn’t choose
something? [whatever comes to your mind, shoot]. So, I just want to try a smaller rock, andsee how the proportion looks on the tray. Yeah, second one…hmmm…probably this one, andyeah, I tried to put something in the corner, instead of the center part [ah that’s nice, goingin a different…] direction I guess…[yeah]. Let’s see, I want to see what kind to try out, adesign that is all the same color tone rocks this time, this one is a bit darkish, yes…probably
around here. Not sure, I think I’m…trying to think about, look at this rock as a dot, and try
to connect them together in my mind by lines [ah so there is a connecting line that is invisible,

179

11

like you’re imagining] yeah, I’m imagining some kind of like, you know, I think… yeah I
guess that’s it for my second trial. [can you evaluate it somehow? For example, what do you
think about it in comparison with the previous one?] I don’t know I kind of prefer three rocks
I guess, for the size of this tray, three rocks with that big of size, kind of looks perfect to me,
and I think that the size this time is a bit small, yeah I don’t know why but it makes me feelout of proportions [ahh, so you prefer this less than the other one] yes, sure. And also there
is some kind of rock like this, kind of a round shape, so I prefer all the rocks with the same
[like the same kind of contour] yeah contour yeah, so if I put this one it’s going to look a bit
strange [yeah, maybe it will not fit with the other ones, like it doesn’t belong in the group]
yes, and also like as I mentioned, I see this rock as a dot, and considering why I finished, it’s
because that the line kind of finished from one side to the other side [ahhh, so there is aconnecting line here] yeah, and I think that if I put another one, it just gets the line to anotherdirection, which doesn’t make sense to me, but, yeah [yeah, I can feel some direction in here
from your design, and I think it’s also a consideration] yeah [but I think it’s quite nice, do
you want to try a last one?] yeah sure.
{3rd composition, 9:31} Yeah ah, I think this is the most beautiful rock to me, among all otherrocks, because this one has more kinds of regular detail and contour, compared to.. [ah yeah]
how do you say? Its more like a huge rock that you can climb to [ah you can imagine it like aspace] yeah [or some…] yeah and this makes me imagine all this tray and the rocks like asmall miniature, rather than a real-sized garden, so I kind of…[ah that’s nice, so something
about the rock makes you think like it could be a very big one] yeah because I can imagine
myself during climbing a mountain and I can see this rock, because I guess I, like around theriver in the mountain I can imagine and it reminds me of some rocks I use to climb to, whichlooks kind of cool [that’s nice, you’re not the first person to like this one by the way, yeah, I
think it’s special] yeah it’s kind of, and it’s the largest one [yeah that’s true]. So…hmmm,
this rock, not really sure, just see how it looks and give it a try. Yeah, ummmm, I think that’s
it for my third one [yeah, so what do you think about it aesthetically, when you look at this,is this satisfying for you]. Yeah as I said, it looks like a miniature to me right now, and you
can see they all have kind of flat tops, compared with other ones which are pretty irregular,
and I still prefer a number of rocks which is less than four. Probably three is the perfectnumber of rocks in this size of a tray, for this size of a tray [yes, I know what you mean, what
do you think about the flat top, what is good about that or special in this case for you? I canalso get some ideas, but...] to be honest it looks better, aesthetically for me, compared to[showing a different rock] [ahhh] yeah this is special, but, and as I said I picked this one
before because it is special, it has the most irregular shape, and its kind of coarse comparedto, oh yeah I guess the texture is different I guess [oh that’s true, the ones you picked are a
bit smooth] yeah smooth texture, and kind of fine like, compared to others. And also for the
position, the composition of the whole small garden, I think yeah, I still prefer ummm, that180

Appendix

they get a bit close to each other, hmmm, which made more sense to me compared to, can I
move this rock? [yeah, definitely] compared to something like this. Because if you consider
the garden, and look at the garden, I think the rock is one of the main characters of thisgarden. Once you put them in two…the focal point in the garden is…[yeah, I know what you
mean, definitely]. If I take this one here, yeah it might be like much like much scattered, it
looks might better than, when they’re together [I agree]. Yes, yeah and also…yeah I guessalso like compared to my second trial, as I tried to connect by a line and to align them in somekind of way [yeah] I think that ummm it doesn’t work very well, I doesn’t look very well,looks very nice compared to this one, so I tried to get back to the, like, how to say, form somekind of pattern [yeah go back to the style of the first one] yeah, but I still prefer it in a regularpattern like this [that’s very nice].

A.2.3{1st composition} Ok, ummm, at first I have to think about my target, and who I design for,and also what kind of scene I want to create, still I’m not familiar with Japanese garden, but
I wanted some garden that can be interactive with people, so people can actually go inside[yeah] especially for like kids, can go inside and play around and walk there and here [yeah].
So instead of building a scene only to display, I want to build a more active feeling, so I will
pick a smaller one, not a big one, so create some like a small tiny space for people to walkaround, and also, I was trying to think that, what kind of a scene I want to create. Personally,
I really like city, like a very modern city like Tokyo and New York, [yeah] but the garden isvery peaceful something, so I want to create somehow like a contrast between the tradition
and the modern, so I want my garden to be very…you know, like you can sense a modern
image in the traditional ones. So to symbolize the image of city [yeah] I will pick some bigger
one, not to big, to create diversity of the scene, so firstly I would pick some bigger thing tohelp create the, ummm, framework, for example: I picked this one, since I think it looks like,how to say, a building, a tall skyscraper, so it like give a imagine of a…and also the shape isvery straight, and also beyond that, I began to imagine what was around the skyscraper. I
guess there should be a square for people to like, gather here [yeah] and to have some event,so for the space that around the skyscraper, for me I will keep it empty, and also have somesmaller one besides the skyscraper, because I want to create like a street, the conception ofstreet, for people like to recognize, to have a, ummm….can I change? [definitely, its very
flexible. For you the other one is also like a building] yeah like a building, but to create somedifference in height, to sense like a real situation [yeah]. I imagine the city should be like, I
want to create like an ideal environment, where you can sense modern and also you can sense
the feeling of tradition [yeah] so it’s very open and diverse. I want to give something like acommunity, like this part, the center part is very modern, but I want to create somehow there,

181

11

maybe it’s like subculture area that you can [ohhhh] that you can sense they may have sometraditional event, or some like, community, like hidden community [yeah] so they will havesome even smaller, even more smaller one here, so the, when people go there, they will sensequite a very different place from the center, and also, then I was thinking that this is a city,
this is a center, and this is a hidden space, and what else should the city have, I began tothink [yeah]. Actually it’s a difficult question, hmmm, maybe at the center of the community
are given I imagined, quite serious, so maybe I should give some places that are more likecrazy, more like … for people to relax, so I want to pick some rock which has quite like astrange shape, not like a building but like a maybe I would position the rock like laid down,
so it can create something like a park or like an amusement facilities, so I deliberately try tofind some rock that some quite a different shape with others, and I picked this one, because
this has a round shape, and quite different with other shapes [ah the shapes of the otherones] yeah, so I pick here, if I put here, and I find that and I realized after I put it there, thisarea itself becomes a small garden-like, so its like a mini garden in a mini-garden [laughing],
so actually its quite interesting to have that. So, it can create like three areas, it now creates
three areas – here, here and here. But the thing is that I found, how do you say, the…I put
the rocks quite concentrated in the front part [yeah] I think maybe if I put something in theback part, will be interesting as well, so I begin to think what can I have in the back, usuallywhat’s in the back, hmmm so I’ve [what in the back in the city?] yeah, in the city. So I try torecall from my memory that all the cities I like, and think, I memorize that I was travellingin brazil, and the city was covered, was…there was a big mountain behind the whole city, so
this kind of connecting the urban and the nature is very interesting, so I think there’s likesomething symbolizing the nature, that behind this kind of very human culture, seeing thiscontrast will be very interesting [ahhh] so I began to check if there is some rocks that issignificant different, either the size or the shape to all these rocks behind, so I grabbed thebiggest rock and tried to, because this rock is the biggest one in all the rocks [yeah definitely]
and also if I position it in a quite in a certain angle, and it can resemble something like nature,
like a more mountain or something like a Fuji-san or something like that, so I try to put it
there, okay [so for you, what makes this one resemble the mountain?]. Because the shape islike an angle [aha] like a triangle [ahhh, this shape] yeah, and also the huge difference
between, of the size between the other rocks, yeah because it is quite like, very, how to say,a very different scene, in the whole scenery, so it makes people to, for me it makes me notice
the difference between it and other rocks [yeah] so I put it there, and I try to look in a different
angle, and I think yeah, it’s quite has a different distance, and it has a different size, somaybe like it symbolizes a city with like a nature background or something, so I count, there
is like, for now there is nine, oh seven rock, so I think its probably done [oh that’s very nice,that was a very nice one, we can have five more minutes, maybe a small one?]. Turned overfrom the beginning [yeah, a completely different one] yeah of course I’d like, I want to do [we182Appendix

can remove] we can remove now? [yes, I will re-create this later using the data from the topview] ah, that’s great. Do we need to shake this? [maybe let’s shake it a bit]. You can start{2nd composition, 11:08} yeah, for this time I design something that is very three-dimensional
city, people sit inside, so for this time I was thinking if I could create an illusion for people to,
how to say, ummm, how to say, create an illusion that makes them think that it is either theright space or not, right dimension relationship or not. I’ll try to, like in the dream or like ina game, because the space dimension is totally different from reality, so I think If I could
create a sense of 2d, or like a…do you there an old game like Mario? [yeah] the space there
is 2d, its two dimensions [yeah] so I think how to create that, so when people sit there, they
will lose, they will lose the feeling of height, but only feel the horizontal thing [yeah] so inthis way, I try to recall what will happen in Mario game [laughing] when people jump andwhen people go, but they can only move horizontally [that’s true, like left and up] if I create
ummm….it’s very difficult [it’s quite difficult] I picked a very difficult topic [it sounds difficult,definitely] yeah, it’s very difficult, can I think a bit [yeah, take your time]. [You can also makesomething without a theme if you want] yeah [that’s something that’s also good] yeah [but if
you would like to have a concept that’s also nice]. I think that I can try during making thething [hmmm] yeah I have another idea, maybe it’s like, maybe it’s a little bit there issomething In common with Mario game [yeah] the thing is that I want people to lose theirsense of direction, lose their sense of their cognition of the space, until the very end they can’tsense how the space looks like. So I try to want to create a space that lets you feel lost, so I
will need to, some rocks with a similar size [yeah] because in order to make them lose their
way to…like memorize their route, and also to block their views of the whole thing [yeah] so
I tried to pick some rocks with a similar size, and also with a similar shape, in order to makethem, ummm, lose their direction, and also I need to make sure that the height of each rockis enough, it’s the height of the people, so maybe like this one, because I only have ten rock,so I can design like a short journey [yeah] and the short journey is like around the side of the[ahhh] yeah like imagine that the people enter there, [yeah] and this is another one, likehumans…people enter there. But they will have, less…they will perceive less other that what
happens in the center, and until they go, until they go in the center, they can’t perceive
something. But I want to, after I create this short path, I want to like give a surprise, thatafter you…this is also like something in a game, that after you finish all the route you will
see something [ahhh] you will see some difference [yeah] like from the beginning. So I try to
pick something that symbolizes something like success or something, like symbolizes
ummm…success or something [yeah its like the prize] yeah prize [for completing the…] so I
want to find something that looks very monumental, like big, I guess something big andsomething like a mountain [yeah] it is a little bit similar with what I have done before, but I
think something like [it’s ok you can also borrow ideas from the previous one] ok, yeah hmmm,
maybe but this one is perfect, but the thing is its not stable enough to stand, stand how to

183

11

say vertically [yeah] so maybe this one, but this one is a little bit small, and ummm, …put
the two together…so the two together...yeah maybe the two together will be good to put in
here, and also here. Yeah because in China you know there is like it resemble some,
something like a goal or a mountain is a goal, or something, a mountain resemble once youreach something, they will describe some very tricky problem like to climb a mountain, so
when people see this its like a, the peak of the mountain [yeah] so they will have meaning,that they finally see something I guess [yeah] so yeah this is pretty much for this, first they
have to go like this and they will explore until they go here and they can see this like theirgoal achived, it is such a meaning [that’s really nice, I think its right on time], but its, it’sreally not Japanese garden [its ok, the focus is on the composition] ah, composition [so…].

A.2.4{1st composition} Ok, ummm yeah let’s see, this is, oh actually I will try to make something,something that reminds me of a, how do you say, this big lake, in Siberia called “Baikal” lake.
And they have this island, and there is like a really famous touristic spot “Shaman Stone”
which is actually just like a big stone, I don’t know like a rock going into the lake from thebeach, so I’m not sure [oh that’s nice] so I’m not sure if I can make something similar, but
let’s try. Maybe it’s like….this one, and just looking my head, and they have this thing, it
has some, some…something to do with the local tribes culture of, hmmm magical stuff you
know, like [yeah] Indians, so they think its kind of a sacred place…[if it doesn’t stand well
we can also support it with something in the back] the thing is maybe it should like someengineering in it [laughing][it’s ok]. This actually…maybe I should have a look at the picture
first but [that’s ok, I will ask for the picture later] I’m not sure about the original [laughing].
Maybe, yeah but maybe its gonna be a little bit different from the, of course, original terrain
let’s say [yeah] but it should remind, should remind something. This is something that….so
they have this stone, and they have like a, like a spine like going to the spiral movement[yeah, ahhh] going to the shore, so lets see, here we have….how many stones actually? [that’sok, don’t worry about that for now] so I think it should go like [ahhh like this kind of linethat goes] yes yes yes. And I think….yeah maybe its gonna be one with…[hmmm, where is
the shore in your design?] shore let’s say…[I mean in the front?] yeah let’s say this is theshore line [got it]. Yeah and I think, it will be, so it has something like hmmm, something
like…maybe not…something like a small, like let’s say bay or something [yeah, ahhh so thewater is around here, if I understand correctly] yes yes, water actually comes around [aroundthe whole thing] so the whole thing is like, there is like a bridge, and here is the island madeof like rocks, going like this way, kind of look like a…look like a maybe, like a kind of dragon[yeah] lies and put his head on the shore, and his back spine with all these sharp [spikes]
comes out, and I think maybe it’s a little bit like, it’s a little bit ahhh, there’s like a curved

184

Appendix

line [aha] maybe we should emphasize it more…like this…[hmmm] yeah I think…[I canreally feel the movement] yeah more or less I think it looks like this [oh that’s nice, I reallywant to have the picture later, its not so important that’s its one to one, but the idea is theimportant thing] but yeah this stone somehow reminds me of this place actually. [so I justhave a question – if there is a reason you chose these ones for here?] ahhh, I think I was
thinking about the shore so I took one with the plain, more or less plain surface they have[ahhh, ok that’s nice] and for the expression of…like lets say this is the horizontal expression,and now were starting to go more and more to the vertical expression, which is actually thiskind of rocks, so from the shore [yeah, so like transferring from the horizontal to vertical]
yeah from horizontal to vertical, we start using these stones, also putting them…lets say theorientation of the stones may be differently [yeah] and I think they’re kind of, this sharp, I
actually like this, the first stone, the biggest one, I think he brought the idea kind of first,
but of course, like those stones they’re more, their concentration they’re more dense there[yeah yeah yeah] so just trying to simulate the, the ummm, the distribution of the stones here[that’s really interesting I have to say, because you are the fourth person who really likes
this one] yeah? [yeah] [laughing] maybe it’s a [something special to it] designer’s stone…how
do you say like the first, they say like touch stone, something they start the idea from [yeahextactly] there should be something you start the idea from, and maybe because of his shape,lets say like…he’s the leader [yeah I think so too, it has kind of like an expressive shape,yeah yeah yeah] and I yeah, and somehow he actually hmmm, I think he has this shape thatsomehow brought the idea of “Shaman Stone” or whatever [that’s nice, so do you mind if weclean and did another one?] ok, yeah I was like thinking what should we start the first design
with [yeah actually…] this is the most difficult [yeah exactly, the beginning is really hard,because once you have something you can always improve] but you need to have something
to start with [yeah yeah yeah which is…] should we put them back? We don’t have to use thesame with the next one right? [no no no completely free, let’s smooth this a bit, doesn’t haveto be so clean…ok, yeah, by the way, you can also make something without a theme, justshapes that you like that’s also ok, or whatever just…] abstract? [yeah that’s also good].
{2nd composition, 9:51} So…let’s try to make maybe, something like Stonehenge [oh that could
be interesting]. I don’t remember actually how this, how the Stonehenge looks like, I thinkit’s just a, I think it’s just a…columns [I think its two halves of columns, like two halves of acircle I think] yeah [not a full circle right] yeah, it’s kind of, yeah it’s like kinda look like acircle with those stones [oh by the way, there is one rule, the stones should be on the ground]
Ohhh really? [yeah I’m sorry I didn’t mention that]. Ok then we will maybe not go with thestonehenge topic buy try to do like random...[so right now you’re just exploring?] yeah [that’s
ok, it looks interesting]. Maybe, maybe I can, maybe its like you know, I went to Okinawa insummer [oh] and there was, there were all kinds of rocks, and they create kind of, ummm,
not a labyrinth, but interesting routes [yeah] then you just walk among the stones and maybe

185

11

you can walk inside of the kind of a cave which was [how big are they, the stones in Okinawa?
Is it like man-sized?] yeah or they kind of, much higher [wow ok, that’s interesting] so andactually they create different interesting…ummm, I think because of the…when the sea
comes up to shore, and they are kind of washed, and the surface of the stone, like the verticalsurface of the stones, kind of has this interesting, a lot of cavities in there, so its kind of likewashed by a…by a sea…[ahhh] by the water. And then when the water comes back…andthen those really…kind of…then it creates, so actually its like a natural hmmm, natural like
physical phenomena [yeah] which water just comes and goes back, but it creates kind of space,so the sea and the stones work all together to create a kind of a space, architect, lets say likea “stone architecture” but it becomes like, maybe there is…of course there is no intention tocreate this kind of space, it just comes naturally I don’t know, so in a way I think it’s thesame as we do now, so we don’t have any particular design to create, just putting up thestones, and It… and it just a…take the shape, appears naturally kind of, ok that’s the shapeit takes suddenly [yeah] let’s say spontaneously, spontaneous composition. Yeah maybe there
like, there is cavity like this somewhere [this area looks interesting] yeah so it looks like agate [yeah] actually we have two gates, here and here. So…and then maybe… like anentrance… yeah maybe [so we have like another minute or two, so I just wanted to ask if you
can talk a bit about how this is similar or different than what you saw in Okinawa, like if you
find some similarities or differences from what you remember?]. Oh, I think the first is, ofcourse all stones there they’re kind of like a solid, so they look…its actually one piece of land
which just washed away, it’s how to say…[ahhh] it’s just like have this [carved through?]yeah carved through the pieces of land, and create all these [yeah] corridors and narrow
spaces. But sometimes [I’ll actually send the picture later also, how it looks like] andsometimes it just has this passage through this kind of, yeah, these carved walls and it looks
like a cave [yeah] and there in the end you actually enter the sea [yeah] and…and sometimes
it has like, like one stone, like one stone another stone…different stones, so you have…it goes
like [yeah like a route] like a…yeah curved line, so you don’t have…sometimes you can see
straight through the corridor, sometimes you actually see only the turn, after the stones, so
you’re kind of curious what is behind the stones, so you go there, and there is anotherlabyrinth, so you go there…[wow] and you go go go, and when you enter sea, so its kind ofinteresting, creates an interesting quest kind of, and its really, ummm, its kind of calling you
to go inside and explore the area, so yeah and I think of the surface of how these walls are
created, because there are lots of crabs living in these small cavities [yeah, wow] so every
time you walk its like…actually they’re pretty fast [yeah yeah yeah, its hard to see] they rushacross the stones, yeah. And I think I have seen a lot of these, kind of stones, and they’re allquite interesting, because once you walk through, through one of these kinds of gates theycome out, and then you see like the white sand beach suddenly opens up, the blue sea andthen you’re “wow, like this is a cool scenery”, you go another cavity and then you come out
and there is completely different scenery, like also sea but a little bit different, more like
186

Appendix

stones in the water, so they [so you get different views from each point in the labyrinth] yeah,so this is kind like you have this portal like kind of this [uhu] sometimes you have to climb a
bit and it looks like, it looks maybe more like, like a something remains of a former castle orsomething, it has really a kind of, maybe like stair-look-like terrain, then you have to climb
up and then you come on one of the balconies, or the place where they used to guard the castle[yeah] from outside visitors. Yeah so, I think, but all this of course is made by just, how dothey call that in English [tide, or…?] tide, yeah I think [like when the water goes high] yeah
yeah like flood, flooding. And I think because of the waves it’s just like washed [yeah wears
down the rocks then…that’s quite amazing]. Yeah we…I saw this place at a local beach whenwith the girlfriend, and we said like yeah with have this interesting thing right here just a
couple minutes from the hotel [yeah! Just go…it amazing]. So there was really interesting
things to explore hmmm, yeah I think and yeah of course the difference is like, that its notthat super-dense because…[the original one or…?] yeah the original one I think here it wasmore like here it’s already the soil, like the solid [yeah] plateau [yeah] and here there more
like random piece of rocks [ah all kinds of heights and…] yeah so this, how this solid piece ofland start losing its, let’s say, territories, going back to see [ahhh]. Hmmm [wow, so that’sinteresting because in your design I think the largest similarity is probably the negative
space, right? Like if you compare this with the Okinawa place, so the things we don’t see likethe routes, are actually the…] ahhh yeah maybe, because like you see the overall picture andmaybe you can create the…but actually we started with the Stonehenge [ah, that’s true,
there’s still a memory over here yeah, but then the conditions changed [I’m sorry for that…][laughing] and then I had to switch to Okinawa…[oh that was awesome].

A.2.5{1st composition} I choose this, because it’s very big compared to the other...[ahhh, yes you
saw it immediately when you looked] yes yes. And then I want to put it in the center [hmm]and uhhh [yeah] it means quiet, and outstanding [hmm]. And I want to make some smallstones [yeah] maybe not this kind [yeah] because its close [yeah] so I want to use smaller[ahhh, can you show this one to the camera, yeah not this kind] not this kind [ok] or this kind[hmmm] it must be smaller in my opinion, yeah and it can be compared to the big one [ahhh].
Maybe a center island Is a kind of the image [yeah]. A big island in the center and a small
island [ahhh] yeah something like that [so we have a big island and a small…on the side] yes.
Maybe a kind of Chinese, you know, Chinese traditional painting [yeah] we have a title [yeah]
and the other things are for…[ahhh there is a main element] yeah, and small elements [ohhh]
something like that. A big one, a small one. Maybe there is one smaller than this kind, maybe
like this [yeah] and I put it in the other direction. Actually, I want to make balance [yeahbalance] of the whole, maybe two, maybe one is not enough [yeah] maybe two like this. And

187

11

it cannot be in the center, a little bit [ahhh a little bit asymmetrical, to the side] to the side,a kind of moving [hmmm]…like that, and this kind, so I try to make some change because of
my feeling of balance, I want to get a good sense of balance [yeah…so while you do it you try
to feel] yes, its beautiful or…[hmm] a kind of moving but balanced [yeah, ah something in
the middle, not moving…not completely moving or not static] yes [but also balanced] yes. So
in my imagination about…you know in the sea [yeah] ocean [hmmm] and island [so this is
the sea, on the white] and these are the islands] yes, yes. Maybe, maybe this side is too flat[yeah], its not…like, its not natural, maybe this side is more natural [ahhh, yeah its true,
this side has more like broken places, and you can see its less perfect]. Yes, and…and thiskind of stones has many angles [yeah] I want to put a more flat one [yeah] something like
that…its not…it cannot be too much [ahhh like too many…] yeah like too many, but not soless [yeah, yeah if its too little then it feels empty] yes. Maybe this is one composition [good,its exactly on time, lets clean?]. And…shall I do the seconds one [yes, that was nice], anddon’t worry I’m filming everything so I will recreate the compositions later using the top
camera. Let’s clean for you…ok]{2nd composition, 5:43} I think the second option, I will use another, another aspect [yeah] so
I will forget this first [yeah, ahhh ok] and take the…you know, maybe not smallest
but…[yeah] in the middle, the size is in the middle, maybe this one [yeah] and this one also
cannot be in the center but…one side [yeah] and maybe can control the area [hmmm], its justa center of this area [yeah] and…the small center will have smaller piece [ahhh, around]around yes. So maybe from my imagination [yes] you know the…the last design has one
center, but this one has several center [ahhh a few center like here center there center] yes
yes, so I will…want to get the first center here, yeah this is the first center [ok]. Maybe thebigger ones will be close to the [ahhh ok we go from big to small] yeah. And the…because I
want to…it cannot be in the…the second center cannot be in that corner, or this corner [ahhh,
it will look weird] yes. So more naturally its like this. And the second center…smaller stones[yes] maybe the smaller, actually I need one more the small [yeah] stones. But its ok [yeahyeah, ahhh] maybe I make some changes from this….[ahhh you changed therocks…laughing..] yes [that’s nice!] yeah yeah, naturally…maybe connect it to this, to…tothe center [ahhh, so there is one center and one center, and they’re connected somehow] yes,and uh….in order to get balance maybe put some here. Its like a…you know, they’re moving[ahhh, there is like a sense of movement like this…right?] yes [ohhh]. Need to think…andthis one, maybe a little bit in a…from here [ahhhh] because he has a good control over all theplan [yeah]. And…you know in China we also use a dragon [ahhh] and fireball [laughing]. I
think this is perfect, for…yeah [its nice!], for Chinese you know it’s a…[it’s nice, ok its exactly
on time also. So we can clean and do the third one, third and last].

188

Appendix{3rd composition, 10:14} I think for the third one I will use the big stone again [the big stone,ok the one from the beginning?]. Maybe the third one is a big center in the center [yeah] andnot exactly in the center but, but we also...I also used the sides, like this together with it[yeah] and becoming smaller and smaller, maybe this is the third concept [ohhh so there isone big center…and everything becomes smaller and smaller] smaller and smaller. Maybe
this is the third conception, its simpler but…compared to the to [ahhh, yeah I understand]
yes, its simpler but…[but its ok, simple could be good] yes, becoming smaller andsmaller…but you can feel its still moving [yeah…]. Even though its simple, we can do several
changes like hmmm, something like that [hmmm, how did you decide where to put these, forexample?] hmmm, the feeling of balance [hmmm] so I must take it as the center of this area[yeah] and becoming smaller and smaller [ahhh, from that one…] from that one and….yeah,
I don’t want to, you know suddenly become this [yeah, ahhhhh], like this. Becoming small…[Iunderstand, so this is bigger than this one, this is bigger than maybe this one for example,
so it becomes smaller and smaller]. Yes, maybe it can be two centers, from here to here [ahhhh,
so there is one center here, one center here] yeah [these ones are around this one…] but thiscenter is smaller than this [right…weaker] yeah [weaker in comparison]. Maybe thestone…this side should be bigger, the stones [yeah…ahhhh] yeah. Bigger and smaller,
yeah…[oh nice] this one Ok, the third one is…also two centers but bigger and smaller [ahhh,
ok so we have like…its similar to the previous one but different] yes [the previous one looks
like two big centers…] yes [and there is some connection between them. Here we have thiscenter this center, this is big this is small, and they’re kind of blending] yes yes [hmmm]
yeah. [for you, this rock belongs to this one or this one?] hmmm [maybe both…I don’t know]
both…[both right? kind of…] a kind of direction…[ahhh] maybe this side is bigger than this[ahhh we can put it on the big side [wow, nice and right on time] OK? [yeah more than OK,
perfect! Thanks a lot].

A.2.6{1st composition} [ok we can start] Ok, so thank you Yuval for inviting me for a little game[thanks for coming!]. So I might have some misconception because I know a little bit aboutrock gardens but I’ve never done one before, perhaps that would be…[yeah, that’s completely
ok, by the way some people have made a Chinese style or Japanese or even broke the rules
and made something new that doesn’t exist so that’s also ok]. How many rocks I can put hereis there a limit? [ahh basically no but beyond 15 is getting like too much] but more than 1 I
mean more than 0 [*laughing* yeah more than 0. Maybe in the future we could have justpatterns in the sand that’s also something]. So yeah, let’s see which rock looks the best,
ummm. I hope I’m not recreating anything existing [there’s so many options so you can becalm…]. Is it better to try, or is it better to have some concept? [you can do it freely if you

189

11

want you can just go, and then even re-design it or change that’s also completely fine]. What
I would I would try a few first, and then see which one I like. [Yeah why not. So right now
you’re comparing this one with this one]. Yes, because I’m trying to see if this one matches,
because I would put this one probably near to this one [ahh I get it]. Hmmm, i’ll probably
want to put my bigger ones first [ah start from big to small, yeah]. Then somehow I want tohave three *inaudible* because I want to have some balance, because two seems a bit empty[yeah, I know what you mean, actually some people have said that]. [Can I ask what madeyou pick this one and this one?] Hmmm, I picked that one because I want something tall inthe back [aha] and I picked this one because its relatively large so I want that to be kind ofbalancing on the right side, balancing on the left side, and this more like a foreground piece[yeah]. Hmmm, doesn’t seem to fit really well though [yeah]. Which side is front which sideis backward? Does it matter? [in this case it doesn’t matter, although you know in the
traditional garden] it has to be one way [yeah yeah, if you place it upside down, the owner ofthe house might die] that doesn’t look…yeah it seems like there’s some typology, like someof them match better together I feel, so perhaps that it one way to group them first [do you
think they match because of the color?] I think texture and shape. [texture and shape?]. Yeah,
probably. That might make it easier to choose. [oh that’s nice you’re organizing the rocks ingroups]. Because I find it…yeah, there’s too much information. So I’m doing like testing.
[yeah] Some kind of visualization on this [yeah that’s nice]. Closer to here, this is probably
closer to here [I might take a picture of this while you do it] So it seems like there is somegrouping [yeah, that’s quite a clever idea I have to say, nobody has done that] *laughing*clustering first. [clustering, yeah because it’s really hard to deal with the complexity, I think
so too]. I’m very method-base as you can see [so you look for the method on how to performthe task?] yeah. This might be a bit big [yeah]. I’m looking at it from a lower angle, to create
maybe some kind of space, in a miniature way [ahh so you imaging the rocks to create somefull size scale space] yeah, in the beginning I weren’t [yeah] but then now I think maybe I’ll
try that [Ok, in what moment do you think you started to think like that, can you spot thatminute that you transferred from just working to thinking about] human scale, yeah…maybe
when I picked this rock up, it kinda made sense that kinda looked like something, because
there’s this shape and that’ shape [yeah] so there’s something I find it unique, and then it
made me think about going down into that scale. [ah, so because the kind of fit] yeah yeah!
[so that made of focus on that?] yeah [hmmm, that’s interesting, because it also caught myeye] yes [this face and this face they kind of want to be close] yeah, and that kind of made me
think “maybe one way to do it is to…”. [hmm, its also interesting to look at this scale, andfrom this angle] because in the rock garden you would probably be sitting here, right? [yeah]
and then you would be looking this way. [yeah] well, one of them, but there’s probably otherones when you walk around, here there, but I guess one of the main views would be you be
sitting at this angle and looking this way, so probably this view is important. [yeah its quite
popular to make the central view as the sitting point in the center] hmm [yeah sometimes
190

Appendix

they plan a few good ones, and then they will place like strategic viewpoints, yeah. But likeexamining it from here I think it’s very important]. Do you think they’re too far apart? Whatdo you think? [this cluster and this one?] yeah [actually a bit] yeah [in my opinion]. But its
going in an interesting direction, yeah]. Seems to be like, interestingly, there are somecoupling between these three clusters, and they seem to talk with each other. I don’t know[ahh, I can see that now, after you said it. There is some like, it looks like its leaning towards
the other one] yeah [and also maybe in this case…]. Somehow, is there like a a fourth cluster,or change that cluster…[ahh, deliberating whether to add one, or just change the existingone?] yeah. Should I use this view, or should I use my own view? [ahh you can choose, but if
you have a view that you think this should be viewed from, so later I will also take a picturefrom that view] Ok. [It’s interesting to see it through the camera also, it gives you kind of an
overview] yes. Do you think they talk with each other, the clusters at the moment? [somehow
I see a connection, because for me, I see this kind of pattern repeating, that they have a stripe
between them in all three cases, and here it doesn’t happen…] hmmm [its quite interesting].
Yeah for me rock garden is always about the empty space [ahhh] that’s how I always see rockgarden. But I didn’t look at…yeah I don’t know it’s just when I go to one, the thing thatreally caught my eye is the emptiness [actually it’s a very good point, you know] yeah[because the amount of emptiness] is important [and its huge, in precentages if you measure
like how much nothing there is there *laughing*] yeah. And actually its…the reason therocks are there is to make the emptiness stand out [Its true if the rocks are not there thespace is just..] the space is more important than the…but you need it to structure the space.
That’s how I feel rock garden should…I feel rock garden are nice in that sense because it
brings you to kind of another experiential space altogether [yeah] that’s what I think isinteresting. And that’s why I see it somewhat similar to art [yeah] it kind of brings you tothis other dimension [yeah] so that’s why I think the empty space is maybe the main
character. That’s why maybe I’m just shaping rocks to make sure that it looks nice but at
the same time make sure that there’s spaces between them [yeah, there is always tension in
the garden between this and this, because they always like to use a lot of overlaps between
the rocks, but it doesn’t mean the rocks have to overlap. This idea of creating the tension
between them is really interesting I think]. Hmmm, maybe its too dense here [yeah. For me
what’s very interesting is that even though this one is very different from most of them inthe color – its kinda yellow, still somehow it fits]. Yeah this is the one that is very different
at the moment. [ahhh this one?] yeah, these two, if you look at it this is a darker one, this issimilar darkness, so maybe arranging like this also influence my design [ahhh, like thecategorization you did?] yeah, if I didn’t have categorization maybe I wouldn’t think like this,I don’t know. Just more experimenting now [yeah why not, let’s see all kinds of options]. [it’salso interesting to look from the top. That’s the only way in real life to get a top view on arock garden]. Yeah, that’s why its probably better, much better to work from here [yeah but
it’s also nice to look from there if we can…]. You know in ikebana they design from all four

191

11

sides, I wonder if they do that in rock gardens as well [I’m sure they do] so that you get agood view from this side, this side, that side and that side [yeah, well in the rock garden it’s
not a golden rule but usually there is at least one wall behind]. Yes it would be nice to havelike a wall, or maybe some trees or something [usually the wall is kind of here, or a corner.
Sometimes there is a, like a floating garden, you can walk all around and there are no walls.
But usually, they design the rock garden as to let you have a few good views from the balcony,
so its called “engawa” like the outdoor. Its kind of like a connection between the outdoor andindoor in the Japanese architecture, so you sit there and they will design a few good viewsfor you]. I’m just trying…[yeah why not]. [can I ask which part do you like the best here?] at
the moment this [yeah] that’s why I’m definitely not changing this, because I like it, I likethe shape how these two are. I quite like this one because it’s the first one I chose [yeah] I
don’t know why, I like the shape of it [the shape is attractive like when you saw it you wanted
to…] yeah I wanted to use it. Yeah I like the low profile of these ones, but their colors
somehow don’t really match so well [ahhh] so there is something about this that is not reallyworking, but the shapes kind of match [I agree about that] the shape is kind of ok, but interms of the color maybe these ummm [yeah it’s hard to find a good match in all cases] yeah[although it is true that usually in the garden the colors match, usually not always, but they
try to not let one element stand out]. So ok just flip it, oh I don’t know [well it could happen.
You are trying to recreate the same structure, or a similar structure using different rocks,
right?] Maybe this one is better too…I don’t know. Can I try two options? [definitely]. So I’mjust reducing, I’m just trying to work with two rocks first [yeah] because…and I see if it fits
[so you’re working two at a time?] yeah [and then trying to fit a couple, somehow…] yeah [bycolor or also by the shape, or maybe both] yeah. I feel that, that has to be the highest [theback one?] yeah, and these two probably are lower, and then you have something in between
these two here. I’m really, I’m going free-flow at the moment [no problem]. I fell this time I
probably want to use the darker colors, so that its more “one family” [yeah, they feel uniform]
yeah. I forgot what I did earlier [that’s ok you can fit it as you feel now]. [So can you try to
explain why did you add this one? Maybe its hard but…] yeah I’m not sure. I don’t think itreally works, I was just trying to see if these three can be a cluster, but it seems like they
don’t look so good when its together [ahhh, yeah somehow, they cannot fit as a group] yeah.
So that’s why I was experimenting with it, because it has a similar color, and its pointy.
Because some of them it doesn’t match, the ones I notice is for example this one is too smooth,and the too smooth one doesn’t really match the…[the contrast is too big I think] yeah, I
don’t think round rocks work really well, I don’t know why [agree] I think its just, its too soft[I think so too, actually they’re not to my personal taste, and they’re less common I think,
but…in this kind of design]. Its more difficult than I thought, actually, because its so free!
There no like, constraints…[yeah] the only constraint…the only thing I had in mind is like I
want to make a garden that can at least, at minimum achieve a similar feeling that I had,when I go to rock gardens. [hmmm, that’s your basic…] yeah baseline [but I think it’s quite
192

Appendix

an interesting result] I’m just thinking should I add a third…a fourth [no problem, that’s ok
if you want to experiment…] the balance is now…[yeah now I’m thinking that maybe thereason that the third one didn’t fit here ] yeah [because these make kind of like a closed shapeso they want to stick together] yeah [but then you put the third one and it looks like it doesn’t
belong]. Yeah the kind of spacing thing is not here anymore as much [yeah, but you have a
few very good combinations I think. These ones, these two and these two are like perfectmatch I feel] yeah they somehow, they go together. [you don’t have to hurry, but we’re past
30 minutes] ah ok [so whenever you want like a…] I’m almost done [sure, when you feel its
ready]. [time flies…] yes I didn’t realize, *inaudible*. Let’s have a view like this [yeah] where
do you think I can improve [first of all I think it’s really really interesting. Like I didn’t want
to affect you too much, but these two they complete each other, kind of makes me feel likemount Fuji you know] *laughing* [and also these two, even though they don’t have the space
between them, there is still space here that’s created, and that really helps me to imagine,
like it’s a miniature. You know there could be a small person there or something…and thisopens like the…at least for me the imagination to all kind of things that this could be, doesn’t
have to be a stone garden] I was thinking more like, yeah, should I do like a miniature? That’s
one option. The other option I was thinking maybe is to create more, more like abstract art[yeah] I was thinking which way to go. But it seems like when you touch the rocks is seems
makes more sense to be a miniature [yeah, it’s a very common theme in the gardens, torepresent a miniature world, idealized world. Somehow it’s very tempting to do that] because,
its part also the tools, is this how they also designed in the past? [I don’t think so, what isvery common, maybe they also did this to make it easier, but what they usually do is they goto the outdoors to collect the rocks, you know to the quarry or whatever place they collectthem, and then they will observe and spot a few good ones that they like for some reason, inthe same way that you liked this one, and then they will organize them in the quarry] ahhhh[like it was the garden] really? Wow [that’s very common, there are all kinds of method, but
that’s also something they do. I guess working with a model has ups and downs] yes [upsides
and downsides. But I think you’re right - the fact that that this is a miniature of the garden
makes us think of this context] yeah definitely [yeah]. I chose the darker color ones, because
I think it contrasts better with the white sand, the whitish sand, I don’t know [ahhh, yeah
that’s an interesting point] where would you improve [so for me I would usually prefer not tokeep this kind of closed shape, or suggest a closed shape like a loop] ah ok [before, when you
had two rocks here, that was very prominent, and for me it kind of bothered me, because itfelt] too much [maybe a bit artificial] ok [and usually, if you want to resemble the real garden,
they try to make it looks like not-artificial, although obviously it is extremely artificial, yeahso they refrain from…] symmetry [yeah, this is one thing. So sometimes when we recognize
symmetry we could break it] break the symmetry [yeah somehow. Ummm, if had to conduct
any change, I might have taken this one somewhere over here but I think you design isinteresting at many levels. First of all there are all kinds of good matches here, like I said

193

11

before, but also you created this kind of concept in your design, ummm which is “try to matchone rock with the other”, and then you used that or applied that on different clusters. But
still even though you have like a unifying concept, every one of them is unique, so I think its
special] thank you [yeah I really do]. [And that’s exactly why I’m doing these experiments,
because the goal is to see what kind of way of thinking that human have that machines cannotdo] many [yeah many, and you discovered this by doing this because even here you know,
like when you let the machine design something, it usually doesn’t come up with a concept
on how to design] yeah it’s true [it just follows some principles] rules [yeah yeah, but whencan do this very naturally right? you never did a garden design before?] no no no [but you did
use principles that you know from design and somehow you managed to do this even though
you never touched this]. [oh and one more thing I didn’t want to say before, but many people
like this one, yeah its quite amazing almost everybody] really? [in the previous session I let
people design three short composition, and this one was selected every time, at least in one
session per person] it’s a beautiful shape [I have to admit, yeah. It attracts the eye very fast,
the shape is very expressive, I think. Even by itself it could be a composition] yes. Maybeeven just that and maybe one more rock, that could be something, more minimalist [yeah].
[it’s always hard to decide whether to add or to remove] yeah its really difficult, its moredifficult than I thought. [its definitely difficult] its difficult, because there are not many
elements, so you know every element has a very large impact] yeah [its not like a window ina building…] I guess like one thing..like doing it once I guess one thing now learning fromthis experience, maybe like I can design smaller areas in one time, maybe just this half [yeah]
and see if this half works first, and then design this half and see if it works [yeah] and seethem all together, or also maybe within here first, and then here, and then here here, andthen together [ahh, that’s an interesting strategy, you mean focus on one area, design
something there without noticing the rest] yeah trying to reduce the informations of too many
options [yeah] I’m surprised how many options there could be [yeah it get complex very fast]yeah [almost, how do you call it? Combinatorial explosion] yeah, yes yes, really really quickly[because anything you change creates many many effects on the whole design] yeah, I’mreally really surprised how even just one shift can has an effect [it’s true] like just a slightshift [slight shift to every direction and suddenly…] the feeling changes [and then you haveto adjust it somehow, but the problem is when you adjust it you create more changes] yeah[so you always have to keep this balance and try to feel…] yeah [that’s interesting I think.
Yeah try to feel if the changes are going in a good or bad direction] now maybe it’s too dense,
I don’t know. Either here or here, I’m ok [yeah, some people actually fill the whole tray withrocks. Like they almost used everything. I think that’s really hard to control, ahh but
sometimes it’s possible to even do that, although I must admit I am a minimalist] yes. I reallythink the space is so important in the rock garden. For me its really about the sand, or thesmall white rocks [yeah yeah the gravel…] the gravel is really the main thing for me [I think
so too] and it seems like these are the minor characters compared to the white sand, because
194Appendix

without it, it wouldn’t work, it would fall apart [I think so, yeah it’s kind of like a unifying
factor] yeah it could be moss, it could be rock, gravels, but yeah it has to have something, likea really important surface. [yeah, actually the first time when I went to this kind of garden
so I thought “wow this is so amazing”, because you know, you can never find places in theworld where there’s so much empty space, with white on the floor, and you cannot even step
inside so it makes you feel like “wow, there is so much respect to this patch of…”] space, yeah.
Space is first I think in rock garden. [yeah. Wow, could you give it a title maybe? Sometimes
I give my compositions a title just to stick the…I don’t know whatever image I have in mymind to the composition. Well you don’t have to, but if you have any title you think is suitablethat’s good also]. Last rock, and finishing, I probably took too long. [No that’s completely ok.
Like the minimum of the 30 minutes is to be able to produce a meaningful design. But if you
take more time, that’s also ok]. [What are you thinking about?] two things: I was thinking
about the name [yeah] and I think this one, probably doesn’t…because I know like rockgarden is kind of like water and then mountains in the back, or islands, but I feel this is likea maybe…a name is “above the clouds” [ahhh, wow. That’s nice...] I don’t know, because I
feel like, its above the clouds [that’s nice, that’s a pretty powerful name. It’s true, the themeof water is…] common [highly common, it’s almost everywhere, but…sometimes they also
have multiple meanings] yes [so it could definitely be above the clouds]. I particularly likethis view [this one? From the right?] yeah from here [I will come over]. It’s less minimal [ohthis view is very nice, I will take a few photos from here, but I also like the view from here,
because here you can see the empty space, which for me it’s very interesting, it’s like a cave
you know?] yes [under that one]. [wow but the change in perspective can really change…]
yeah now I see that I’m seeing that it’s a little bit imbalanced from this side, from that side
it feels more balanced. [yeah it’s always paradoxical because we always try to control all
views at the same time] but it’s hard, it’s not possible right [yeah, maybe after many many
adjustment we could get at a satisfactory level let’s say. Yeah but whatever we change webreak something in the other view].

A.2.7{1st composition} So now I am looking at each rock individually but I’m not making a selection
yet [ok], I’m just going to…where did you get these rocks by the way? [I collected them bywalking outside and trying to find all kind of shapes to make a variety, yeah my wife pickedsome of them]. Ok, I will not guess which one did you wife pick [*laughing*... I can tell you
later, I don’t want to affect you]. Ok, so the first rock I’m taking this one, and the only reason
is that it reminds me of something I cannot remember right now [oh] *laughing*, Ok? [that’snice]. And of course I am not tempted to put it in the center because I have always been toldby years of design, “don’t put anything symmetrically” [ahhh, it’s like a rule of thumb] yes,

195

11

rule of thumb, like “oh no don’t put it in the center”, but of course if you want you break rules
you put it in the center like “yeah”, but I have been, I have been damaged by teachers [yeahyeah yeah, we cannot get rid of this] right? [yeah]. Because now I am tempted to put
something in the exact opposite, but I will not. Why? [resist this temptation…] I am resisting
this temptation now, and I am also…the lone rock over there, it kind of reminds me, I don’t
want to say it but kind of like cat feces in the middle of the sidewalk [ok *laughing*] so now
I want to resist, I want to make it go up now, I feel this like, I want something to go up, andnot be so horizontal, like rounded, so but no now I don’t like it… in fact I’m not liking thischoice at all [the first one?] the first one. So do I…[when you thought about making thevertical one, so it was in contrast to the horizontal?] yeah [Ok]. But now I’m like, huh…likeI want little islands to come [yeah] but again I don’t want to take this one because that’s likereally huge, and I feel like its dominating everything around it, so that’s why I’m not taking
that. [yeah] but I also want variety in size, so even though these guys are kind of dissimilarin size, so I’m just wondering if I should take something smaller…maybe it’s a little bit
further away…or do I make these look really big by putting something else by putting
something which looks like a big rock [ahhh] but..,I’m not sure. [it’s good to try] its good totry. Or maybe something like a different color? This is coming in front…but that’s ok [maybe
we need more sand…] that’s ok [by the way, if something doesn’t stand you can take a small
one then put it behind, its ok its not seen by the camera] but aren’t we being…*points to tocamera*…big brother is watching us! [that’s true] *laughing* [but actually this one it toenable to reproduce it later] ahhh ok. [yeah]. Kill your darlings, that’s another thing, killyour darlings! If you’re too like, attached to one thing…no I hate that. These are just rocks!
And I’m being so “no I don’t like this rock” my gosh. [just rocks, but they have somefeatures…] just rocks, I’m like oh my god I don’t like this rock, I don’t like that rock. Humanbeings are stupid! Why am I thinking so much about rocks? [*laughing*] stupid humans.
[maybe it’s because were smart…]….like overthinking, like now I’m looking at this – is thataesthetically appealing for me? No that’s not. But wait…[youre not overthinking, that’s
completely fine, yeah you can go like the whole half just deliberating that’s also ok]. I likethis rock, I don’t like that rock, wow! Now we don’t have any of the original rocks. [so I justwant to ask like in the meantime, when you said “I want to make islands” so where did thatcome from?] hmmm, I think recently I have been trying to book a vacation to islands*laughing* [ohhh] and I’m like that’s what’s on my mind, because everyone in my lab rightnow has gone on a vacation except me, because I don’t have money and...life, right? [yeah,
student life] student life. Everyone’s in Thailand, or Okinawa, somewhere I’m not, and I’mlike “what the fudge guys, what the fudge?”, maybe that’s like the thing. [wow, so you havethis kind of association] yeah like I want to be on an island which is not Japan. [yeah*laughing*] lives are complicated [it’s nice, it’s nice. Many people have this idea of island or
this concept of island when they make the design, but every person has his different story, so
I always ask]. Why is everyone into islands? [so sometimes its just because they saw a lot of196

Appendix

Japanese gardens] ahhhh [and they’re thinking about the real garden, you know]. I thinkthat’s the first thing which comes to mind, even you showed me in your research that you
analyzed that. [it’s true, I think the most iconic, maybe design style or something is…] design
style…it was bugging me. No, that I hate *laughing*. Wow it kind of shows you how we havebeen conditioned by the media, to be just thinking about, these things…[what, like about theaesthetic part all the time?] yeah, like not the aesthetics, for example, like there’s a rocktherefore an island [ahhhh] see so I’m like, my goodness, social media is affecting my brain
to this point? [hmmm, wow if you spend a lot of time on that, it might sit in your head for along time after] right? [so right now, you’re organizing the rocks, right?] *laughing* yes I am,
sorry…[no that’s ok that’s actually a very clever strategy, and I will take a picture while you
do it] *laughing* ok, so I’m done with that now, so you can just take a picture [some people
do that, you’re the second person to do that] wait wait wait…you know I will take a very longtime to do this now, cos’ oh my god, arranging rocks is such a good idea! [that’s really ok,yeah that’s a good idea]. [how did you arrange in general? You don’t have to go so specificbut…] hmmm, that’s a good question? like these two are pointing up in my opinion, thesethings are pointing in that direction, these seem like obviously asphalt I think…[so there aresome groupings…] yeah, and these one are kind of lighter sort of shade, this guy is huge, thisguy is tiny but they’re kind of like pointing in the same direction. This guys is also looking
up, but so is this…and then like oh pointing in that direction, in that direction…I my MIND
its pointing in that direction *laughing* [I know I know, by the way – remind me to talk aboutthat when you finish] in my mind…*laughing* [it’s a very good point actually] ok look I’mgoing back to the original one I selected, but I’m putting it a…like just avoiding the whole,which was reminding of that very negative sort of feces on the sidewalk thing…[ohhh] thatjust tainted…[so we decided that didn’t work completely] at all. [So we can leave thatstrategy aside] leave that aside [yeah]. Ok I think I’m done now [done?] *both laughing*. Ok
I’m not putting more, because I feel like the rock selection that I have right now, they’re very
similar in size, so I want a very tall upward pointing rock, with this very grounded, smallround little rock [ahhh] not completely symmetrical, like I was tempter to put this one rightin the middle, because I was like “it will piss off all my teachers” but then again my natural
human error thing, I think just judged distance wrong, and it put it in the side, but that’s apart of the design now. And, there it is [wow, I like it, what do you think about it, like how
do you evaluate it?] I think its fine, because, for my personal thing, this size of this frame,
doesn’t need more rocks [ahhh]. Maybe I would remove these rocks and then keep the largest
one, but then again, I feel it’s very dominating [ahhh if you place that one it taking all of theattention] exactly. I was kind of pretending if this was there its just going to take away
everything. So that’s my design decision [Ok]. Now if had a rake, I would get rid of all ofthese [ahhh, make it smooth?] *both laughing* it’s my neurosis showing at this point [not its
completely fine! Actually, that’s just another level you know, another dimension, of thedesign that were currently ignoring] oh, of course I can imagine [because it makes it even

197

11

more complex you see its already quite complex] yeah, its very complex. [Would you mind to
do another one?] not at all! I can do this all day. [Really? I would be happy if we can do likemaximum 3]. Oh sure of course.
{2nd composition, 11:00} and part of me wonders if my previous design decisions were kind of
influenced because over here there was this very obvious hole and my eye and hand was
attracting to this pre-existing hold a lot and I was like “should I give in to that?” and I decided
to give in, but that’s when I was like “where is the rake?” *laughing* [wow even before you
put anything there was a hole] yeah there was a hole, and that hole is telling me, its tempting
me to put something in there [that’s a very good point] yeah. Piss off out teachers, by sticking
it in the center, hells yeah [yeah you can be free]. Again I’m experience slight problems, but
I feel that the, like I understand you’ve done four [yeah] different scales [its true] but they’revery similar, my mind, my human brain is like “they’re so similar” [*laughing*] [yeah they’requite similar I think in the future there will be larger rocks also…much larger] when yourmachines try to take over, I get it. [I really hope they will not, they will be too busy designing].
Oh I want this to be there, oh people can see my other arm, my anonymity is compromised*both laughing* [I think nobody will care]. Ok I’m done now. [wow] That was faster than thelast one. [how did you make that? That was kind of…] fast? [no, not fast but very direct]
because I was already familiar with the rocks. I wasn’t looking at the rocks anymore, I was
like “this rock and this rock and this rock”, [wow, so you felt like you can do it very freely?]yeah, and a lot of things which I wanted to do I already negated, cancelled out in the firstone, so I don’t wanna do that, don’t wanna do that, don’t wanna do that [so you looked atsome rocks and you said to yourself, I don’t want to take this one] yeah, like I was thinking“if I have a second chance I would take this rock”, like I like the sandy one right [ahhhh] andI think that was one of the ones I picked earlier [this one?] yeah [yeah, hmmm do you have
any idea, maybe its hard to tell but, why you placed it like this?] to annoy my teachers *bothlaughing* [not in the center of the tray but this kind of orientation] because this screen isreally affecting a lot of my decisions [really?] yes because I’m looking like, cos Iv’e been
trained to look at the camera – “is it nice?” [ahhh] right? so maybe next time, two advices foryou: make sure that people can see this side as well [ahh like the rightmost side?] yeah bothsides, maybe put it really in the corner so you can see both sides. [that’s an interesting idea].
Usually when people make the design, so the maximum you can view is here, you cannot view
from the back] right [hmm sometimes you can even view from the back, it exists] like does
anyone get up and go around [ahhh no but some people ask me to change places. If we change
places, would have take a look at this for a second] sure [and then tell me if you think of it
differently?]. I actually like it more from here [like it more?] yeah [what do you see fromthere?]. I like that I was edging this a little bit outside from the big main rock coming out
like a little surprise, but now I can see it even more so I’m very pleased with it [ohhh] maybe
I should like make it a bit further away [ahh move the smaller one in the back] yes but then198

Appendix

I want it to…see again this thing is super affecting my decisions right now [so the angle which
you consider the most is the one from the camera] exactly, because I’m one of those people[it’s very good to know. Yeah in some cases, people haven’t looked at the camera] at all? [yeahI mean I changed the camera, and now you can see it, but you know maybe we can do anotherone and I can put a post it on the camera just so you can ignore it for some time] sure why
not lets see what happens! [ok lets do that].
{3rd composition, 17:00] now that we have pissed off our teachers by putting something in thecenter [yeah] I want to use this piece of asphalt [yeah] and I want it to have like this, likeover here you can see anything, but over here you can see a lot of stuff so I put it over here,
so people can see, like an I also, I think maybe this would be, I want to put it at an angle, so
its going a little bit up [when you say going up you mean this part right?] yeah. Cos I think,it was sitting like here, and putting it like that I guess makes it natural, so I’m just gonna
put it on the side, maybe tilt it. And then I don’t know if I want the exact same color I should
I use different ones [hmmm, yeah it’s a hard choice, it’s also hard to find the exact same color
there]. Yeah, I think like in Ryōan-ji, its supposed to be the dragon coming up [yes] so I’m
thinking do I want do to something like that? Do I want make a whole story about a dragon,
not dragon per se but something coming out of the water like the kraken! [some kind of
monster, mythological thing] exactly. [how did you remember Ryōan-ji, have you seen it?]yeah I’ve been there a couple of times, and I think I’ve associated your work for a while with
Ryōan-ji, because it was one of the first things you told me about, and I was like “ah yes the
person who’s gonna defeat Ryōan-ji somehow” [wow *laughing* so you already came withthis thought ] yeah this preconceived notion about like “oh I will be making…not of course I
will be making Ryōan-ji but when you wrote on your Facebook message that this involved
rock I was like “hmmm” [ahh, so in your mind you were thinking…] theres a rock involved,
and there’s a Zen garden involved [yeah yeah yeah]. Wow human beings, weird dudes. I’mlooking at the constrast between a smooth rock and a bumpy rock, and I do not like it [yeahthe contrast it quite strong] yeah. And now I’m thinking that I cannot resist this anymore,
what will happen if I shove it over here? Ok it not… [I think it could stand if you…nice. You
want to put something?] no no that’s ok. Like all architects *laughing* gravity does not letme do what I want! [yeah, yeah yeah…the physical world, you can take a small one and push
it in the back that’s Ok. Doesn’t stand?] its ok its fine, let it act the way it wants to act, we
human beings will adapt. Oh my gosh. This is also very black and white, which I enjoy [ahyeah, that’s an interesting one]. And this one has little holes in it, which intrigued me, but
now I’m over it [*laughing* it was very fast] *laughing* yeah. [so when you’re looking for arock now, do you know what kind of rock are you looking for?] I don’t want something whichis too similar in scale [aha] but now that I’ve just said that I’ve realized I used non similar
scales in two of the three ones, so maybe I should go for something with a similar scale [ahhhlike in comparison with the previous designs] yeah so in the previous design I know I’ve done

199

11

that, I know I’ve done that, so why not do this. Like what will happen if I used all of themwhich are of similar size. [yeah] and now I’m making a flower. I’m not sure if it’s seen as aflower [I think from the top it’s very visible] because I’m not making a dragon, but have you
seen rock of flowers, or flower rocks? I that I’m just wondering “wow, lets make a flower!”[that’s quite original]. Ok now, I have a particular flower in mind but I don’t think its gonna
happen. [what kind of flower do you have in mind?] ahh, it has three leaves that are normal
sized and one which is really huge, and its pink and I don’t know the name [it ok we can looklater, I collect the references, if somebody remembers something interesting I collect theimages later]. [when did you think about the flower? Did you notice that point?] ahhh yes, I
noticed that I was talking about the dragon, its very organic a dragon, let’s say it’s a lizard,
its organic, but its very associated with rocky things right? [yes] so another rock thing is likeone of those in the desert you have a single plant which is on a rock [yeah] so I’m like “ohhha plant, with rocks!” that’s kind of weird right? [wow, well associations are like that it’s veryfree] so what happened if we had a little tiny one instead, and we just bury it in the sand.
And I can just change its size by burying it [ah that’s nice you can totally do that] right?
[actually, it’s very common to do that] like it’s too big – go inside! Ok I’m done now, oh I’m
not done! Now that I can bury things, I’ve realized I can bury things] I mean three trials tobury something, should have done that on the first try. Did I bury you enough? Is it too far?
See I’m naturally going over here, is it too far? [I know what you mean] but I’m happy withthe distance this has…[when think about too far, like when you happy about the distance, do
you measure in your eyes between this one and this one, or between this one and that one?]
I’m measuring with the center, with the non-space over there [ahhh] these guys are aroundthis thing, so this will also *inaudible* from here [ahhh]. And now I’m just wondering like,this is how I would say “this is too near…this would too far…” I would say that this is like…noI don’t like everything going so top heavy, there’s a bunch of them right over here, so maybe
over here…and covered. So I feel that I’m taking the eye over here, then it comes here, which
is very common in basic design [ahhh, you were thinking about how to lead the eye acrossthe design?]. Yeah. Ok I’m done now. [That’s nice]. Ahhh approval *laughing* [so if this is
the flower…no all of them were nice you know…I’m just…] that is the flower, this is a fallen
petal. [ahhh, ohhh. Did you come up with that immediately now?] *laughing* right now yeah.
[that’s quite amazing, so when you did that you didn’t think about that right? You justwanted to have one more element] I was like “why am I doing this?”{4rth composition, 25:25] [Five more minutes, I want to try and challenge you] Ok, sure! [canyou try to make something with the round one?] this one? [no that one] ohhh ok sure [usuallypeople prefer not to use it] we used this in the first one [ahhh true] not wait we used that one
in the first one [oh I think it was in the front right?] this one in the front, so we haven’t used
this one!. I forgot my system of…its fine I know them. This guys right? why don’t people use
this one, is it too different you think? [I don’t know…maybe they don’t find friends for this200

Appendixone]. Ok so this is what I would do, I would put this one here, and since I cannot judge withthe screen I feel so blinded [yeah] I would do something like that, and I’m done. [wow, whatmade you, take the biggest one, or take this one in comparison with this one?] because I
wanted to use the big one, but I was again feeling that the size is very dominant [ah you
wanted to use it from before?] yeah because I feel It was the first one to touch its very eachto read to and its very different so I think everyone also gravitates to that thing, and then I
was like “oh but it lying horizontally would be taking up too much space so maybe we can govertically, but then it becomes another little canvas. Now if this thing was pink or white, I
would be so happy. But its not, right? its sort of like I wonder “do I want to put the whitething in front of it? But no I’m happy with the black on black. [so you mean this one is abackdrop for this one?] canvas, yeah. That is my thinking. [that’s interesting, and you thinkthat if this had a more prominent color, or something, that would create a…] even more
contrast [dramatic effect?] exactly. [that you would want]. I also think that from this side[yeah] because now that is very linear and that is very spotty I’m wondering if I want tochange it [ahhh] just like a line and a dot maybe [actually in my opinion its very interesting,you can see from the other one]. I wonder if that should be a little bit touching but not enoughjust to annoy you so close [*laughing*, they could even be touching if you want, but…hmmm]
yeah. I’m happy with that. [that’s nice, I think were right on time].

A.2.8{1st composition} Take me some time to look at these rocks [sure, so you’re examining theserocks] yeah. Umm, in this experiment do I need to um, consider the color and texture of thestones [ah, you can, if you want, but not necessary. It’s nice if you take as many things as
possible into consideration, to make a design that you are satisfied with] alright [ok]. [manyoptions…] yes. Hmm, [so what are you thinking now, where you’re looking at the canvas, or
the garden, and you’re looking at the rocks]. Thinking about traditional stone garden[imagining some garden you saw or…] yes, like I’m trying to find a theme for the design. Like,
ummm, once I think of making a good composition in this rectangular plate [yeah] umm, forthat the first image in my brain is that a corner of the plate should be heavy, and the opposite
should be light. So maybe most of the stones will stay here, and there’s one or two here. But
then I think, this may be the theme for a scenery of a mountain, which is here, and somewater like river or…[yeah] water falls down from the mountain and flow down to the riverand sea right here [yeah]. Then I think that there may be some other different kind of theme
like, umm, in one of the stone garden they composite a large ocean with some separated
island [yeah] so there is no heavy side or light side of the plate. So yeah, I’m thinking about
what is the theme for this [So for you the different things you just talked about are different
styles of design? Like, one style is some rock here, one style is something in the middle. So

201

11

you see all kind of different typologies or styles and you try to choose between them before
you start?]. Ah, I don’t call it a style, its just a story. Like one story teller has his own style
to tell the story, and he can tell a different story [go it]. After I choose the story or the theme,
then I think about what the style is, more modernist or more tradition [ahhh, I get it, I getit]. But I think how you choose the story depends on what rocks you have. [yeah that’s true
everything is connected somehow; you cannot create some things if you don’t have the properrocks or elements] yes. When I see umm these rocks, I see that this one is much larger thanothers [yeah, that’s true] so usually I think that this must be used for the design [yeah] but
then I think maybe there’s not focal point in the composition, so maybe I won’t use this big
one. [ah, because if you use that, it will attract the attention too much] yeah. [that’sinteresting…]. I think that this rock is suitable for the stone garden [yeah] because the shapeof the rock has some tendency, its long on one side [yeah] and can express some movement[ahhh, I really agree]. But I don’t know how to start putting this rock on the garden [have to
be brave, just do it…*laughing*]. Just randomly put it somewhere [ok, that’s a good strategy,
to just start]. This one has a very [yeah] unique shape [ah yeah] some very clear edge [yeah,very sharp edges, you can really see the shape] can we put it upside down? [yeah why not].
*laughing*. [By the way in traditional design its forbidden, but here everything is allowed,
so you can do it] *both laughing*. Oh we can make a, umm, a avendar. do you know avendar?
Maybe my English is…[show me, oh avatar] oh ok, avatar. By putting all the points of therocks on the ground [ahhh everything feels upside down] yeah. Hmm, this is a stone garden,
made me think, ummm, of a situation outside the earth. [so this is like the environment inavatar, in the move?]. Ah, I remember that in the movie, the mountains are on their head
and large [ahhh I haven’t watched the movie I have to admit] really? [yeah, so I have to see
that. Um, if you want to make it stand you can also take something and put it in the back fornow. Something small just to support it, and maybe we can cover it with sand later if youwant]. Just trying if it can stand, its ok because…[ok, I think we need more sand in general].
[So, just one question: when did you think of the avatar thing?] Oh, when I look at this one[ahhh, but when you placed it or before that] before that. First I think of putting it like this.
[yeah] Then I think its too stable then I think if I can put it upside down. Then I see its likea, not so…how can I say [realisic] so I started to think of environment outside the earth [wow]anti-gravity [ok that’s nice anti-gravity *laughing* that’s nice!]. I’m thinking of making somecomposition [uh huh] but still I didn’t decide of where to put this composition yet. [ah whereto put it in the space] yes [got it] just thinking about the relationship among these three [ok,and ignoring the rest…] yes [ok]. I do this because I think that this one is tall and thin, andif I put this one like this, uhh, it doesn’t…this is fat and sharp, so I’m trying to put thispoint…the…[they find it hard to stand…]. I think this is ok because it has some feeling of
movement like this [ahhh, yes. When you sya movement, do you see like a line here orsomething, or you just…] I think this is the front of this stone, because it’s the most pointy
one, so it points to this direction [yeah] and this stone, actually the feeling is not that strong,202

Appendix

but I can feel this stone has *inaudible* the movement to this position [aha, so the movement
continues] yes [by the way, you can also put the sand a bit around it maybe] ok [yeah thatmight help, let’s see…umm not bad. Standing nicely]. [So why did you remove this one?]
Because I want to start thinking about how this will relate with this, react with this [ahhh,
so at some point you feel satisfied with this, and then you try to adjust the other rock] yes.
This Is inclined so it has a feeling of outside the earth, I just don’t want them to be likeslipping on the ground. [I got it, so its opposite than what we expect]. Yes. [When you’re doing
the design now, so do you have a specific image in your mind] no *laughing* [like some image
as a help or something, or just…] not really, just putting stones randomly [ok, some people
think of a specific place that gives them inspiration] ohhh [but then, you don’t have to dothat]. I’m just trying to [yeah] like put it here to see if it can give me some new inspiration[ahhh, got it]. Or maybe, it can touch with this. Put this…this is definitely too big [too big*laughing*. Really attracting the attention]. Maybe the color of this stone gives an effect tomy thinking. Now I’m just picking up stones with a similar color. [ahhh, so you try to use thecolor to get new ideas or something?] I just think that using a different color can introduce a
different meaning to the design [ahhh that’s nice. That’s a nice insight] These are stones ofdifferent color, from these ones. I’m just picking out stones with clear edge and point, because
I think its more suitable for the theme. Ummm, these two stand in the middle, in the
beginning, because I didn’t think of their position yet, so now I put them away, to rethinktheir position [ahhh I got it]. Hmmm, what’s this? It looks like a new one. [yeah the otherside of the rock is very different, it turns out]. Hmmm, this looks like a building. Maybe it’s
the basement of some military [*laughing* yeah it could definitely be with this shape] ok so
I just treat this as a artifact. So no I’m thinking that, ahhh, this is a basement for the basefor them human’s spaceships, something like that [yeah yeah yeah] and it is facing some very
dangerous ahhh, environment in the space, because there are many rocks in the space [ahhhgot it *laughing*] and they need to go through the rocks and seek some treasure [ohhh, so
the base is here?] ahh probably [ok]. This stone has similar color with others, but its shape isdifferent, so I use this as the symbol of the treasure. [ahhh, that’s nice. Yeah it is very
different than all of the other one] So all need to do is to create a difficult situation for theman here. [diffuclt is like difficult to find the treasure, right?] difficult to go across to stones,
yeah also difficult to find the treasure [yeah but like a dangerous environment that you haveto make an effort to reach the treasure] yes. Maybe the treasure shouldn’t be near the edge,
because it may get less importance. And this man shouldnt be able to look through the edgesof the stones, to look at the treasure, so I put some other things to block their eyesight [ahhh,yeah make it hidden]. The big stones I used to be ummm, to be the main forces to stop thishuman [yeah] and there are some small stones to guard the treasure closely [ahhh] I do thisbecause I want to , how can I say…let the stones have more connection, have more interaction
with this stone [ahhh, so is it like a more gradual transfer from this one to this one, like big
small smaller, something like that?] yeah you can say it like that. But its hard to place these

203

11

[hard to find a good place for them…]. It’s hard to balance, the…this distance and thisdistance [ahhh, so you feel something here, it doesn’t fit?] yeah [So you keep moving it until
you find a good balance…]. So these three are the, ahhh when you see the movie [yeah] themain role, first they beat some small enemy, and then they see the big enemy [ohhh] andthen they make a very large effort to defeat them [yeah] and after that they succeed and findthe thing they want, so these three are the big enemy [how about this one?] This is a small
one *laughing*. But I’m not satisfied with the position of this [ahh, why are you not satisfied?
You feel its too far…or?] its too close…ahhh before it was here so I felt its too close to theedge [yeah]. Hmmm, I think that these three is fine to be here [yeah] but I cannot see how
they interact with each other, like they are totally doing their own things, they don’t
cooperate [ahhh, like inside the group?] yes. I think this is ok [yeah]. That was nice to replacethat one, the bright one with this [yeah]. [If youre satisfied then were exactly on time] oh[yeah time passes fast right?] yes yes [I know. but if you want to continue that’s ok]. Hmm.
This is ummm, it’s *inaudible* [yeah]. So this is one side, this is another, and this one islooking at the battle [ah just watching from outside] I think it too…its not necessary.
[*laughing*]. This should be close…So this is the little enemy [yeah] right in front of the base[*laughing* yeah very close to the base…]. It should be pointing at the base, and thisbase…This should stop the tendency [ahhhh] so I…the whole composition, is how can I
say…on this line [yeah] so on the start point or the end point of the line perpendicular to theline, to stop the tendency [ahhh got it, so everything is going in this direction and this is likethe end] yes. So I think this composition is good, because it makes an empty space here, so it
looks like someone would go inside here and battle with these four things [yeah] and there’s
some story happening. And after it goes out it faces the final boss [ahhh] and after it defeats
this one it can see the treasure [wow! do you like gaming?] of course! I play games throughout
my lifetime [wooow *laughing*, I think so too. This is really interesting, I liked your insightabout the space that’s created here] yeah I liked it too [for me, whenever there is this kind of
space created in the garden, it make me feel like ahhh, it could be a miniature, you know?
Like we are very small and we are here, so it makes it feel like it’s a real place. Like before I
was looking and I see just a tray with rocks, but after you created the space, so suddenly I
can feel this is very big, and there’s someone really small inside, like its easier to imagine
the scale. You know what I mean?] yes yes yes. [Ok. Nice!] But maybe this went too far awayfrom the avatar [ahhh that’s ok, a big part of what we want to see is how the concept evolves,
you know you start with something, and then you end with something else, so I think that’s
a very important aspect of the design. Like how to start with some idea or inspirations, ormaybe get some idea from the rocks, or anything, and then during then design somehow thiswill change. So I think that’s a very interesting part, so it’s good it went far from the original
concept!] *laughing* [wow]. I think If I had more time I could do better [you would improve
more if you had more time?] hmm, including the time I picked the rocks [but that’s completelyok, don’t judge it too much]. I think the number of rocks here is good, because if you have too
204

Appendix

many rocks, you will spend a lot of time looking at them [that’s a good point because I was
considering to add more, but I was afraid that I would confuse people if there are too many]
I think you can…umm one advice is that you collect rocks with uniform or united texture andcolor [ahhh] because I don’t think this can be put together with this [ahh I understand, a few
different rocks, but with a similar color or texture] yeah [so people can choose I want thiscolor, and then I will add this one…] yeah [so they can find a good match for some of therocks] yes yes [I understand. That one that you picked is very unique actually, it has someorgange stains and the shape is very unusual] yeah. And I think these two, once I thought
they are useful because they have a bulky shape, but don’t really have the clear shape. But
then, I think if there are just two of them, its hard for me to make a composition [ahhh tomatch them with the other one. That’s good feedback, thanks!].

A.2.9{1st composition} I have to explain why this rock…[yes, why you chose them, why you placed
them here, what are you imagining…anything your thinking of]. Hmmm, because these rocks
look like twins *laughing* [ahhh they look alike so you chose them]. [So, what are you looking
for now?] I think is is similar to a turtle, so I’m looking for the turtle’s head. [ahhh]. Looks
nice…[so this is the body, and this is the head of the turtle] yeah. *both laughing* it’s a foot[ohhh that’s nice] yeah I imagine this garden is like the sea [so everything is the sea, thewhite] white sea. [When did you start to think about the turtle?] this is rock is similar to a
turtle [ahhh, you saw this rock and you thought it’s similar to a turtle, reminds you…] yeah[ok]. These rocks, I imagine the route of turtle swimming, swim swim swim….[ahhh this is
like a part of the water moving] yes [ahhhh, so its showing the direction] yes. [so for you if
this is water, and this is the turtle, what is this and this? Do you have any idea or…if you
didn’t think about it its ok] yeah for example, the twin person, or mermaid, twin mermaid[ahhh twin mermaid, that’s nice!]. [are you looking for something specific?] yeah, I want todesign the…. fish in the garden [like fish swimming in the garden] yes. So I think I have to
explain that [like how to show] the shape of the movement of fish [*laughing* it’s not so easy,
because the rocks are limited, so maybe it’s hard to find a suitable shape]. This is fish [these
are the fish, this one this one] yes [so for this one, this is the head?] head. [ahh that side]
they’re surrounding the mermaid [ahhh that’s nice]. Can I shape the pattern on the sand[possible, I will not analyze it, because currently we are focusing only on the rocks, but if you
want to do it to convey something, so you can do that, and I also can give you some tool to dothat]. Thank you [sure]. [it’s very small it’s hard to handle]. [when I see the line so I feel thatthe turtle is also moving] yeah [so its also swimming?] yeah. This turtle makes the waves.
[so everything is moving, is its just the turtle and the fish? So the mermaids they are moving
or not in your imagination?] they are stopping, and looking at these swimming [ahhh so they

205

11

are static and around them everything is moving] yes [wow]. [So…so they’re sitting on
something?] yes [what is under them? Like if this is a mermaid what is this?] hmmm, therock, short [ahhh like short rock?] yeah, and she sits down on this rock. [ahhh so this rock is
inside the water, and that mermaid is sitting on that rock, I can see it]. [like in yourimagination, one of them is more important than the other, or they are the same?] the same.
It’s finished. He is the visitor riding a turtle. He is a visitor. [ahhh, so this is a human being,
it’s a person] yes yes [and he is riding the turtle]. [When did you have this idea of this is aperson?] oh, I…do you know Urashima Taro, a Japanese fairytale? [no…oh! I think I know]
Urahishima Taro helped the turtle, and the turtle took Urashima Taro to a sea paradisenamed “….” [yeah, ahhhh so he was riding the turtle in the sea, and he helped him to go
somewhere] yeah. I remembered the fairytale, in the middle [ahh like in the middle while
you were doing this you thought about the fairytale?] yes. [Because of the turtle?] yes [ahhh,
so do you imagine is going somewhere, like a different place, or just staying here] staying
here I think [that’s very nice] *both laughing*. [if we change places you can also look at itfrom here and see if you want to do any changes] ok [It looks different] ok, it’s perfect [thanksa lot!].

A.2.10{1st composition} So I’m going to start with the biggest one, and for good balance I’m goingto put somewhere not in the middle, but not near the boundary. I’m going to put the stones
into different categories [yeah] so some are dark [yeah] some are really dark [sorting them…]
I’m definitely going to use this it ‘cause they have a different signature, even bumps or
smaller stones inside it, maybe…standing. And…so definitely something...different color.
And lets start another fourth, with this bigger one. Actually I prefer the gray, I mean the coolcolor than the warm color so I tend to using to one with cooler color, I don’t know. [Yeah. So
when you do this do you have some kind of image in you head?] I think its more about balanceof volume and color [ok] so that’s why I start with the volume and also sort the different
colors, but now I really don’t know where I’m gonna put the yellow ones [ahhh] hmm, sothat’s a problem [by the way you don’t have to use all of them] yeah but maybe I’m going tothink that the yellow one would like add to something in the basic cool color pallate, but not
for now. In my own opining, or in my own like aesthetic thing, so I prefer the not so bumpy
and I like the slim one, and also choppy, I don’t like choppy things. But sometimes choppy
stones has different…[what do you think about this one?]. This one is good cause it’s hmmm,
why…I don’t know why [yeah it’s interesting, I don’t know why but I like it too]. Cause when
you look at mountains, they basically not look a lot like this, but a lot of them look like this,so it gives you a continuous mountain area, I guess so [yeah]. But somewhere in China you
will find mountains like this [ahhh it’s true I saw there are very tall mountains and sharp]

206

Appendix

It’s a specific place that they have it. Then we’re gonna use this one. Yellow one…[so can I
ask how did you make the connection between the rock and the mountain?] the rock andmountain? It’s something really Chinese. Like if you’re from China you would basically thinkthat the stones have some connection with mountains. And in drawings of scenery you always
see like there are two directions – sometimes the painter have like the drawing like this [likea vertical scroll] yes like a vertical scroll, and they hang it somewhere like in the *inaudible*
but still you also have the drawing which is spread in the table and its very long, so it’s ahorizontal scroll. And in the two kinds of drawings you can see that mountains have different
images [ahhh]. Cause in that place its really easier if you want something like this [aha] sobasically you would feel that the mountain is so high and you are…you feel like someone
standing under the mountain and look up [ahhh like it’s giant] yeah and there are also clouds,
so you can feel the distance between the audience and [yeah the viewer and…] and in thehorizontal one they usually have some kind of axonometric drawings so there’s no specificview, but it looks like youre experiencing the whole thing [ahh got it]. But somehow ‘cos I’mvery exposed to that, when I’m making this I really, I really like the horizontal one, ‘cos in
the garden it’s more like horizontal one. [yeah, I think so too] you can go along it, so it’s more
like a horizontal one. So where’s the boss? Where the boss it really important I think, I don’tknow how other people do, but to make is first to make the boss, like where the boss stands[yeah yeah, this is like the anchor for the design]. But I think the smaller piece add to theircharacter, if you have smaller and different color of stones standing behind them or in frontof them, they can feel even better, so place a leading character and then add something maybe[yeah I think that’s a very important principle]. But I also want to experience, want to try
with tall ones [ahhh see how it looks…] But then sometimes it’s…so maybe not in the sameline, it may be weird. Now it feels not so weird [yeah I think so too]. This one maybe…justtry. More balance in this corner, because its too heavy now [yeah]. You can see the other,sometimes I think its too choppy so not so..[yeah we can see the ones that are left *laugh*]. I
choose this one because it sharp in some edge, because when you put this one to this one,maybe somehow I just don’t like choppy ones, because these things I choose usually havesome edge [ahhh] and some texture. These are really like concrete feeling, so maybe I don’t
use the concrete group, and this one is another. OK done finished! I feel this is what I want.
[ok] other things are either too choppy or…this density is good, to me. [can you change places
with me, and try to look from the other side if you want to change something]. Ok.
Hmmm…[you can still keep it as is. I’m interested in like…if you have some title to give tothe composition or something, that would be nice too, but you don’t have to. Just like, I wantto understand what are you…like your image] I think when I moved from here to here, theinteresting thing is that when I place here I don’t notice there is gap between them, so now
I become like aware of the gap, and I’m thinking about like what difference the gap will make.
Now some are with no gap. Here, here there is gap, which is the thing I don’t notice in thisplace, but now I’m thinking about whether I want a gap or there is not gap. But now I think

207

11

gap is good, so making more gap [ah its nice you can become aware of it and the maybe…]
yeah it looks like when you look at the section and then you go to the plan, like when you
change something in the model, but you won’t notice there is some potential something…likea risk in the section, and basically if we have the model we seem to get everything, but
perhaps we also need section or plan to understand the space in a more specific way, thisfeels the same [ahhh change the position and get some other information] yeah. Cos when
you…I don’t know, before those CAD software we seem to only have…[maybe just drawing
or models from cardboard] yeah yeah, but I don’t know [I think in the past people used torely more on the drawings] yeah [today everybody looks at the model] we export from model.
Some people have a good sense with a model, like when you look at the model you know
something is wrong or not, but to be frank I’m not the kind of person who is comfortable withdigital models. I really lose the sense of scale [I know what you mean, it’s not so easy to feelthe real situation from the model] yeah I get very, like I get trapped in detail when I’mmaking digital models. I think I should be aware of that and focus on the main point, but still
I think when I’m using the digital model, it’s more detail than making a physical models or
simple drawings [ahhh true, you can always add more] yeah transfer from one direction toanother its good. So I like the gap between cos it makes me feel more like the valley [ahhh okthat’s nice] yeah cos you know sometimes you will have a valley in the really mountain andsometimes you do not, so I move this to here….hmmm, but sometimes I’m not going to movethis from this cos it’s too like, not natural [yeah] its going to collapse [*laugh* yeah it doesn’thold] but this is safe, so perhaps that’s the change I will make. [This is nice. So you imagine
this is something like in nature, some kind of scene from nature?] yeah. [ok. That’s nice].

A.3 Instructions Given to subjects in Team Sessions
The observer opened each session by asking the subjects to take a seat in the two chairs next
to the desk. The following instructions were then read from a tablet device, one by one,making sure that the subjects understand each item:►

In front of you there is a tray with sand and a box with rocks to be placed in the tray.

►

Please work together and use the above to create a design for a miniature garden.

►

Please refrain from placing one rock on top of another, or outside the sand tray.

►

Other than that, the activity is generally free of constraints.

►

Accordingly, the design may or may not have a theme or “concept”.

►

The total time available is one hour; this may be extended if you wish to continue.

208

Appendix►

During the whole activity, we will use the “think-aloud” method.

►

In order to become acquainted with this method, we will begin with a short practicesession. Please find and pick up a rock which you like. While doing so, try to explain
why you chose it, what is interesting about it etc., as you go.

Notice that the last instruction was given only for subjects who did not have previous
experience with designing in a think-aloud style. Following these, the observer asked thesubjects if they had any questions, and answered these questions. Typical questions were“are we expected to use all rocks?” and “do we need to make a traditional garden?”. The
observer clarified that, except the above, there are no additional demands or expectations
from the design. When all questions were answered, the subjects were instructed to begin
designing.

A.4 Transcripts from Team Sessions
We provide the full transcripts from the team design sessions below. Each sub-section
corresponds with one full design session, conducted with a pair of subjects who worked as ateam. When the subjects produced more than one design solution, we have separated thetranscript into compositions, each introduced in curly brackets in the form {composition no.,starting time}. For the first composition in each session, the starting time is omitted. Subjects’utterances are preceded by a single capital letter followed by a colon. These letters correspondwith the fictional name assigned to each subject (after anonymization), which was used torefer to the subjects in the body of the work, when discussing and analyzing design sessions.
Finally, the observer’s comments are preceded with “OB-Y”, followed by a colon.

A.4.1{1st composition}
OB-Y: Ok, you can start.
T: do we need to use all the rocks?
OB-Y: ...these ones, and these ones, you can use all of them if you want.
K: I want to put a big one, and you?
T: I think a big one is better to decide the space.

209

11

K: yeah, to control the place...
T: make the boundary here... I think this one, they have similar colors.
K: yeah it looks like, the same.
OB-Y: like the one that is already there and then a new one.
T: yes. And...maybe I would choose all the rocks with a similar color first, what do you think?
K: oh yes, so I will...so...similar colors to...maybe have a different shape, but almost look
similar.
OB-Y: ah, color is very close, but shape is kind of...
K: yeah shape is different.
T: I think maybe he is making all the rocks align, maybe I will just follow him to make minelike this
K: yeah, but the line should be...break (broken) *all laughing*
T: Ok. I think I’m gonna...the shape of the rock should be smaller and smaller in this direction,
maybe like this, and...what...like this? Maybe like this?
K: it’s like a dragon or fish...*laughing*. So I want to make it like a stone, of you know, adinosaur.
OB-Y: can you show where is the head of the dragon?
K: yes this one.
T: it’s more like a fish I think.
OB-Y: hmm, so either dragon or fish...
K: or fish. *K and Y laughing*. So I want to make it uh...the tail yeah
T: the tail...
K: the tail longer. But it should have some, you know, it have (has) some food.
OB-Y: ahhh something to eat *laughing*.
K: like this210

Appendix

T: here?
K: ohhh, maybe this one is bigger, this one is bigger....oh. Like dinosaur *all laughing*
T: think I’m gonna put it here...
K: maybe this one looks like (it does) not belong to this...It should be separate
OB-Y: hmmmm
K: maybe it is the food
OB-Y: ahhh, did you do that because of the color?
K: yes the color
T: I will put a big rock here, because I want to make it more...better balance in the picture.
This is very heavy...volume.
OB-Y: ahhh.
T: so make another big rock here, they look similar
OB-Y: right...right.
T: so I put another one here to balance...
OB-Y: the whole
T: the whole picture
OB-Y: hmm that’s nice
T: I think I should make some group, groups of rocks at one place, because this place is very
heavy, this part....so what should I do...
K: oh...complete a fish.
OB-Y: ok I K thinks it’s complete, then it only depends on you if you want to add or change
something.
K: yes, for me it’s OK.
T: *laughing* I think our topic is totally different, he is trying to make the fish, and I am justtrying to make the picture beautiful *laughing*

211

11

OB-Y: which is good!
T: I think...
K: so we can make a beautiful fish...
T & OB-Y: yes yes.
OB-Y: yeah its completely fine. hmmm, you can work from different perspectives...
T: ok that’s a fish, I think it should have a beautiful tail...like...but if the tail is too big, thiswon’t look like a head
K: the head is very important
OB-Y: so what do think about it like in this situation? How do you think about the head andthe tail?
T: maybe I will gather all the small rocks at the tail…place, to just show the boundary of the
shape...and put all the big rocks at the head partOB-Y: hmm...that’s also ok to pick some rock from some location and change...if it’s necessary
T: like this...I think that’s enough...
OB-Y: so K, what do you think, is it a fish, or a dragon? How do you think about the final
result?
K: the result...is close to a kind of dinosaur...*T laughing*
OB-Y: dinosaur? T?
T: I think it’s more like a fish...
OB-Y: more like a fish...*laughing*. But anyways its quite nice
K: maybe a little like a bird...bird-dinosaur.
OB-Y: bird-dinosaur...*T laughing*. So it’s flying...?
K: yeah can be flying. So for me, because for this kind of stones, I will remember dinosaurs
first...
OB-Y: ahhh
K: and...the rocks in the sand.
212

Appendix

OB-Y: so its two things that...like immediate association. Like you see the rocks and you
think about the dinosaurs?
K: yes.
OB-Y: hmmm...that’s interesting
K: maybe because I visited the dinosaur museum in Fukui
OB-Y: ohhh, did that happen recently?
K: no no, maybe...September
OB-Y: September...hmmm. So how was the museum visit? Did you enjoy it?
K: its designed by Kurokawa Kisho
OB-Y: ahhh famous architect
K: outside it’s just a very simple wall...but inside have many exhibitions
OB-Y: that’s interesting, I want to see. Maybe you can show me after the experiment.
K: yeah.
OB-Y: Why did you put that one?
T: I’m not sure...
OB-Y: that’s Ok
T: I think this part each rock are separated to (from) each other.
OB-Y: Ok
T: Maybe some of them should be gathered together and the rhythm would be
more...like...more like a rhythm. Some of the rocks get together and some are separated
OB-Y: Ok, that’s nice. If you don’t have a reason sometimes that also OK, you can say I don’t
know. But I can understand what you are saying...if you put them closer or farther they canbe together or separate. I would create some pattern.
T: yeah. I think that’s enough.
OB-Y: Very interesting.

213

11

{2nd composition, 9:34}
K: you do first...
T: Ok! I put the biggest at first...this way is better...
K: oh, in this way, this time I will use a different aspect...different color
T: so what’s the topic? What the topic this time? *laughing*
K: diversity...different
OB-Y: diversity, hmmm...
T: OK. This...this...
K: yeah...make it more different, differences....and maybe a small one...and something...butstill you know becomes smaller and smaller. It has the...you know...this big stone has a center
OB-Y: ah it’s a center for the other ones?
K: yeah yeah yeah...it’s a very strong influence, one we cannot neglect
T: oh
K: it’s being controlled by this...many...this kind of uhh....you can see another center becauseof this color.
OB-Y: where is the second center?
K: this one
OB-Y: ah!
K: maybe we can make several centers
T: so there is no center at all right? *all laughing*
K: or...I think its weaker you know. We should put more stones here, here. And also this one
is still the center. We make some changes...yeah
T: maybe I put all the small ones...because this part is a little crowded, so I wanted to makesome little spot, at the other place214

Appendix

OB-Y: ahhh, right there are many rocks like, very very close to that one...
T: yes, so the smaller ones just separated this place. I’m always thinking about the balanceof the picture! *all laughing* I just can’t help doing that!
OB-Y: it’s very important for you...I think when you make something minimalistic it’s very
important to keep a balance, there are not so many things here
T: it’s too big...this one...this one...no...this one...I think it can be here...what should I do? I
think it’s enough.
OB-Y: it’s enough? Hmm, so what do you think, can you say...uhh try to criticize this kind ofdesign, or say, if you like it that’s also good. What do you see in this one?
T: hmmm, I think we achieved the topic we decided at first
OB-Y: oh
T: the center, maybe this maybe this, the center, and it just fades out from the center of thegroups
OB-Y: ah, I think so too. K what do you think?
K: hmmm, for now, I think still this one is still the center. I can feel small centers like thisand this.
OB-Y: ash, there are different ones, but this one is still the main one...
K: the whole, whole yeah. It’s like Japanese gardens....One center, one lake, and small lakes
OB-Y: ahhh, and they somehow...they relate to each other
K: yes yes
OB-Y: hmmm that’s very interesting. For me what is interesting is that all of these are kindof flat, and then here there is vertical vertical vertical....I wondered if there was a reason to
put these ones like this...the standing ones around the central one
T: because the shape of the...hmm...if you see not from the top, from this direction you canfeel the rhythm, the changing of the height.
OB-Y: ahhh, changing height like from small to large and then small.
T: yes.

215

11

OB-Y: that’s interesting. Very nice.

{3rd Composition, 16:18}
T: you go first
K: I think I will put this one in the center...because it looks very hard. He has very certain
shape, this stone, this beautiful stone, can be the center.
T: ok...what should I do...I have a very similar one but...
K: *inaudible*
T: so this time what’s the topic? Center, at the center?
OB-Y: By the way even if you don’t have a topic, that’s also ok. Just something aesthetic isalso fine.
K: yeah I give you a chance to put...another center *T laughing*
OB-Y: ohhh *laughing* that’s interesting
T: maybe put it here. (Tone of discovery) It will form another center
K: yes
T: maybe I should put it far away
K: I think this one is...
T: very similar? Oh oh.
K: yeah. This, this and this (adding), oh wait, this. Also I think these colors...
OB-Y: what do you think about the colors?
K: its changed.
OB-Y: ahhhh, from kind of black to gray, something like that?
K: yes. And then, maybe outside can be different...put all my stones here *all laughing*
T: OK. Because all the stones are gathering there, maybe I will make a line, a very long andthin line like this, or like this (pointing). Ok.

216

Appendix

OB-Y: so...OK, first I want to see.
T: the shape like this...this (pointing and moving hand). (Long pause) Yes. Ok I’m done.
OB-Y: so the rest of the shape is based on what you saw before? How is it...?
T: because he made a shape like this (pointing)...
OB-Y: uh huh...
T: so I think maybe I can make a curve...connect this shape to the whole picture, so there will
be a line like this...and then the whole picture would be finished by a round shape...and aline
OB-Y: ah, so somehow it’s continuing the previous shape
T: yeah.
OB-Y: that’s interesting. K what do you think?
K: umm...it’s like a..flower.
OB-Y: hmm, which part? *laughing* which part is the head of the flower...
K: this one
OB-Y: ahhhh that one....so this is like the center of the head of the flower
T: yes
OB-Y: something like that. Did you plan this?
K: I didn’t mean to plan this, just wanted to make a center, but she developed...she wanted
to be (have) a line and center...become flower.
OB-Y: ahhhh, it’s kind of combination...eventually ends in some kind of, whole structure of
the flower.
T: I didn’t mean to make the flower, I just think he did it already, and I want to make therest part of the picture. Finish the rest part of the picture. But it looks like a flower, it’s nice.
OB-Y: hmmm it does. It’s quite surprising. So...you were thinking about one thing, you werethinking about something else, and combined, it’s something different.
T: yes217

11

OB-Y: *laughing*
K: this is...this is different
OB-Y: yeah yeah...the center flow of the curve, then we get this final shape, which is very
nice.
K: ok
OB-Y: I think it’s perfect.

A.4.2{1st composition}
W: and we don’t need to use all of it…just something we like (confirming)
OB-Y: yes, even one rock as a design is ok *all laughing*, if you want. Maybe difficult to makean interesting design like that, but that is also possible
W: so we start? OK
R: I want to see your stones…
W: it’s the biggest one?
R: yeah, I think this…
W: and these are smaller ones
R: Yeah, maybe this one is the tallest one
W: oh, I like that…there’s some special spots
R: yeah yeah yeah, me too!
W: so how about putting in first?
R: yeah yeah yeah, I think so. Because just like you said
W: usually when I put something, I don’t want to put on the center
R: yeah, me too! *W laughing*
R: I just want to see this line or this line (lines of thirds)

218

Appendix

W: ok here.
R: ok. And…because it’s very sharp, yeah so I just want to categorize the stones, yeah yeah
this one, we can see clearly, this one this one is not so sharp…and…looks more cute
W: *laughing* yeah
R: yeah
W: this…
R: yeah maybe….can we just put the stones by group or this group…some part is sharp one
and…change the style
W: ah ok. I think these two are similar
R: yeah looks similar. So actually, I don’t want the same stone appearing at the same time
W: ok
R: maybe we just try the other one, if it’s needed we can put this one
W: yeah.
R: ok bye little guy….
R: I think maybe next one… how about change to a lighter color…?
W: ohhR: I mean this this one are also the dark color, so I just want to put something…
W: different
R: yeah different. I think by this center…
W: these are lighter
R: yeah lighter. And this one (is) lighter…
W: I think like….this color is a little similar, close to the sand
R: ahhh yeah….yeah yeah yeah a little bit, maybe next… I thought that it has the sameelements, maybe this one is more suitable….
W: comparable…

219

11

R: yeah maybe they are the good…we just put there…it better?
W: this makes me think about Oreo
R: yeah yeah yeah…it looks like, I don’t know if you see clearly, I think the shape might…alittle bit match together
W: oh, oh I can see. yeah yeah I can see
R: so put here, OK?
W: anyway you like (is) ok
R: just put here for now, maybe we can change
R: another….
R: and these two are a little bit heavy, looks like heavy, and tall…maybe try something likenot so thick.
W: like….hmmmm…I think this looks like a staircase
R: staircase...(wondering) ahhh right! a little. Actually I don’t have any topic for this one
W: me too
R: so just put it freely?
W: maybe…
R: maybe…
W: I don’t know
R: not sure…
W: I think, ummm, I don’t know I think if these two appear here, I think, nothing can go into
them, or around them.
R: maybe they are already settled down
W: but I would like some small decoration
R: OK! we can put…
W: like this…

220

Appendix

R: ahhh, also good!
W: this is sh-…do you think we should have some rounded one, or the whole topic…the wholethings are sharp?
R: hmm, we can try…
W: then see, uhhh
R: yep
W: maybe a little front…
R: yeah
W: I’m not sure, please adjust
R: uh…
W: but I think that doesn’t work better than this one
R: yeah I think so, because it’s like, standing in the same distance and….
W: father, mother and child
R: *laughing*, yeah a little bit.
W: hmmm…
R: how about the other place, just put it here, maybe we can find some clues
W: ok
R: yeah
W: so would you like to try something not very thick
R: yeah, I always want to try this one *laughing* I don’t know… I just think if its tall enoughmaybe we can put into a large area, not only this…
W: uh huh
R: can I just put here?
W: ok

221

11

R: cause I like to put things maybe yeah, these two lines, third-third-third
W: ok (smiling)
R: hmmm, and….
W: should we see from an angle like god or just small visitors?
OB-Y: so there are two options - one option is that we just looks from this eye-level like weare looking at it now, and design it like that, another option is to imagine a different scale. If
you imagine a different scale you can use something to illustrate.
W: ohhh
OB-Y: to show what is the size of a person or something, if you want to use a different scale
R & W: ok
OB-Y: But it basically depends on your decision.
W: Ok, thank you.
R: yeah, seems stuck.
W: (smiling) it seems these two are totally different.
R: yeah
W: maybe it doesn’t fit
R: yeah
W: maybe…it looks a little strange. and if I put here I think, this looks like something
delicious
R: something delicious (wondering)?
W: I think like a basket, and this like nuts.
R: ahhh maybe
W: but I think it doesn’t fit
R: yeah, for the fit I think also it doesn’t fit.
W: this one?

222

Appendix

R: uh hmmm, ok you can try.
W: but, hmmmm
R: how about we put…I think it’s almost the same line
W: ok
R: maybe we can change to this one…or yeah…I
enough…hmmm…you can change the angle no problem.

think

it’s

not

beautiful

W: ok
R: or put…no I think…about this side
W: or maybe this side is better
R: yeah I think so
W: and…maybe…hmmm…hmmm…because I think, I think (shows a gesture of cutting withhand)
R: ah yeah, shape like a knife, cut it
W: yeah yeah
R: hmmm, maybe we need more stones to put here
W: let’s try.
R: yeah I think…
W: I don’t know I just want to use this one
R: yeah, oh yeah because its special. hmm, ah (discovery) it reminds like, it looks like “nujah” (historical character from Chinese legends with a tattoo on his forehead). Do you
think…?
W: like…what…
R: with the tattoo on the….
W: his…head
R: head, yeah the center of the head. And it’s a little bit looks like…

223

11

W: I think it also looks like the lotus
R: ahhh, yeah yeah yeah, yeah! it’s true. cos’ you said lotus, it mean you look at this one likethe flower, the other…(signifies leaves by cupping hands)
W: ah like the…big leaves
R: yeah, I thought I treat this one as eyes, yeah. Eyes and the center…
W: *laughing* oh ok
R: I also like lotus, yeah. Yeah I think we can treat this like a pool, or it’s the…it’s the motherking of the lotus…
W: mother king?
R: the king of the lotus
W: oh…
R: yeah
W: do you think these two have a connection?
R: No!
W: me too, I mean, me neither.
R: ahhh, yeah. Yeah. We also…if we shape like a lotus…how…I think it’s not enough to look
like, for….maybe for this one, because lotus is the whole, maybe the around will be all…
W: no like small petal…
R: yeah
W: but…
R: choose…choose…we can try to put something, if it didn’t look so well, we can…
W: ok
R: how about put, put down…? look more like…
W: like it already bloomed
R: yeah, yeah. Can you imagine that flower in your mind?

224

Appendix

R&W: yeah!
R: yeah me too, I have the same, I think we have the same…yeah. How about we…I think
this shape is good. But the color is so, looks like the center one, because the other one isalmost light, and I have a little bit yellow.
W: yeah, but other stone…I think might be too high
R: yeah, yeah yeah. It’s a little bit....hmmm? this one? how about this one?
W: hmmm (a bit surprised). But if you put it here it suddenly changed. I think it looks likethese three, four things are surrounding this special person or something. Like…
R: yeah
W: what did you put?
R: here (hands rock)
W: when you put here it makes me feel like this one has no help and lonely
R: yeah. Oh what I think is…it’s a whole flower, and this is the center of the…
W: oh, that also makes sense to me (confirming positively)
R: yeah, what you thought is that this is a leaf…circle one…
W: no no…if you…in this way I don’t think…if you put it here, I don’t think it’s still leaves
and flower. I think the surrounding one are all petals…of flower
R: so we remove this one?
W: but I think it’s also ok…it’s also *inaudible*
R: which one is good?
W: I think maybe put…(points right)
R: put here?
W: yeah. And I think that this is bigger, and these two are bigger and these two aresmaller…and the color is also like this is lighter these two are darker
R: yeah
W: this like, this is…these two are fresh…fresh petals
225

11

R: um um I know
W: and these are already…already go out for a little while and already grow
R: yeahhhh. Okkkk. Yeah, we can explain this way
W: and it makes me feel dynamic
R: ah right right!
W: something is moving this…something smoothly changes shape, color
R: yeah, like the real flower
W: yeah yeah yeah
R: hmmm, nice!
W: I think this…finished
R: yeah, but this part seems strange.
W: a little. Is that because this is too close?
R: yeah maybe but…I tried to find a connection between this one, maybe we put some…weform some small flower, it’s the biggest one here and the center, and maybe the other place
need, needs…needs some small size one?
W: to make some other flower?
R: yeah, maybe the small one… can I just put it freely?
W: yeah of course
R: um hmmm… actually it’s not the same…same feeling stones. So this one…is also the,maybe (show similarity in sharpness to another rock by hand gesture)
W: ohhh
R: yeah.
W: but other stones…ah no. How about changing idea, like this time use a rounded one?
R: ok…hmmm
W: but rounded stone only has two (stone collection available is limited)

226

Appendix

R: yeah…yeah there’s no…hmmmm
W: I think…I think I can tell a story based on these two
R: yeah
W: you can see that the center one is black or dark…
R: uh huh
W: dark one…and imagine that the surrounding one is his friend…and ohhh…at first he andhis friend are both very sharp and…ummm…uhhh I mean I use sharp to mean that theperson is not
R: to characterize
W: oh yeah yeah
R: is not friendly or something…?
W: like special…stubborn. And after suffering many things, some of the friends (are) gone
R: I know…I know how to say in Chinese “zhu zhie yuan ren”
W: (speaks Mandarin) dui (translation: correct). Some of them gone
R: ahhh yeah
W: leave, leave this one…
R: ok
W: and remains one, and the center person, are both being shaped by the tough life
R: yeah! we can…
W: like a rounded shape…
R: we can translate into the…
OB-Y: ahhhh
W: like somebody leaves, and somebody turns to another shape, and also yourself
R: yeah, because this color looks like it, and this color look like it. Yeah! I totally agree

227

11

W: and they lose many things
R: yeah yeah
W: not only the sharp angle, the sharp things
R: yeah…
W: (speaks mandarin) ci (translation: thorn)
R: I don’t know…literal
W: something like needle
OB-Y: ahhh yeah
W: like the…sharp
OB-Y: sharp angles…
R: yeah yeah yeah
W: and if we hmm…imagine that this is the most important thing of your life, and you lose
other unimportant thing, and you can only hold and keep the things you really really stick
to, and you lose other things
R: nice, nice explanation…and…I also look at some part of their partners, there are threestones…
W: yeah
R: how about…how about…ah sorry, how about this part?
W: hmm, hmm, black and white?
R: because for now the meaning is good, but I think it doesn’t looks good
W: you mean this single one, or…connected?
R: I mean, as a design of this one (signifies the whole tray with a hand gesture) as a whole
design. hmmm. Maybe for my view…
W: point
R: yeah view point, and for this angle it’s not so bad

228

Appendix

OB-Y: you can also change places if you want, or stand up…anything is ok. Like this seat is
only to make you comfortable, but….
R: yeah yeah yeah
W: I agree with what you said. This angle looks not bad.
R: yeah because they are almost at the same line (pointing to the two back compositions) andthis one from this way to see is…is disappear.
W: yeah but from other angle you can see it
R: I think it depends on which angle we choose
W: yeah
R: but not bad!
W: um (agrees)
R: actually I don’t know how to explain this, this part…because this part this part we alreadybuilt a connection…hmmmm
W: well…let’s take out first…(both remove the back left composition together)
R: yeah
W: and then...
R: I think now it’s much better! *both laughing* yeah
W: yeah
R: yeah yeah…maybe we just freely put some small stones, and for the decoration, maybe no
meaning.
W: like to show the difficulty in life, to like the outside things that make him become him
R: also ok. Maybe, yeah nice
W: I don’t want too big things
R: yeah I also choose the small ones…so so sharp
W: ummm….looks

229

11

R: maybe far, need (to be) far away from
W: ahhh, I think…
R: not the one you like…
W: yeah. I think doesn’t have any connection, but if we put it close it will destroy the story ofthese two
R: yeah. But I still think only these two (compositions) is not enough
W: hmmm
R: hmmm, because if you draw a line here (divides the tray diagonally with a hand gesture)
we can see we almost put everything at this side, and…its empty here
W: how about…maybe we put something more at the corner
R: yeah, maybe we can try, and if it don’t looks nice we can remove, we can put…
W: I think this is very sharp
R: sharp yeah
W: I want to use this
R: yeah, um hmm
W: and maybe smaller one…and maybe another color….
R: yeah…it also forms an…
W: I see it turns to something like…
R: yeah…how about removing this one, because it’s so dark like the center color, so maybe it
will…will let somebody notice this corner as an important part of the whole design
W: ok. How about this color?
R: ok. Try
W: looks like a face (smiles)
R: yeah, I also think, joker or doggie. Maybe how about putting here, far away fromthe…hmmm, maybe another partner for this stone…hmmm it’s so dark. Yeah, there is nolittle stone.
230

Appendix

W: yeah
R: but I think little one…hmmm, I just changed the position freely to see which looks more
pretty (seeks confirmation). Or remove?
W: but I think this stone is…hmmm…something special
R: yeah, I think so…
W: with many…
R: yeah yeah…its roughly…
W: yeah and not like other stones (where) the color looks as a whole, it has many different
colors and very roughR: um hmm. I changed this angle because I see from this view if we put it like this it becomes
too big. From this angle it will looks small-ler, yeah smaller. I don’t know…it also looks
strange
W: yeah I think so.
R: yeah…maybe remove this one?
W: hmmm…
R: (sighs) what do you think?
W: oh (discovery) I think maybe we can take, take out, pick out some special stone, and justarrange them to show different kinds of people
R: ahhh ok
W: like the stone…let’s pick it first
R: ah right. Maybe this one is also sharp but they don’t need to stand, they put and lay down.
W: ohhh. But, can I just (explores possibility of adjustment by making the same rockstand)…I want to see how it works…if it stands up
R: *laughing* no….I think from my angle, you can come here and see, it’s like a rabbit ears
W: *laughing* ok
R: but also I think it’s quite good. Much better than just *inaudible*

231

11

W: how about this? maybe this is sharper
R: yeah
W: and stand, oh stand
R: but I think this one is better because…I think its…hmmm, how do you say (speaks
mandarin) zhong dian
W: oh, stress point?
R: yeah, stress point. Maybe if we put it
W: this one?
R: which stone did you pick? maybe we put it here
W: oh, like they don’t have
R: yeah, maybe it’s so balanced. Maybe we want to let somebody focus on this process, there
from the sharp, to the…
W: round
R: to round. But this one is to show the other sides of people in the world
W: yeah
R: maybe they are not the biggest part, so maybe the small part is ok?
W: yeah
R: yeah it’s also…
W: small
R: yeah small. cute. Yeah, maybe, yeah I also want to say put some some…
W: eh? but…eh? (surprised and wondering) Do you think it turns to something that is
opposite from this, surrounding one is taller, the center is smaller (seems rhetorical)
R: oh yeah…yeah. We did not on purpose form that
W: yeah…but I don’t have…we don’t have…just strange
R: yeah232

Appendix

W: (sighs) oh, ohhhhh I know, I know (discovery, expressing confidence). This is the childhood.
The girl (pointing to tallest rock in right composition), these are some of her parents or
relatives, just protect him, and they (are) all gone, he has some other company, some otherfriends
R: um hmm (agreeing)
W: and this which is her…his parents already dies, and he (has) grown up. This is this (points
to the back-left composition). And has some other friends…
R: um hm.
W: and then this (gestures with hand to show that the front composition is the next and lastin the sequence)
R: hmmm. Ok
W: how about changing the position? this this…
R: yeah, I was just thinking about the position. Not good…Maybe put this one (gestures toright composition) a little center and far…a little far away
W: oh I think so
R: yeah, just together to move this one…it cannot stand stable. Nice.
W: so how about this, should we move it? (points to right composition as one unit)
R: put here maybe?
W: you mean this one or this one?
R: this one
W: here, it turns out like this (shows a curved line of flow with hand gesture). How about
move it more…center, and this… (points to front-middle composition)
R: I think more to the center is already…so center…
W: maybe…
R: yeah ok.
W: hmm…

233

11

R: let me check…do you think it’s enough?
W: I think so.
R: me too. Even though I think maybe, (if) there will be one stone maybe here or there, will
be more complete…
W: maybe…maybe these *inaudible* are too big
R: yeah, yeah. For the aesthetic I think it needs something else. But for the meaning, for thestory, I don’t need anymore, how do we balance it….
W: I think it’s enough
R: yeah because the story is more important than…
W: yeah
R: yeah, Ok
W: Ok finished
R: yeah, we changed a lot!

A.4.3
{1st composition}
H: Ok N, I think let’s start. I would say, the younger...younger person first.
N: I am younger than you?
H: huh?
N: I am younger than you?
H: I think you’re younger…maybe. *N laughing* How old are you?
N: 26
H: I’m almost 30…
N: ah…younger
H: So…you have more spirit.

234

Appendix

N: Ok. I want to just focus on the color as well, not only the shape. Uhhhh….
H: What are you aiming for?
N: That’s a good question. *Both laughing* I want something, how
say…the…uhh….you know the Ryoanji in Kyoto, only the rock and sand one?

canI

H: Yes
N: Uhh…I like, I prefer the opposite one, with the green and rock as well, like the naturalgarden. So maybe I will need to like express the green stuff with doing
something…*laughing*
H: um hm (understands). So the green garden with the stones?
N: Yes.
H: Ok
N: That’s my aim.
H: That’s you aim, ok I see *N laughing*. Do we have to use all the stones?
OB-Y: No. Even like two rocks is fine or something
H: Ok. But at least one…
OB-Y: At least one, yeah that’s the limitation *smiling, N laughing*
N: So, then I will choose something which reminds me the green thing from, from among
those stones…this stone looks like…a tree top…but it’s so detailed…so, maybe I want, I willplace this like the closer to the front…in that sense…this really looks (like) a rock itself
H: maybe if (hold rock vertically)
N: Oh what about like facing in the vertical way
H: Yes
N: Ah yes yes, that looks like the column
H: And then…
OB-Y: Sorry to interrupt, if you have one that you are thinking about, you can show it to thecamera too

235

11

H & N: ahh ok
H: I was wondering if we, when we put this one vertically, I might come close to a tree.
N: That’s true.
H: Ok.
N: Yeah this too
H: Ok so let’s place them, randomly. Somehow randomly.
N: Ah hat’s nice, yes
H: yes
N: But somehow…ahhh (discovery) now that area looks like a forest.
H: Start to…create a forest. So you think we should go in….(looks like change of mind) oh
this looks like a pine tree
N: ah right
H: so if we place it like this it comes more closer and closer to a forest.
N: Um hm (agrees).
H: But maybe we should not like…now I feel they are all in the, in the direction, like even if
we place like this, to become more like a forest (slightly turns the last placed rock)
N: right, like…random
H: Yes
N: varieties…
N: those…
H: I think it’s very interesting to put them vertically
N: um hm, right – that’s true.
H: so maybe we should change this, the position of this one, to more in a vertical direction(flips existing rock) oh (discovery)
N: oh that looks…that’s interesting too

236Appendix

H: and this looks more like a…not like a pine tree. Like another tree. Ok this is a small tree.
Hmmm….maybe it’s close to a bigger one, so the seeds from the bigger one fell down, andthen the smaller tree grow close to the bigger one
N: like this?
H: That’s very nice. I was just wondering, that this looks more like a…a…like these are pine,
and this looks more like a…oh what is the opposite of pine?
N: ahhh I don’t know
H: like this (points to tree outside window) kind of tree
N: ahh, yeah I know that. Like…
H: with a lot of leaves yes…but its…
N: ah so in that sense, this looks, but this is…
H: But, but I have an idea, like a bird flew…shit here…and then from this shit, like the tree..
N: ohh ok, that’s possible
H: so this is natural…
N: like the time line
H: yes. And then the forest starts to grow. But I was wondering, like when I look here
(directional gesture with hand)…if there might be a…a path
N: path (confirming)
H: through the forest. Like, a path where people walk, like small cars…maybe car, not cars,
but are going, so not to cover all the space, but
N: ah so you are imagining like this garden will be on…like the mid…ahhh…like in thecity…or in the…like in the villa
H: now my imagination is not a garden but like a forest. Like we build a forest.
N: yes
H: and this forest…just I am sitting here (showing the direction of his point of view using ahand gesture) so I am imagining myself like standing here, looking in this direction, because

237

11

in this position from my…I look here in this direction, so for some reason right now, I see likepath here, or a street. And I have this idea of “OK, let’s keep this path”.
N: Ah ok
H: from your perspective there might be a path
N: yeah that’s true, it’s a path here also
H: but how about imagining, you are standing in the forest, and I am standing on the path
N: ah, like here, you mean…like collaborating the forest and path
H: yes, yes. So we just have one direction of path, and you look out of the forest.
N: Ok
H: and I basically looking from the path into the forest. And start to compose the stones likethis. I don’t know.
N: yeah that’s a nice idea *both laughing*
H: ok so, I think we should mix the tree, and another, so maybe we...yeah, I feel like placing
it here.
N: um hm. This is (an) interesting shape…for the forest. Ah (discovery) there should also be
probably like the old tree which already tore down
H: ahhh yes!
N: so at some point…hmmm…but I don’t want it blocking the path, also.
H: but how about like having the path like here, and then one tree is like, not covering thewhole path, but just a part.
N: uh huh.
H: so like this…
N: yeah, um hm.
H: yeah. and then I just let another tree grown here. Just…ummm, yeah. So now here…
N: um hm
H: is kind of the path…maybe we have to place this a bit more here238

Appendix

N: um hm, yeah
H: yeah, still the path
N: um hm. Hmmm….
OB-Y: H can you show with the finger where is the path?
H: um hm. I imagine just looking from here, and this direction (pointing with finger andmoving hand).
OB-Y: ok
H: I am not sure if the path is going straight or a bit curved
OB-Y: um hm
H: but like this direction
OB-Y: ok
N: hmmm, I prefer the path would be, like a bit curved as well
H: um hm
N: so maybe this kind of small…
H: tree
N: trees yes
H: oh that’s very nice, now it make like a curve like this
N: yes
H: and maybe it goes here
N: um hm
H: so we can place one more here…maybe a big tree
N: um hm
H: like this…oh it is difficult (rock would not stand easily)
N: oh, that’s quite nice

239

11

H: and now the path goes like here (show that the path is curved with a hands gesture)
N: that’s quite nice, yes. Hmm…probably one or two more stones
H: yeah
N: at some point…
H: or maybe we can use the whole stones (all of the stones) for a very dense forest
N: ahhh, but…right now the density of this garden or this area is quite same…I want somepoint like the density…more dense…probably here.
H: um hm. How about filling this area?
N: hmmm…yeah that’s what I thought…*laughing* I’m thinking, this…this is…for me it
feels like this here in this side will be like less density
H: um hm
N: because some trees are already…collapsed
H: ah fallen, that’s good
N: then, the left area would be like more density…
H: hmmm…
N: to me…so…hmmm…maybe this stone…would be here
H: yeah *N laughing*. Somehow this composition here is very, 90 degree angle.
N: right! *laughing*
H: and it looks very…and…the distance from the
N: ah that’s true
H: it looks very artificial.
N: uh huh.
H: so…I think we should place a stone, either we have to rearrange them later, but lets start
to place a stone very very like…on the corner.
N: um hm240

Appendix

H: like this
N: ah that’s true
H: to break the…now it feels…yeah
N: then…I will put, a round shape….
OB-Y: N, why did you pick that one? was there a reason? if there isn’t a reason that’s alsofine
N: hmmm, I would say there is…yeah basically I didn’t think…just from my feeling, but
probably I will, one reason for choosing it was like the size. I don’t want like this big stone
on that place (holds a bigger stone for explanation purposes).
H: I feel like grouping. I like this composition of a group, so I think I want to group and to
put a smaller one.
N: um hm.
H: or maybe its fine like this, like this like…group of two trees
N: oh right…
H: but I don’t know if this one is suitable. Maybe this one…yes, like this, very close together.
N: um hm. Ahhhh…
H: because the distances here they…
N: they almost seem
H: very similar
N: yeah right. What happened if I make it closer to here…
H: yes. Yes, much better.
N: ahhh, um hm.
H: and somehow this, from my point of view this one looks also a bit strange. I don’tknow…just a little bit here
N: um hm
H: and then…
241

11

N: ahhh the 90 degrees
H: yeah we kind of break this 90 degrees, I feel
N: now I see the…another path, like here….(showing with finger)
H: going through?
N: yes.
H: do you think we should break it?
N: the path?
H: yes
N: hmmm….no I think its fine to keep it. Like to keep the two paths.
H: um hm
N: like relatively…the wider path and like the smaller path like…for example animal
H: yes, yes! I like the idea, I actually had the same thought. Like the smaller path is more
for animals
N: um hm
H: and the bigger part is for humans
N: yes
H: the humans they are not able to go to the small path, they don’t really see it
N: yeah
H: but the animals they see it. I like this idea
N: um hm
H: I’m just thinking if we need all the stones…
N: hmmm….
*long pause, examining the rocks that are left*
OB-Y: N what are you thinking about?

242

Appendix

N: I’m thinking about…uhhh…if…uhhh…how can I say…hmmm, I don’t’ want the garden
to be too dense, but on the other hand, I also thinking this is….ummm this garden doesn’t
have enough stones…enough number of stones already, but…yeah.
OB-Y: ahhh
H: just wondering if we…just take those two very small ones (out of the rocks left), like maybe
not using the big ones…
N: um hm
H: ‘cause I really like this composition (points to composition in the front right corner)
N: yes, that so true
OB-Y: so you’re considering to add more stones? (confirming understanding)
H: but only exactly two more stones…but only the two smallest are left.
OB-Y: ahhh
H: Because they are significantly smaller in size
OB-Y: yeah
N: um hm
H: (out of) all of the left over five, those two are very small, and uh…I was just wondering, I
agree, like I have the feeling it doesn’t need so much change anymore
N: um hm
H: but I feel, I don’t want to make it too dense, as you say, but on the other hand I feellike…maybe these two stones, one or two of the smaller ones…wont’, will change of course of
the whole image but not that much anymore. And I feel already actually, the whole image
feels…feels somehow… comfortable already.
N: um hm
OB-Y: that’s nice
H: let’s try one more small stone
N: yes243

11

H: to place it. I, I think that this side is almost, almost fine
N: um hm
H: so I want to place this one…but I don’t where, maybe we have to try out
N: um hm. Ummm…what I just eh, started to think is, like we have the two paths, for thehumans the wide…wide path and like small path for the small animals, and…to me uh, by
the humans’ road has, like relatively bigger stones like this and this…
H: yes
N: and for the animal paths, there’s some smaller ones like this and…
H: yes
N: for me, to me this stone (point to a short stone in the middle) belongs to the animals’ path
H: um hm.
N: somehow, I don’t know. This is also looks small, so…why don’t we just put like this area
(refers to area on the left of the tray with circular motion of finger) around this stone….
H: like here maybe…?
N: yes, based on the…like…
H: maybe like this?
N: I don’t know…it’s gonna be the principle, but…yeah
H: yeah
N: yeah looks nice
H: this feels good
N: yes, right now I’m…
H: yeah
N: comfortable with it
H: I was just, I hesitate to place the small one here
N: um hm244Appendix

H: first I was thinking this this is still very empty, but ummm….I have to say, like I…yeah,
I didn’t want to place it here because then this gets too dense
N: um hm
H: and maybe like we feel the corner and then it’s…it’s out of the, I like the balance rightnow
N: um hm
H: so…
N: yeah me too
H: I agree to you…I’m quite comfortable with this, setting of stones
N: yes, I can say it’s done
H: um, yeah
N: arrange…
H: yeah
OB-Y: very nice{post-activity interview, 23:21}
OB-Y: so I have a few questions
H & N: Ok
OB-Y: First of all, just a small thing…I don’t know if you remember, but I was wondering
why did you decide to put a big tree here (pointing to rock in back right corner)?
H: umm, because my like umm, first my imagination was – I am standing on the street
OB-Y: uh huh
H: and looking straight
OB-Y: yeah

245

11

H: and through the straight view, I see the path. And then, N is saying like - ‘but how about
making the path curved?’
OB-Y: uh huh
H: and from my point of view, like I position this stone at the end of this imaginary path
OB-Y: yeah
H: and through that, the path is making it curve (the path curves) in this direction, and thisstone is leading the path a bit left, and I can’t see the end of the path anymore, it’s not astraight path anymore but it becomes from this perspective curved.
OB-Y: yeah, very interesting
N: that’s true (agreeing positively)
OB-Y: Ok, and…in the end I…a bit lost the…like track of the symbolism, so some of thethings are trees? some of them are also people?
N: no, no people
OB-Y: there are no people in this…(confirming)
H: no people
OB-Y: they are just imagined…
N: yes
OB-Y: to inhibit…like…this place. They walk around maybe…
H: yes
N: yes
H: the idea I think the idea is that…this path here, is frequently…not frequently but people
will go on this path. But only on this. And then we…we mentioned the animals (N agreeing),
so I think from N’s perspective here is another path
OB-Y: uh huh
H: but this path, like only animals use like
OB-Y: ahhh, ok

246Appendix

H: like fox or…
OB-Y: they are not represented here right?
H: no (confidently)
OB-Y: it’s just, their forest or something and…
H: yes
OB-Y: really nice. The last thing, which is uhhh…kind of, it was a bit surprising for me…I
want to ask H – how did you come up with the story of the bird?
H: the bird?
OB-Y: yeah, there was a bird that…uhh
N: you mentioned at some point
OB-Y: right in the beginning
H: yes (recalls confidently). So I was imagine(ing), maybe that my thinking was - ‘ok this is
a forest’, and…I went very very back at the beginning of the forest, and then there was one
tree. But the tree, so usually the tree, the seeds of the tree fell next to this tree, and they
won’t reach this point. Besides (the case in which) a bird eats the seed and goes somewhere
else, and yeah shit there and through that the seed is going there, and then suddenly there,
the forest starts to grow, this is the…
OB-Y: nice *all laughing*. Yeah…what…
H: I don’t know how you call this but…yeah the…
OB-Y: some kind of analogy or…
H: yes yes yes.
OB-Y: from the real process of growth
H: I don’t know where this with…the seeds and shit, I don’t know I have, but I had the verystrong image, true, in the beginning of…ummm, yeah, because of the mixture of…because
the (imaginary) forest is out of pine tree and other trees
N: yes247

11

H: and…in…for example if I imagine a pine…pine forest, why is at some point there
are…ummm, other trees, like Gingko or…and this can only happen if someone is carrying
seeds from one place to the other
OB-Y: hm
H: and ummm…the most natural way I came up with is, like the bird, eating the seeds andthen…shitting the seeds
OB-Y: so eventually like uh, when you just looked at it…there was some difference
H: yes
OB-Y: between the two things right?
H: yes - so this one (points to black rock on front left corner) was for…in my imagination nota pine tree. And we placed a small pine tree here (points to the small rock next to it).
OB-Y: uh huh
H: and I was wondering, if through wind the seeds could not come here. So some other actor
has to be there. To…that the pine tree is from this, comes from here, to the back side ofthe…what is opposite of pine tree?
OB-Y: there is a lot of…like coniferous, I don’t know, tons of different…but I know what you
mean, the leaves are more spread
H: exactly
OB-Y: Ok, let’s say concentrated and spread
H: Yes
OB-Y: or something like that,
H: yes, yes
OB-Y: yeah the pine tree has a kind of very defined shape right?
H: yes, exactly. And has not leaves, basically, ne…(Japanese utterance similar to ‘right?’).
So, this was the imagination.

248

Appendix

OB-Y: it was really interesting for me to see how your different choices, or you know
integrated into one big story. Actually, you selected the first one, right? (referring to N).
The…I mean for… (pointing at the first placed rock).
N: ah yes yes
OB-Y: for the different tree…
N: um hm
OB-Y: and then…you set up the beginning of that forest
N & H: yes
OB-Y: and then there was a need for some unifying story
H: yes
N: um hm
OB-Y: that was extremely interesting
H: but in the beginning like when N was saying he doesn’t like stone…gardens so much, I
immediately jumped on this thought,
OB-Y: hm
H: and su-…immediately my imagination ‘ok let’s make a green…’, and for me a green was
the forest
N: um hm
OB-Y: ahhh, hm, wow.
N: yeah, but I didn’t…I didn’t yeah think anything, until H asked me like ‘what is your aim?’
and…
OB-Y: ah, there was no…
N: yeah I was just…
OB-Y: like idea, until he asked you, and then somehow this thing came out
N: right right. I just took a random stone then put…at…yeah, nowhere
OB-Y: that’s so interesting
249

11

A.4.4
{1st composition}
OB-Y: can you see if it’s recording...Ok we can start
L& R: yes
L: choose the beautiful stone...
R: I want to have like a...like a corner garden
L: um hm
R: how about you?
L: yeah
R: like two corner...like different shapes
L: um hm...
R: in two corners and maybe...aa...I don't know like maybe one big in the middle, or we canlike do and then decide the...like...put it first…
L: flat…it’s beautiful *laughing*
R: ok
L: yeah
R: continue continue
L: want..have some...waves
R: like yeah yeah waves like...this...
L: to have this...or we put stone first
R: no no no, stone first? we don't have to draw the draft first…
L: *laughing*
R: finally we are free now ah? After the long long annoying course…aa...now I want to do isto design without reason...*laughs *L: *laughing*, I see.

250

Appendix

L: like…
R: let’s be child again
L: yeah...I like this kind of zone
R: ohhhhh...then it looks like a sculpture, sculpture.
L: sculpture
R: ahhh I see...
OB-Y: don’t be afraid to speak louder…
R: ahhhhh...ok
L: ahhh...I see...
OB-Y: because I’m recording, I will later transcribe, like write everything you say, so if you
speak very low it’s kind of hard to get the sound
L & R: ahhhhh ok
R: oiiiii...
R: then I will make some change to cooperate with you...
L: um hm...mm
R: yeah...this is a nice
L: yeah
R: sculpture, like...ohh I remember a science...s...ss...sci-fi…
L: um hm
R: ahhh...humm...science fiction, I told you before American series that expands the the theseries about the the out space
L: ohhR: there is a planet and they have a lot of big, huge structures that look like this and these,
there was built, planted by some alien before and there was a nuclear...like ahh, how to say?
Mmm how to say...factory, like mm how to say? *Speaks Chinese*

251

11

L & R: *laughing*
R: so to create electric electric power
L: I think it’s common in Japanese culture...maybe…it can *inaudible* (hold a rock)R: this one? It's not common, it's not common…
L: I think, I kind of seen, seen it in Kyoudou (place in Japan)
R: ahhhh...from...from my angle…you see...from my angle it look like the the the shark…
L: mmmR: on the shark’s body, like…
OB-Y: ah, shark’s fin
R: yeahh...shark’s fin...hai
L: *laughing* yes
R: looks not very calm
L: I see
R: eeee…
R: so we should...ahhh this like... look like a candy…
L: yeah, chocolate *laughs*
R: it’s…it’s ugly...huh...
L: stone from the…
R: but the colour is too similar
L: yeah, the brown things...
R: maybe this one
L: it’s very…
R: mmmm...not bad…
L: yes, yeah252

Appendix

R: it’s like a…when you do calligraphy…
L: um hm
R: it’s like the the stone to to...how do you say? *Speaks Chinese*, to...
L: to...uh…*laughing*
R: put on the papers…
L: to fold
R: yeah...on the papers corner to make the paper flat…
L: maybe we can have some…
R: ahhh round...
L: right here...let’s see how it looks…*laughing*, very circle...
R: ohhh you mean the Japanese garden
L: yeah
R: but our fingers is too thick
L: yeah
R: it needs...needs...it’s like an island now…ahhhhh
L: oh it’s cute
R: ooohhh...awwww...
OB-Y: you can use them (hands over miniature rake)
R: ohhh...so cute…ohhhh, oh it’s like a mini Japanese garden tool right?
L: hmm, like something you can buy on Tokyu hands
R: yes the the monk...do it every day...like to clean the sand, right? So so so we should maybe
use the back side
L: yeah
R: to draw the circle

253

11

L: yes...and this looks like…
R: every stone should have its own territory…
L: *laughing*, sometimes it’s like...
R: ohhh it looks like a mickey mouse nose…*laughs* it's too even maybe...maybe some some
someone should have a bigger…
L: other...some another stone here…
R: yess...put this one?...
L: eehh...it’s too
R: it's a little ridiculous…
OB-Y: if you want to erase or flatten you can use that ruler, the black one, it’s quite
convenient
R: ahhhh…this? Use this?
OB-Y: yeah, yeah
R: ohhhh hoooo, ooohh like a *whisper*…ok…feel it
L: amazing…
R:...too...too lonely...
L: yeah too lonely, make some friend here *laughing*
R: I don’t know…
L & R: hhhh...mmm
R: too small…
L: we can...like
R: ohhh this one…
OB-Y: when you say too lonely, which rock are you talking about?
R: they are all too lonely

254

Appendix

L: all too lonely, and also we have the circle too
R: yeah separate them
OB-Y: hmmm
R: like like three islands…
OB-Y: ahhh
R: they don't talk to each other so maybe we need something to...like breakthis...thing...hhh...yeahhh...maybe they can be a group?
L: hm, yeah...and also, we can have...
R: do you think he is too small or is like a family? *laughs*
L: yeah looks like family *laughing*
R: but I like this oneL: this oneR: to be alone, to...because it's very unique, this…
L: very…
R: and…
OB-Y: can you try to explain in what sense it is unique?
R: hmmm, it’s very tall...yeah
L: actually very beautiful *laughing*
R: the colour is...very...different from all the black brownish, uhh black or grayOB-Y: hmm
R: the colour is yellowish
OB-Y: hmm
L: and you can feel the language...or something that that
R: yeah255

11

L: it just stand here and you can feel it
R: yeah...it's, it’s very thin but very tall…soo...has some spiritually in it
OB-Y: ohhh, it’s nice
R: yeah but like they are more or less...common...sorry for the...for the...but this stone*laughs* so but one is very...different
OB-Y: *laughing*
L: it looks like...ehhh...how to say, it’s kind of...mr...arra...arro
OB-Y: arrow?
L: arrowR: ohhhhh yess...it’s it’s it’s a kind of aggressive...then maybe they should be in the corner…
psss...to be the guard
L: yeah to be theL & R: guard (almost in unison)
L: guard…(of the) garden *laughs*
R: yes...yes...
L: oh but it can, can’t stand…
R: mumbles
OB-Y: if it cannot stand you can also put some sand behind it, it's also ok...like...
R: heyL: heyR: hey...huummm…
L: put...usually the Japanese garden sand is very flat...
R: yes I think so...
L: yeah and the...

256

Appendix

R: it's not bad...but this should be to the right
L: yeah
R: this one should be disappear…haha
R: and ahhh…I think…
L: ...keep this family
R: I don't know, this is so fat...
L: yeah
R: it should be this...this big
L: just this big
R: yes, hmmm...maybe this one?
L: but it’s, yeah
R: try it...maybe...the..the good...eh...like eh, tsuu...to match, match…angle, like like abri..how to say? Hug? Like hug the small one
OB-Y: hmmm
R: should...should we...I need...here? I don't know, I feel like...it’s...like in a lake and the small
boat will travel from here
L: ahhh
R: because I’ve been to a lot of…
L: valley
R: China, china like ahh different lakes and with a lot of mountain in the lakes...so…we justtake the boat and then there are lots of situations look like this, a small mountain in the
middle.
L: yeah yeah, mhm
R: they will just...
L: ah I see, yeah and maybe, we can broke this micky face

257

11

R: yes...yes although they are very close but their cruise is different. Maybe too even? Maybe
this should be...yeah...one big one, one small…
L: big valley
R: maybe this one is…this circle is...bigger, let's have a…
L: another, final…
R: yes...aggressive…*laughing*… another aggressive guard here...this one?
L: but maybe these two are…
R: too similar. yeah…ah-ha...so you choose one... *laughing*...
L: maybe...
OB-Y: even if you are looking at the rock and you are thinking something, before you choseit, you can also say what you think?
L: ok
R: ok, like what do we think?
OB-Y: yeah, like when you look at the rock
L: -it’s very smooth
OB-Y: what is your opinion of it? Even if you don't choose it
L: ahhhh…this one is some... roof (rough?) one...
R: ahhhh...this is more like a domestic and this is more wild...*laughs*...this one...
L: yeah, *laughing*
OB-Y: domestic and wild? hmm, that’s nice, I like that distinction
R: it’s like has been smoothed polished by
L: yeah
R: maybe by nature...but it still looks very...
L: maybe down this river...

258

Appendix

R: yes...
L: just use this to, smooth this…face
R: I like this surface…
OB-Y: hm
R: unique texture...it should...everyone should see it
L: yeah
R: ohhh its very light...it's lighter than I thought
L: and maybe we can, move this guard to another one...
R: ok...what what you don't like? Oh Its look like a penguin
L: um hm
R: um hm
L & R: *laughing*
R: now I think it, it’s cute...
L: yeah, ok
R: but wh...wh...where do you want to put it? or why why you think it's not good...?
L: hmm, but maybe we have to treat of these kind of thing..like this (points to rock), from thisunique stone to this...
R: ahhh...ahhh..because this one is...is...ahhh...
L: ah, make it very...
R: ahhh.. It shouldn't let it stol...ahhh...steal his...ahhh...
L: ahhh, presence
R: yes...this, thi...he should be the star *laughing*. Ok...sososo if this is the only one with thelight colour maybe we should keep other...like more...mmm without colour…?
L: that one?

259

11

R: this one is…
L: um hm, or gray one...
R: yeah..its...mmm...haaa..put others...but I like it this actually...this and this...i don't know
about this one...
L: hmm, it looks like the head of some animal
OB-Y: which one? Can you point again?
L: this one
OB-Y: the back one?
L: yeah...it's like a dinosaur?
OB-Y: ohhh, ok I can see
L: why...why we put it here…*laughing*
R: yes...
L: have some...
R: this oneL: bridge to this
R: pyramid…kind of pyramid
L: pyramid?
R: *explains in Chinese*
L: ahhh
OB-Y: hmm
L: but, hm...this one can also be pyramid
R: what do you think? Should we change it?
L: but I like this kind of vertical and
R: ahhhh for example...

260

Appendix

L: how many, how many here...maybe
R: okay...okay...I agree...maybe the back side?I think this is...is..better
L: yeah...maybe, you also have some line to...the dinosaur come back to this pyrami..pyramid,*laughing*, I’m not sure...
R: ok…Do you think we still need anything?
L: mmm...I don’t know...should, should we make this...lines more...I don’t know (waves hand)
R: yes
L: yeah
R: mmmm, maybe the stone is enough
L: I think stone might be enough
R: ok...
L: and then we can play with this…son...sand
R: ok...should...ohhh...here?
L: yeah, looks like...looks cute
R: yes...
OB-Y: R, why did you pick the small one?
R: because, because eh, still our main... main purpose is try to make this (points at rock)special...
OB-Y: hmm
R: so...now here we have a group
OB-Y: -um hm
R: but without this one, maybe this is still also unique,
L: um hm
R: but if I have, we put a small one here

261

11

L: um hm
R: sooo… we can know this two are groups...only he is...this one is
L: unique one
R: a lonely one…
OB-Y: ahhhhh
R: yes…
OB-Y: oh very clever
R & L: *laughing*
OB-Y: sophisticated...*laughing*
R: ww...ww...we are used to this , to do this kind of things...
OB-Y: hmm
R: Ok let’s play with the sand...maybe...
L: yeah, should we mix that with...
R: yes...
L: like..
R: yes...lets clear our mind first...it’s hard actually
R: maybe if this...ohhh...this is also good to use…
L: ok...can work
R: yes...
L: should we clean all this lines...or?
R: yeah maybe…
L: maybe...hmm
R: let's clean the first...it's not hard to redo it
R: whaa is...feels comfortable too…
262

Appendix

L: yeah
R: to do this…
OB-Y: hmm
R: everything comes back to zero…
L: zero degree
R: ahhhh...
L: oh sorry!
L & R: *laughing*
R: so I will put it...OK...wha, like cake…
L: hm and you can...see some
R: yeah
L: layers...to use this
R: can can can we think aaa...a sea...sea wave? Like a beach...
L: ahhh...also we can do...
R: like ahhh...do like this...like
L: do with this ruler
R: yeah it's very straight...
L: um hm, beautiful at first
R: yeah maybe it’s...
R: ahhhh so maybe we can make small hills…also with the sand...
L: yeah yeah...to make it…
R: yes...like a different...hmmm...geo...how to say geo geography...
OB-Y: hm
R: do you know what I mean?
263

11

OB-Y: like landscape? Geographical landscape
R: yeah landscape yeah yeah
OB-Y: yeah...wh...what made you suddenly think about making the hills?
R: because she is cleaning the sand and you can see some sand gather together to look likelandscape...
OB-Y: ahhh *laughing*
R: so maybe it's a good idea ...
L: *mumbles*
R: wow yeah there is also a sand, a hill here...wahhhh…wha it's like older Greece you know
L: hm
R: a...atan?...
OB-Y: hm, like a name of a place?
R: yes...aitan, because they used to build the city. All the most powerful like architecture likethe the government on the top of the hill
OB-Y: ahhh, like the acropolis or something?
R: yes yes so people can see everything from the...from there, and maybe usually it’s by thesea
L: hmm
R: so..with with...
L: you want to play with this? *laughing*
R: maybe you can make it higher? Can you?
L: to gather…
R: yes, make this...think like this I think this shape is very beautiful...this…
L: hmmm, so can...just go in and...to gather it?
R: yes.this...kind o...I don't know, is that a… now its un-regular shape264

Appendix

L: hmm. It’s also funny to have different layers by gathering this
R: yes…
OB-Y: hmmm
L: *laughing*
R: ok...mmm...should...*mummbles*
R: make it ...can can can... we make it higher? No?
L: no, no nigher
R: no? Because now it’s just maybe bigger but not higher...
L: do you like it…?
R: yes now it’s...high...but should we continue our last...eh...we just give up? The…yes, that’strue...
OB-Y: completely fine...
R: completely fine? We just…
OB-Y: just go with the...
R: jump from one to another...
OB-Y: hm
R: ok
L: maybe you can just use it…*laughing*
R: really?
L: sureR: wow...and huh...and make it flat...oh...wow…
L: yes
R: now we are making 3d model
L: um hm265

11

R: whaa it's good to have sand...to make your...draft mode
L: yeah
R: I think…*laughs*...yes
L: yeah it’s soft
OB-Y: *laughing*
R: yes...is it...expensive?
OB-Y: no no no, this is great (thought that R said “excessive”)
R: ahhh…I mean I also want to buy it *laughs*
OB-Y: *laughing*
R: maybe we can have stairs…
L: ah
R: ahh...it's like eh…
L: like eh
R: Tibet...like Tibet.
L: Tibet?
R: Tibet! *speaks chinese*
L: *laughs* *speaks chinese* ahhh...
R: palace of…
L: palace ofR: how to say then...do you know Tibet?
OB-Y: yeah
R: do you know there is a very famous palace...
OB-Y: oh, I don’t know but I think I know what you mean like the temples?
L: um
266

Appendix

R: yes..yeah...temple...yeah...but this stairs is not...not obvious…
L: um hm
R: but then we have our...ehhh...now it's sacred…
L: *laughing* yeah
R: they have…have extraordinary status…
L: *laughing* yeah
R: yes...but still this one is...yeah its ehhh...co-, like people from nowhere...but
L: um hm
R: ahh… it’s still very…eh…outstanding...challenge the...
L: yeah...it’s like the road, then people will go up to this palace, but people will go by thisroad can see this kind ofR: yes…yes...different view…
L: structure
R: do we have? Do...do...do we need this one here?
L: hmmm
R: no may...may...maybe then we...if have ahh...division here…
L: um-hm
R: mmm...this...should be maybe a little more…
L: here?
R: yes this way or...or we should change it
L: hmmm
R: but actually I like this gr-...this
L: yes
R: composition, I want to take a picture of this, is it ok?

267

11

OB-Y: yes sure of course
L: it's kind of the garden of the palace
R: and...I...I think these three make a good match...
L: um hm, yeah, (I) like it
OB-Y: can you try to talk a little bit about each of the parts of your design?
L: parts? Ahhh...but we changed a lot
OB-Y: I mean...ah what it means for you...
R: ahhh means...yeah
OB-Y: I feel these is some meaning
R: yes
L: um hm
OB-Y: to these things… some of it I know...
L & R: um hm
OB-Y: ahhh like like that one which is standing who is unique...
R: yes
OB-Y: but how about the other ones or in general what do you think about each part?
R: maybe...I..I...think this one represents the...power...people who has power likeemperors...something...
OB-Y: hm
R: and this maybe his follower…*laughs*
OB-Y: ahhh
L: *laughing*
R: *laughing* no...yes...but this one is key...maybe he grows in a like normal family but he isvery unique268

Appendix

L: talented...
R: yeah...talented…so...
L: *laughing* to challenge this…(points at the rightmost rocks)
R: yes…
OB-Y: hmm
R: and this…I don't know this one...because it remains from the last design...
OB-Y: hmm
L: maybe common family
OB-Y: it’s OK
R: common...yeah...it’s too big to be common family
L: um hm
R: if…if...they can represent…
L: like the middle of this…
R: yes…
L: or...maybe it's...
R: na...no…because now it look like they are protecting them…(two back rocks protecting thefront central arrangement)
L: um hm
R: but they are...they are not so unique…
L: maybe just looks like other...other...that were common people...and the...they are very are
talented...
R: hmmm
L: ones...and the government to...our back to...support us…?
R: yes…*laughing*

269

11

L: I’m not sure…
R: *laughing*
OB-Y: hmmm...it's actually very interesting…
R: I really think it look like a...
L: um hm
R: the...because of the the...the shape of this stone…
L: um hm
R: it look like it was flushed by the water…
L: ahhh…
R: so…
L: you still want a river…*laughing*
R: yeah...it’s really like...like flushed by the lake water…so...so...I think that's why looks so
harmony
L: ah
R: because it’s...it’s a...ahh follows the nature’s rule
L: um hm yeah
R: look like a real, real
L: view
R: view in the...in the real wor...real world...I think that's why we like it…
L: and maybe in this people view
R: yes…
L: you can just see this kind of valley
R: yeah...should we have a...have a boat?
L: *laughing*270

Appendix

R: no?
L: what kind of boat? *laughs*
R: no they are too big for...
L: ahhh…
R: these are too big to represent a boat…
L: um hm
R: I don't’ know...don't forget about the...how to say? As...asm...asmatic…
OB-Y: aesthetic?
R: aesthetic...the beu...beautiful
OB-Y: yeah aesthetic…
R: aesthetic, yes… let’s focus on the aesthetic part as well…
L: um hm, yeah
R: I think…this one should be...if we…
L: um hm
R: I don’t know…now we, we are doing everything from, from this side right?
L: yeah...
R: so...can we see we have a fron...frona...frontality? *laughing*
L: *laughing* and the road is very...
R: straight…
L: yes
R: maybe we can make it more nature...natural right... a good big curve
L: hmmR...and a...
L: the road too big *laughing*
271

11

R: yeah...then use your...your tool…this...this tool…
L: should I use that?
R: is that the river? If is that…it’s so wide…
L: ah, it looks like a river
R: yes it’s like a river...
L: but...we can have a river, right?
R: yes…
L: just like two side...
R: yes
L: two side of this...
R: wow...you...ahhh...so...so…
L: the island (points to back right rocks)
R: then maybe this should be the sea, because usually the...the...the palace, the temple is...
L: um hm, face to theR: the palace, yes it’s very high and maybe this side should be a cliff or something?
L: um hm
R: the river goes to the sea
L: yeah
R: yes...
L: *mumbles* try here...
R: yes...so this is the coast
L: um hm
R: if this is the coast...shou...I'm thinking of a lot of trees here...
L: trees (confirming)
272

Appendix

R: but we don't have trees…
L: ahhh
R: yes...if it is urban planning I think now we need some trees here…*laughs*
OB-Y: *laughing*
L: hmmR: yes…
L: maybe some...small plants…ahhh...not sure...to haveR: ah just patterns…
L: maybe patterns...
R: oh! oh patterns...then...I…*mumbles*...oh this is...trees only from the plan...no?
L: hm
R: no...we are not drawing a plan. OK…that’s the trees. Should we do anything else? I still
don't know what they are...representing for…
L: mmm...I like it former one…
R: ahhh
L: like it has some value here...and this one is just to protect this...
R: what? What? The former…
L: this big one too, like some protecting the little
R: small one
L: small ones
OB-Y: hmmm...
R: hmmm...yes
L: and they all protect this one...looks like…
R: yes...that makes sense also…but...

273

11

L: *speaks foreign language*
R: but why they are so important...so so this represent the children and they are theirparents...so they are like *mumbles*
L: government
R: governors
L & R: *laughing hard*
L: *speaks foreign language*
R: ohhh
L: don’t like...i don't want to make it very political...
R: yes… *laughing*
OB-Y: *laughing*
R: Yes...but it’s a...makes sense then…
L: *laughing*
R: ah I can’t, oh my god...ohhh
L: *laughing*
R: oh yeah
L: like a…
R: ok. We tried this...so maybe we can change...change for another, so this is a family, ok?
L: ok
R: *laughing*, because you like it…
L: *laughs*
OB-Y: so you are considering a different option for that place?
R: yes...

274

Appendix{2nd Composition, 33:09}
L: should we...
R: yes...because... once we remove them we can think more open
L: um hm
OB-Y: ahhh yeah
R: yes… and...sh...
L: but this kind of higher place also sym...bolitic (wants to say symbolic)
R: yes...
R: maybe we can
L: maybe
R: yes...it’s the one thought...
L: *laughing*
R: yeah ...it’s too specific...
R: uh huh
R: we had fun so let’s, let it go...? *laughing* oh ohhh...but it’s it’ s...do we have a topic like
Zen garden or something?
OB-Y: you don’t have to do that
R: ahhh...ohhh ok...ohhh
L: but I…like here (points at the remaining rock)
R: yes…so...so this one is our main character right?
L: yeah…*laughing*
R: *laughing*
L: from the beginning
R: ok...ok…ok...it's really thick…

275

11

L: uh huh
R: this side…oh my god...this one...just just this one...eh...eh...eh…
L: *mumbles* flat it (make it flat)
R: yes...flat it...ah yes we have this...ohhhh...really...wahhh...wahhh...so comfortable
L: it’s like omochi (Japanese sticky rice sweets)
R: mochi? *laughing*
L: omochi
R: yes…also like the cake…did you see the video of making cakes?
L: uh, yeah yeah yeah
R: It's really fun...but I don't know how to make a cake...
L: *giggles* yeah
R: ohhh also like a a you paint your wall
L: ahhhh I see...
R: with the...how to say? *speaks Chinese*...
L: um hm
R: it the…
L: the roller
R: mmm...so what do we do now?
L: maybe this corner and then another...
R: can you draw some very abstract line?
L: mm
R: like...modrin...mo...mo…mo...mondrin (means Mondrian)
L: ah Mondrin...
OB-Y: Mondrian?
276

Appendix

R: Mondrian?
L: Mondrian
R: yes...yes…
L: so then may not need a stones for just maybe…? (hand gesture)
R: this...here...can be…a short one?...this…
L: I like it...
R: yeah...because weL: it’s like also...
R: we, because...after the...re-...how to say? the...removed?
L: flat it?
R: yeah...after we rearranged the sand weL: uh huh
R: I saw some, like this lines remains…
L: ah-ha
R: so I think maybe it's cool to have...
L: yeah, this constru...construct
R: yes...
L: construct
R: make it flat...
L: um hm...just uh...
R: sh-...just a remain this one line maybe…
L: yeah yeah yeah, um hm
R: is...is…*mumbles*...no...they are too sensitive...
L: *laughing*
277

11

OB-Y: it’s no so easy
L & R: yes
OB-Y: not so simple
R: ehhhh...it's very easy to a...remain some...how to say? trace...
OB-Y: yeah, yeah! Some...some holes
R: yes…
L: do we need to extend this line? With more...
R: extend? This line? I don't know...
L: maybe
R: because we already have a very long line here…
L: ummm...from here?
R: do you think if we have another one...ahhh...Mondrian…
L: the back mo…mmm...because it’s not very strong?
R: ...mm...maybe...
L: or justR: like...how to say...Mies van der Rohe? (famous architect)
L: *laughing*
OB-Y: hmmm
R: but...then...
L: ahhh
R: they have...this one (adds a line) do you remember?
L: yeah...
R: very famous plan...this one...
L: um hm, ah I see
278

Appendix

L & R: *laughing*
L: have some
R: and...he...here...right...this one right...ahh…
L: yeah
R: and then we uL: close to the river
R: yeah...and we can...mmm…use the stones to represent the colour maybe…
L: hmmR: in the…original drawing
L: ahh I see
R: ...they use different colour to...I don't know what is the colour...yellow or red?
L: hmmm…
R: sss...so difficult...ok…
L: maybe some stone...
R: yes…
L: *laughing*
R: yeah...we...are playing...playing chess…
L & R: *laughing*
L: yeah...
R: you…you like the stone on the line or in the grid? (inside the grid cell) you...li...you preferon the outside?
L: we can try...
R: yes...and a…
L: and we can…

279

11

R: I thought we...canL: hmm...it’s good (speaks to herself)
R: make it like in the middle or something...
L: ok
R: in the...but maybe not this...stone…maybe just...
L: maybe the f...
R: I prefer more
L: round?
R: how to say...good behaving…
L: *laughing*
R: more...eh (discovery)...maybe...yeah maybe this small cute...noo…its too small!
L: *laughing*
R: it's too small…
L: ummm
R: a little bigger...mmm...this one? But this a little
L & R: too big (in unison)
R: for the...grid
L: um hm
R: for this...this is also too small…right?
L: yeah
R: and I think it's too...this side...this…(points) is too small...
L: um hm
R: if it looks like one…
L: ahhh280

Appendix

R: this...I...I think it's ok. Maybe let this stand…stand…
L: ahhh...oh!
R: I don’t know, like small...very small...ah!
L: very small (want to say smaller than) this one (points)
R: ahhhhhh...the...they are bothers...they are sisters
L: yeah
R: but...the...in different scale…*laughing*
L: *laughing*
R: it’s too small...may we can have...several of this...(points)
L: ohhh
R: like small hills…
L: yeah
R: I like this one maybe...
L: I like this one
R: this one...maybe...here...yes...
L: um hm
R: yes...tha...that's a...another…
L: *whispers* line
R: yes here...a...but maybe here should be...eh…what...ehh...maybe...just leave it. Here or
here? here?
L: hmm, should we put it vertical? or...
R: I think...ah…
L: ohhh
R: I think maybe we can do a series that...all-

281

11

L: um hm
R: they’re all standing
L: ah I see
R: yes...like this is...a...small..smallest (points)
L: ahh...li...likes animal shouting...she is shouting to hill
Y & R: *laughing*
R: yes ah...like bear...yeah
L: oh...the higher (points)…*laughing*
R: yeah also... like seal…
L: yeah
OB-Y: which one?
L+R: this one…(pointing)
OB-Y: ahhh
R: not...he is not cool...he is just...cu...cute...
L: cuteOB-Y: *laughing*
R: no I dont like he ...he be cute, he should be cool…
L: yeahhh
OB-Y: *laughing*
R: wah... so this is very...kind of evil I think…
L: um hm
R: don't you think so? Its like a..
L: it’s like a...very...shape…(wants to say sharp)
R: yeah... sharp282

Appendix

OB-Y: can you show to the camera?
R: its where…*mumbles* like a...a...once you are very kind people but eh...evil witch took
your heart out and then put it in the...
L: in the…
R: ...in the poison…
OB-Y: ahhh
R: and then your heart become very hard and poison, how to say?
OB-Y: hm
R: With poison…*laughing*
L: um hm *laughing*
R: the kind of...sttt...very dead...dead-ly…(want to say deadly)
L: devil
OB-Y: hm
R: dead like...dead weapon…
OB-Y: hm, ahh
L & R: *laughing*
R: but it’s too big...maybe...he...this one should...do, or do we...which one is better?
L: ahhh (topples rock by accident)
R: the color... this one is better...right?
L: yeah, the colour...is...yes...
R: yeah...this is too big...for...for...for anywhere..maybe here? hmm...
L: hm
R: maybe now...we...we need...eh...kind of ah...balance…
L: yeah283

11

R: this is...
L: maybe here?
R: here...mm...this one...we need to...eh...why it’s not...
L: behind this...line
R: behind this line?
L: beside this line
R: oh…eh...wah...
L: it looks like three stones to...want to attack this (points)
R: *laughing*...no...no they are...supposed to be like a sequence...
L: no...harmony…*laughing*
R: they ...they are the same species… wah...
L: maybe more...(places a rock)
R: *laughing* ohhhh...
L: *laughing* it looks really strange
R: ohhh this one is...so un-harmony…*laughing*
L: *laughing*
R: ohhh...no...
L: like monster *laughing*
R: yes monster…no…you leave…
L: *laughing*
R: yeah…we can have a...a..anoth...let..let...it on...another series, no not this one...this one
may...maybe you can keep pure..
L: ahhR: yes...just a…very...do we need more lines?

284

Appendix

L: hmmm, maybe…
R: I don’t know... mm...make it…
L: straight and a...pure
R: to..to..to..the...to the endL: can try...
R: this is too much…? oy...
L: hm
R: eh, I don't know...no but it not p-...it’s...at the end...do it well...ohh...eh...the lines before ismore beautiful…it's so hard toL: yeah
R: -make things beautiful…
L: maybe also this oneR: it's hard to add anything after...like eh...when when a design is finished
L: um hm
R: is almost finished...it's the most difficult period…
L: yeah
R: it's so hard to add anything...
OB-Y: umm, right
L: (places a rock) *giggles*
R: mm...it's too even...
L: maybe...maybe we have some group, cross this one?
R: but…
L: um hm285

11

R: mm..but there...you, you want this group to be...different? Because this one is very difficuleh- different from others...
L: yeah...yeah maybe...vertical one
R: this one is very similar to this one…
L: um hm, ahhh yeah
R: maybe next time we can have them…
L: yeah. Maybe this kind of vertical?
R: yes vertical, yeah it's very unique…oh...wah...*laughing*
L: *laughing* like the bird’s house (points)
R: eh...this...like some gear...ohh...where, where should we put it?
L: ummR: ooh, I...I...I still think there is one spot here left...is here...
L: um hm
R: like from the layout...I mean...
L: keep it empty?
R: empty is also ok, but something smaller than this I think...yeah this is...you...do you wantto put it before but in a horizontal position?
L: yeah
R: I think this is maybe it's fine if we keep it stand...
L: yeah
R: th...they...they some kind of...making some magic things here…*laughing*
L: *laughing* like aR: we can have a circle...
L: like a circle *laughing*286

Appendix

R: yes…yes…
L: have some magic
R: yes...yeah...then we can...yeah…*mumbles*... oh yeah...maybe they...are...
L: the center
R: yeah this is...the...
L: ohhR: I don't know...
L: but maybe in this kind of situation...this one can be the centre…
R: ahhh...but...mm…maybe...as long as…you know...sometimes...the most...like
a...mm…Maybe they are...this one is...how to say...ancestor or teacher...are these are
siblings...
L: um hm
R: but this one is the most...this is the best one...so...they...eh...I don't know...
L: *laughing*
R: maybe this one...this way...this way is...
L: yeah yeah yeah I like this way
R: and...but...we can keep the...the...the...the square...a...
L: square
R: how to...so difficult...to draw some- draw anything...ohhh...wah...no I failed...
L: *laughing*
R: it's so difficult!
OB-Y: oh it’s ok it doesn't have to be perfect as long as it shows your idea
R: ah...ok...I’m not good at (making a) model actually…*laughing*
OB-Y: *laughing* good enough

287

11

L: *laughing*
R: ohhh...I think you are very good at model...
L: hmm...no *laughing*
R: right…
L: look like flowers *laughing*...nooo
R: ok...lets remove it...remove it…
L: yeah
R: ok…
L: maybe...hmm
R: mm? do you want...do you like it?
L: nah nah nah, you can move it *laughing*
R: *laughing*…ok...
L: oh can have some...you know some...these precious two
R: oh...
L: keep the…
R: so...so...so...so this are the...eh...like...they...like the evidence this one been here?
L: yeah yeah yeah like this
R: *laughing* that (is like) traces...
L: yeah
R: wah maybe...yeah...and there...there...this the shape of the holes are so different because
they have different size and texture…
L: yeah
R: yes...its good… yeah...that will be fine...
L: but there's some…*inaudible* may not be represented very well...

288

Appendix

R: mmm...maybe it’s...it’s this side...
L: ahhh this side
R: yes…
L: but still very smooth, not...can you show this shape?
R: maybe you can try the very thick...place...yeah...
L: ahhh
R: yes, you can see its very sharp...
L: um hm, down (places rock upside down)
R: *laughing* ohh upside down...eh, no? a...this two are so very similar you see...
L: um yeah, oh look like the section of some blue diamond *laughing*
R: yes
L: but it actually look good
R: I think it look like liver... *laughing*
L: *laughing* ok
R: ohh goose liver or duck liver…*laughing*
L & R: *laughing*
L: maybe...
R: oh, yeah we have some, actually we have several...this section...
L: um yeah
R: we can show it...
L: kind of small
R: yeah...
L: this one is also...small
R: and bury other part...only show the...section
289

11

L: yes, yeah…
R: eh, sorry, eh no...you're out…*laughing*
L: *laughing*
R: eh...bury the…*laughing*
L: ahhh I see, to cover it?
R: oh, I don't know it’s look like they are sleeping…*laughing*
L: *laughing* oh looks like in the car
R: car?
L: coff, ehhh sleep in the coff
R: a coff? Oh no! (wants to say coffin)
L: yeah...
R: where is the section? Oh
L: yeah
R: the domestic one...
L: um hm, too *mumbles* to make the sand *inaudible*
R: ohhh you lea...mm...you know...wah…look like a...like a...like how to say? Wild people,
they live in the cave
L: ohhR: so this is...the…entrance of their cave...
L: ahhh
R: so their living space is underground...some kind of
L: um
R: do...do you remember...Inna’s design...
L: ahh I see *mumbles*290

Appendix

R: yes yes...I see but this is too high?
L: this one? Maybe just...this one also out
OB-Y: I don't know how much time you have (to spend) but we are already one hour...
R: ohh...really???
L: one hour?? *laughing*
OB-Y: I didn’t want to tell you because uhh, I saw you were really you know, deep into theactivity...
R: ah...I really don't know...i thought...a...I...was...wondering eh maybe it’s 30 minutes
but...I...am not sure but since you didn't tell me, I think maybe 28 minutes…
OB-Y: ah really? Ok I’m happy *laughing*
L: ‘cause we changed the…*laughing*
R: really? Oh yes, but I like one
OB-Y: If you want to finish this one, it's ok. I’m personally not in a hurry, depends on you.
L: um hm
R: *laughing* it’s not beautiful at all but I think it’s interesting
OB-Y: um
L: yeah...this one...
R: no...no this one...this one
L: very rough...ok just use hands to make some…
R: yeah, it’s really like a...how to say, a tribe...a wild people’s tribe, they separate their houses
in different places, but they...
L: ah...
R: they can gather together sometimes...
L: yes
R: yesss…

291

11

L: yeah
R: maybe it’s in a very...very very cold place like snow hills…
L: um hm
R: around them...
L: ah - yeah
R: they only have...a...
L: oh yes...looks like snow
R: yes...very interesting...this one…
OB-Y: hm
L: yeah
R: mm...
L: nice...
R: it...it’s...it’s actually, I think it’s good it’s interesting to sometimes have this kind ofexperience by yourself even..
OB-Y: hm
R: to have you more...open your mind have more very, how to say? very different...
L & OB-Y: inspirations (In unison)
R: Inspirations from...from your daily design…
L: um hm
R: you usually have your tasks...
OB-Y: yeah
L: yeah
R: you have your goal…
OB-Y: yeah292Appendix

R: it should aim to something, but now you can discover...yeah...
L: just *inaudible* *laughing*
R: some deeper design...or...inspiration in your mind
OB-Y: yeah yeah I think you had a lot of ideas
R: really? *laughing*
L: *laughing*
OB-Y: in this session, yeah! I kept track...quite a lot
L: ohhh
R: ohhh
OB-Y: I was wondering, I have some small question, to understand what was going on. So, inthe beginning, the first thing you said is “I want to make a corner garden”
R: yeah...
L: um hm
OB-Y: so I was wondering where did that come from...
L & R: *laughing*
R: oh, oh...because I thought the...the...we are going to make a Zen garden
L: um hm
OB-Y: hmm
R: and actually I thought...eh...first sight of this stones...I thought maybe this stones are notenough...
OB-Y: hm...
R: because I want to use the stones to make a real…
OB-Y: yeah
R: real garden

293

11

L: ahhh, this path
R: yeah, and a maybe have a...have some...shapes…
OB-Y: um hm
R: or something...like like this...
L: um hm
R: and then...she changed my mind
OB-Y: um
R: because...she she “jah! pow!” (makes sounds and gestures of energetically placing the rocks
in the garden)
L: *lauhging*
R: put a very unique...stone here...so I “oh ok yeah it’s also a good way to...”OB-Y: um
R: exp...how to say? expand...
OB-Y: yeah
L: just remind of the Japanese
R: ahhh
L: culture…
OB-Y: so before you said it, you though you are going to make a Japanese garden...
R: yes
OB-Y: ah and then you said this rock is
L: um hm
OB-Y: beautiful, or something like that? hm
R: yeah, yeah because I...I saw the stone stands here
OB-Y: um hm

294

Appendix

R: and umm, oh, it's totally different from what I was thinking in my mind...the picture istotally different...but I…I’m open, usually I'm open to some new ideas so I take it, accept it
and then I follow his...her, her mind…
OB-Y: ahhhh
L: *laughing*, really?
R: and then I...yeah...and I changed my mind like one second
L & R: *laughing*
R: like ok...let's forget that...I...I…
L: *laughing* try...
OB-Y: it was quite fast...hehe...
R: *laughing* yeah!
OB-Y: yeah, it...it was very flexible
L: yeah yeah yeah yeah
R: yeah, I'm very flexible at the...at the beginning...
OB-Y: um
L: this material is very flexible…
R: yeah maybe yeah
OB-Y: ahhhh
R: because it can represent a lot of things
L: yeah
OB-Y: hm that’s true, and also can easily be changed
L & R: yes
OB-Y: you don't have to do anything just move...so...so...
L: um hm295

11

R: ye...yeah you don't have...you don’t need to ex...how to say...take your times or money tochange anything, so you won't hesitate to do it...
OB-Y: right, right. Ohhh, that was very nice. And, you mentioned something about science
fiction, a series or movie.
R: yeah yeah yeah
OB-Y: so do you know the name?
R: yeah I can show the picture
OB-Y: ok, ok!
R: It's quite cool, I will show you the scene I was mention...
OB-Y: and L, for you um...what was the most ahhh...like the composition you like the most
L: ahhh
OB-Y: from this activity, do you remember?
L: maybe...maybe the unique one here and have some groups here (points)
OB-Y: ahhh...
R: the first one *laughing*
L: *laughing* the first one!
R: yeah
L: because I just like this stone very well (much)
OB-Y: ahhhhh
L: and I just want it to be very unique...the topic the star here. And we also have this groups
to make it uh, to be this home-, how to say? The harmonies
OB-Y: hmmm
L: to yeah...to cooperate this one
OB-Y: ah, somehow to support that rock...
R: yeah yeah yeah yeah296Appendix

OB-Y: hmm
R: L? oh my phone died,
L: oh
R: expense, the English name is expense…(the name of the science fiction series)
OB-Y: expense? Ah sure, no problem. And one last thing, do you have the picture that you
took of the 3 rocks in the middle? Like one one and small one
R: yeah my phone died
OB-Y: its ok, if you remember its ok
R: yeah yeah yeah I remember
OB-Y: so at some point in the beginning, I think R said its kind of, like there is water aroundit
R: yeah
L: um hm
OB-Y: and later, what what happened to that? Did the water disappear or…? like we had ahill, after that there was a hill, and there was a rock on the hill and the three rocks, then you
said they are like a family or something like that.
L: um hm
R: hmmOB-Y: so at that point. what did you think about the...
R: river?
OB-Y: yeah.
R: I think I just, the river
OB-Y: um
R: yeah at first I said it looks like a river
OB-Y: um297

11

R: but also it looks like hug
OB-Y: um
R: so sometimes if you are in the lake you can see oh these 3 mountains look like a family
OB-Y: um
R: so they can be river...like mountains in the river...also, they can look like a family, so they
can be two things at the same time...
OB-Y: ahhh
R: so sometimes I took one meaning, sometimes I take another meaning
OB-Y: ahhh
R: and with different context, I, my mind will prefer this in some different ways..
L: *giggles*
OB-Y: um, what did you think about those rocks? like when you imagine the environment
around them or something, is it for you also like or something different?
L: the rocks ummm, but also we also use this some kind of device to...to flat this sand
OB-Y: hmmmm
L: and I think it also can be one part of this. And when we...flat this sand, and you can see
just this stones can play his roles in this kind of position, and how it corr-, correspond to thesand behind, behind by we doing...by use this to sand
OB-Y: ahhhh, yeah I saw that the sand had a lot of effect actually, on the design process

A.4.5{1st composition}
OB-Y: ok we can start. And sometimes I will stop you and ask some question, if you don’t
have an answer just say “I don’t know”
K: ok so…
M &K: ok *laughing*298

Appendix

OB-Y: you don’t have to answer anything, just if…if you feel like “I don’t know”, you justsay “I don’t know”
K: um ok
M: ok
K: so we need to design the garden, so how should we decide (the) concept? *laughing*
M: *laughing*
K: I fell like maybe…put the bigger stone could be easier to design…all..garden, so maybe I
put this one to here, this is just random
M: um hm
K: do you have any inspiration? *laughing* maybe this way could be better *lughing*. I likerock with, not like round one, like a sharp
M: um hm
K: rocks with sharp edge, so maybe I can use, I can put this one
like…here…here…hmm…like this…*laughing*
M: likes…like trees
K: *laughing*
OB-Y: M what are you thinking when you look at it?
M: mmm, I think just like some uh, totally structure, decide to point at the first, and thesmall stones can (be) dedicated to more detailed uhhh…*mumbles*…some other decoration,
I think
K: um hm
M: but I…look forward to (the) next step
OB-Y: ahhh
K: so…what I think is that just put a lot of stones, like randomly,
M: yeah
K: then maybe we can fix it

299

11

M: umm
K: you know..just put stone like here and like here
M: cool
K: then like “uhh, maybe this is not here”, you know? *laughing*
K: *laughing* maybe we can just do…do designing and fix it. I don’t like this stoneso…(removes stone) *laughing*
M: *laughing* catching another one...
K: um hm
M: would you like this one?
K: yeah just…put…your favorite stone to…your favorite place
M: ohhh, ah, we are…we are doing together? ah sorry sorry!
K: yeah yeah the same …
OB-Y: yeah, totally
M: I thought it’s one by one
K: no no no
Y: ohh it’s ok
M: um, I think, um the most important point for a garden is the…the…or how to say? Isome loop, the high and down and high
K: uh huh uh huh
M: so…but this one is a little low, this one is a middle one, and this is a small one
K: um
M: so, if let me decide the best way I..I..I maybe I can like this one
K: yeah yeah yeah
M: to…sorry I’m not really good at this designing, but this way

300

Appendix

K: oh! *laughing*
M: and this way view…(hand gesture of wave, voice tone matches hand movement)
K: um hm
M: and...
K:I think the...we have two or three kind of colours, this is more like a..gre....grey..
M: yes
K: and this is more dark, so maybe we can make gradation of colours?
M: yeah
K: so I think...this one?
M: yes, the same color
K: yeah and this is...little unique so...maybe put this…*laughing*
M: *laughing*
K: this is difficult...this is you know, what I don't like about this stone is this is little
round….so...maybe…use this way...mm...I don’t...maybe like here...
M:um, IK: I don’t feel this is a... right place..
M: umm, *laughing*. And next way is, this two corner is quite empty
K: um-hm, um-hm.
M: so I’m...I think about how to relate these two parts
K: um-hm.
M: so this way...maybe because it is a garden we have some roads...
K: yeah...yeah...yeah...yeah...
M: and this is the yellow part, this is the grey part
K: mmm…um-hm

301

11

M: so how to...connect, how to connect this two parts, it's the most important I think...so..
K: yeah yeah yeah yeah
M: mm…and the…ah…this stone is the same color
K:um-hm
M: so to...change uhh let me s...so...*mumbles*
K: mmmM: I I don't know if it is a good idea but…yeah? Ummm I don’t like this
K: *laughing*
M: uhhh
K: I think...ah...what I think is ah...like ah...a blank space is also important...I think….
M: ah yeah, maybe yes
K: they have, yeah, that kind of beauty so maybe...for some reason...I don't really like thesestone...so I put this here then...
M: hmm
K: maybe small one can be here
M: it’s better I think
K: yeah
M: hmm...then...
K: maybe we can put ehhh...more stone here...then like this side have more stone and thisis little less stone (hand gestures)
M: to illustrate this parts (hand gesture)
K: yes yes yes…
M: ahh I see I see. Is it better to...make this part more colorful?
K: ahhhh...maybe...maybe302

Appendix

M: let me see...
K: um-hm
M: this way?
K: um-hm
M: to make this more colorful...this one...
K: um-hm
M: a little umm...simple. Then, more groove (hand gesture), hmm...
K: I like relations of these three stones...I think...
M: ah so cute *laughing*
K: yeah this is...good...
M: and uhhh
K: yeah I also agree with you the height is very important to designing garden, so...I wish
we have more like stones with hay...height...
M: um hm, ok
K: maybe...
M: we can try it
K: yeah but its very...little hard to…make it stand
M: *laughing*
K: umm
M: ummK: do you like this one?
M: um, how about to make this parts a little...um have some stones?
K: yeah yeah yeah
M: like this one is still empty, so we can have some difficult umm scene, scenery

303

11

K: um-hm...I think a small stone could be…
M: oh yeah I think so
K: yeah yeah
M: yes
K: better to...um...I’m, my idea is to ex...exaggerate this height, maybe we can put themore like a low stones to emphasize this height
M: ahhh, ah I see!
K: maybe...
M: so from this scenery we can...we cannot see the stones, but from this scenery we cansee...
K: um-hm
M: there’s difficult (wants to say different) feelings to some travelers, I think
K: mmm-hmmm...
M: uhhh...and how about this scenery or this scenery? (shows directions with hand gesture)
We can put the four...the four see point (viewpoints), make it realy diffic...different.
K: um-hm I...eh...I have a little...a…*speaks Japanese*
M: *speaks Japanese* yeah yeah yeah
OB-Y: Ah…
K: a strange
Y: like inconvenient
M: yes
K: yeah inconvenience between thi...this distance...between this...this two stones, I don’t
feel this is (the) right position but I don't know how to fix it...
M: you can hide...hide some...umm… *speaks Japanese* *laughing*
K: *laughing*304

Appendix

M: some parts of stones...yes
K: mm...yeah. I think we are designing good...garden
M & K: *laughing*
K: I kind of like it...umm
M: I think it’s enough, and we have some wave
K: ah yeah…yeah is that ok to make some pattern? *laughing*
OB-Y: yeah it's ok.
M & K: *laughing*
M: Japanese travel (wants to say gravel)...it’s traditional (hand gesture)
OB-Y: basically...
K: oh yeah *laughing*
OB-Y: we...we only analyze the, the rocks usually...
M: wah...
K: *laughing*
OB-Y: but you can make patterns if you want, to show the...how you imagine the design
M: wah yeah yeah this way...yes
OB-Y: oh nice, it’s quite gentle...
K: and this is very difficult to...make patterns
OB-Y: mmm...not so easy, looks easier...
K: *laughing* I think we have enough stones to...we have enough stone here...
M: *laughing* you’re better than me...and this way we can connect these parts
K: um-hm
M: and this way...it’s like water *laughing*

305

11

K: ah...maybe we can finish this...uhh garden for...for now, maybe we can makeanother...designing pattern? Maybe? Or should we continue to design this pattern?
M: I think we have completed nine...ninety percent
K: uh-huh, ohh...we have ten more percent
M: yeah…hmmm…it's nice garden I think, enough
K: yeah I think this is...enough. If we putM: yeah...
K: too many stones it could be too much, maybe we can finish it
OB-Y: ok...
K: ok
M: um...
OB-Y: yeah…that's the first one{2nd composition, 12:12}
OB-Y: ok we can start the second one.
M: only three?
OB-Y: maximum three
M: maximum thee?
OB-Y: maybe second one (2nd session) is uhh...is enough
M: oh oh, I...I...I...I...I think...I mean, this three stone?
K: no,no,no...
OB-Y: as many ask you like...
M: ah ok, ok…hmmm
K: so for second pattern I would like to try as many as

306

Appendix

M: yeah rocks.
K: many many rocks
M: ok, ok.
K: so...
M: the first one is...mmm...what's the structure?
K: mmmM: this this time...because...
K: um hm
M: the last time is is this (hand gesture)...and middle and small numbers of stone and thisis empty one…(hand gesture)
K: um hm
M: and we can...we can change some concept about the garden
K: yeah yeah
M: cause the last time is Japanese traditional garden
K: um hm
M: how...what if...some some western...western styles...
K: ah yeah yeah yeah sure
M: It just my idea...
K: um hm, so western style garden means like a...we have like a...umm passage here
M: yeah...
K: and here...more like we see the patterns...
M: yeah I think so
K: ok
M: so...can I can I start?

307

11

K: yes yes please
M: so it's a western stone…?
K: um hm
M: western this one is point...ahh so ugly…
M & K: *laughing*
M: wah...anyway anyway...we can change
K: um hm
M: and...we can some…*laughing*, it’s ugly...but but we I I I...
K: and just...do it and we can fix it...
M: we can change change uhhh next time...
K: yes...
M: this three
K: um hm
M: and if...I...I...I...I think it is um...spring, mountain, fa...fa...fountains…yes..
K: fountain? Ok, ah I see I see
M: and this way is the main road
K: um hm
M: and we can we can fit some...colorful scenery for this part, this part, this part.
K: um hm
M: and we...we...don’t need to connect each other… I think…
K: um hm, ok. So...maybe this could be...this should be...like a...really middle of this square,
the center
M: yeah yeah
K: on the centroid. Then...ok soo...this part is more like uh uh, towers...

308

Appendix

M: um-hm
K: and sooo…we can...put...uhhh, four...like...I’m thinking putting put four stones
M: mm…
K: here...it could be something
M: um-hm
K: this is totally random
M: *laughing* yeah...
K: so I’m not sure this is right...but, this could be one area
M: hm-hm
K: this, so we can divide these space into four...
M: um-hm yeah
K: part...
M: so...
K: umm, maybe we can put, ummm, yellow stone here, so yellow part? (hand gesture)
M: yeah ah...ok.
K: this could be yellow part
M: and now assume this one, this part is the main building
K: um hm
M: so...the lountain…the fountain is here...this one?
K: oh like castle?
M: yes yes
K: maybe you can use this big stone…
M: oh yeah maybe it's better… this one?
K: do you think this could be…like here?
309

11

M: ah yeah, *laughing*...and...this...zig zag...
K: we need something here right?
M: yeah I think so...I think this part is always yellow...yellow color…
K: um hm
M: so… if...mm...I want to make this, this part more colorful
K: um hm
M: because mm...yeah so more colorful one...
K: so for more colors we can use maybe...this kind of stone. Because, these stones have twocolors.
M: ahh...
K: But this, I think this is too big...to...
M: yes
K: yeah so...I’m using this medium size...
M: um hm… wah its better…
K: yeah.
M: this part is also...bl...blue one…
K: um hm
M: chose one more yer...yellow...yellow stones…
K: um hm
M: and to...um…tower...
M & K: *laughing*
M: no no no no no...tower...*laughing*....it's funny...
OB-Y: *laughing*
K: so maybe...we can put ehh, so I think what we need to do is making a concept

310Appendix

M: yeah yeah yeah
K: to this space...
M: yeah
K: ummmm…I think...
M: mm
K: this is the main part (hand gesture of grouping), so I think uh the...each part should be
open to this side (hand gesture towards right)
M: oh...yes...
K: so I think we have a height in this, this side
M: um
K: so maybe we can move the stones to like...like this...so...they can make more open imageto
M: ahhh, I...I see
K: this side…
M: so...the same as this part?
K: ahh I think…those parts are...so maybe we should make this part with low stones...?
M: uhh, low stones yeahhh, oh maybe it’s better...I see, yeah yeah
K: yeah so I think this could be right here so we can have more open side from this side?
M: and thi-, this part is narrow one
K: mm
M: and and then when people walk to this part (points)...and the scenery...can open
suddenly
K: um hm
M: and this one is more narrow...
K: ummm311

11

M: I think it's some mmm...rhythm…
K: um hm
M: so this this...thi...this part can, can make some scenery...
K: yeah sure
M: small one
K : um hm
M: first I...I want to decide the point...
K: um hm
M: so...cause this one is...mm...a little low so...how about to make some...the this the same
frame but more small one..
K: um hm
M: hmmm ugly…*laughing*
K: no no...I think this stone looks similar with this stone so..
M: um um
K: I think they can match so I would like to put this stone here...ummm
M: yes then we...then we obtain...the y and x (axes)
K: hm um
M: it’s nice...
K: ahh...maybe we can put a...ummm...I thought maybe we can put the east wing, west
wing but
M: ah yes yes
M & K: *laughing*
K: but…
M: eh like castle! *laughing*312

Appendix

K: yeah but this is not really...uhhh...I’m not sure this *inaudible* design for garden maybe
we can put east wingM: *mumbles* I think just now...I assume there is some behind garden
M &K: *laughing*
K: but we can, uh we can see the…some story in this garden so...you know this is a castle
and this is fountain
M: yes
K: and like…we have a big
M: yeah *laughing*
K: and good organized garden here...so...
M: and last...then we make some tower, tower. *laughing* tower, ah no no sorry no
K: no i don't think so...we have a...a...like a umm….passage here
M: yeah
K: like this X and Y axes
M: um hm
K: so...I don’t think we need to stay simple in this side so...
M: yeah yeah…so do we need these three stones?
K: ahhh, maybe no *laughing*. But, our challenge is use as many stones as possible, so*laughing*
M: yeah yeah yeah yeah, and we make this more colorful
K: *laughing*
M: yeah..eh surprise
K: yeah I think this is good...
M: surprise yes
K: maybe we can

313

11

M & K: *laughing*
OB-Y: so, can you talk a bit what is going on here because I know you have some concepts
and I followed but not all...so can you talk about the different parts?
M: ah ok
K: um hm
M: first this this parts do you know? This is one main castle...
OB-Y: um hm
M: and this one maybe is a b..bi...big tree or other mmm buildings…
K: yeah like a west wing
M: yeah so so so, to serve this castle and this one a fountain, and, and the owner of this cacastle, can see some scenery from the...the…yes the highest stairs to maybe...to look this.
And first, we can see this one, this part. This part is one big decoration.
OB-Y: hmm...
M: yes. Is...hmm…is...*speaks Japanese* (searches for words)
K: ummm I think what we are thinking…important is...like color…
OB-Y: um hm
K: she wanted to make the garden colorful…so
OB-Y: yeah
K: so...we put a...many stone with different colours for example this is yellow stone
M: um hm
K: and...mmm…others…
M & K: *LOL
K: umm...what we umm...think is a balance of the height, I guess
OB-Y: hm314Appendix

K: we put um...you know when we put the stones...we say like low stone or high stone so I
think we think the relationship with...about height is important
OB-Y: hmmm…
M: yeah
K: umm, I don’t, I don’t really...have con…ahh strong concept, just make a main building,then...I divided this box into two parts, like a building part and a garden part (handgesture), then…
OB-Y: um hm
K: for some reason I think the garden part can be very organized
OB-Y: um hm
M: and ehh...in order to...keep balance, um you can see umm...wi...first we can see this twoparts
OB-Y: um hm
M: can see the same part is a main stone and…
OB-Y: um hm
M: um, the structure is also the two make circle to surround the main stone, this one is thesame
OB-Y: um
M: and from this two parts you can see...ummm…the the the nearer one, is yellow one andthe nar..yellow one...and the main stone is this one, it's the same color and it’s also taller...
OB-Y: hm
M: and...the...and and these four structure is alsosurrounding...surrounding...surrounding...and surrounding...
OB-Y: um
M: and to make the same...and keep balance...the the totally balance...
OB-Y: ahhh. Did you ah, make this on purpose, like ah…the matching color and matchingcolor?

315

11

M: ummm...to be honest at the first, I...I... put this stone…I...I never I never...discover thispoint...
OB-Y: um
M: but, when we, when we ummm, yes made this puzzle
OB-Y: hm
M: I discover this one...and it's “oh so nice“
OB-Y: ahh
M: so kee…keep...keep, keep...keep this
OB-Y: yeah
M: to to…yes the former from what...power position and never change it
OB-Y: ah, so kind of discovered by accident...
M: yeah yeah I think so...
OB-Y: but decided that it was good. Ah very interesting, it’s ok it happens a lot actually. I
wanted to know, ah you said that this part (points)
M: um-hm...
OB-Y: is a kind of building right?...castle?
M & K: *laughing*
M: right...
OB-Y: so when did you imagine that there is the...an owner there, watching?
M: um, eh? (unsure about question)
OB-Y: like at what point, when did you start that there is somebody is here and he’s iswatching?
M: ohhh, I think when the K made this fountain to this forward (wants to say direction),and I, I see oh from this position to watch this tower is so nice...
OB-Y: ahhh316Appendix

M: just, just this...I, I how about you?
OB-Y: yeah I was wondering if...you have…
K: ahhh I have n...never imagined about people watching the garden from, from thisposition
OB-Y: um
K: so...when she explained I…from this kind of view
OB-Y: um hm
K: I was like oh!
OB-Y: you were also surprised?
M: yeah, surprised
OB-Y: me too me too, I was...also surprised. Wow, hm, very nice! I had some questions...but
I think it’s ok...hmmm. Oh, yeah I was just wondering, why..I I don’t know, it was right inthe beginning, you said, I like you want to exaggerate the height of this one, (points) K: um hm
OB-Y: so why did you think about that?
K: ummmmmm…I don’t know but, yeah, I don't know but, I think the contrast
OB-Y: hm
M: hm
K: between high, high and low...
OB-Y: um
K: is one pattern of design
OB-Y: hm
K: you know, if you design something,
OB-Y: hm
K: you make a difference

317

11

OB-Y: hm
K: about height...so...for me that is one pattern...
OB-Y: ahhhh
K: of designing something
OB-Y: that’s nice… you also mentioned I think...the differences right?
M: yeahh…then I...visit some gardens
OB-Y: hm
M: I found a point that is always high and always low, it's so boring
OB-Y: ahhhh
M: they should make more change...
OB-Y: hmm
M: to make this scenery more colorful, and the vis...visitors can...when the...at the firsttime...when they go to this park, if they always tall and always…”oh ok that’s so-so”, so andcan never...never come there twice...
OB-Y: ahhh, yeah just understand (it) the first time and then...
M: yes…I think...I think this…
OB-Y: what kind of gardens are you thinking about?
M: ummm...because I’m Chinese I always with the Chinese sty…style and...
OB-Y: hm
M: and in Japan...like the Fujiyama, Fujiyama have many *inaudible* with the Japanesetraditional gardens….
OB-Y: yeah
M: so I really like it
OB-Y: ohhh, wow
K: for...for the first garden I imagined the Ryōan-ji

318

Appendix

OB-Y: oh
K: yeah Ryōan-ji so…
um hm
K: when she mentioned, eh oh you can, from this side we cannot see this stones...
OB-Y: hm
K: so...I think we...shared the image of that temple...right?
M: yeah…*laughing*
OB-Y: ahhh
K: but for this partOB-Y: hm
K: because...since the last one was about Japanese gardens, so this is more western style so
it more like a...many stuff...you know...
OB-Y: hmmm, wow. Ok final question...like…just think for a second, don’t say, like if you
can give this one a title, but separately.
M: umm...ok ok
OB-Y: and after you have a title, say what you think...I don’t want you to...yeah...
M: ok I will think myself...
OB-Y: ahh *laughing*...*long silence*. You have it?
K: yeah...
OB-Y: Ok?
K: umm, my title for this garden is just like “average western style garden” like
OB-Y: *giggling* ok...
K: because…
OB-Y: *laughing*

319

11

K: I have a reason…because because the…first oneOB-Y: um
K: I focused on designing the garden
OB-Y: um
K: like a...I was think about how to make a...good garden
OB-Y: um
K: like how to design the…blank space…
OB-Y: ahhhh
K: but for second garden...I just...umm, focus on make a difference from the first one
OB-Y: hm
K: so my focus was making western style garden
M: hm
K: not like a...designing a good…
OB-Y: ahhh
K: ahh space...so...this is...for me, this is a…average western style garden...
OB-Y: ok, nice
M: and my...my title is like some article’s title...
OB-Y: yeah
M: “stay...stay higher...”
OB-Y: yeah
M: “scenery is more beautiful this way
OB-Y: ahhh
M: cause...if we stay in the low...just like this point, we always, we can just see some boring
scenery, um, comparing (wants the say relatively) boring scenery320

Appendix

OB-Y: um um
M: but if we stay the higher, the higher scenery, we can see; “ohh this one is beautiful andthis one is different! Oh it's colorful!” this way…
OB-Y: ahhh
M: so stay higher - see more colorful this way...
OB-Y: hmm...very nice!

A.4.6{1st composition}
N: so the tools is our hand there’s no other tool
OB-Y: yeah
N: ok ok
OB-Y: by the way, I can give you this one, if you want to use it (handing small rake), but wewill only analyze the design of the rocks. If you want to enrich the design with this its ok..
N: ah so, like you are saying like you only design…like you will only analyze the design ofthe rock, so then like the surface of the sand itself – you will not consider it as a design
OB-Y: I will think about it as less important, it is important but less
N: ok
D: because…I was thinking now of…burying rocks, but I don’t know this…sand allows
for…ah it might…
OB-Y: you can try!
N: yeah you can…you can make…
D: …a small one (hole), maybe…complicated, I don’t know about that
N: but the intention for burying the rock what is that? to make like a small…
D: I was just thinking just how good it look…if it’s just eh…mounds instead of rocks. Maybe
you don’t see the rock…

321

11

N: *laughing* but maybe you are killing the exercise…
D: does it work? I am destroying your…I don’t know if this eh…
N: that is totally unexpected…for me. for me I was not expecting that eh!
OB-Y: me neither
D: we can, we can…we can change, let’s eh…this was ehOB-Y: unexpected!
N: but for example, like for me, I think that what Diego is doing right now, like this action
of…as we have only like two elements…like the sand and the rock, like the interaction
between these two is key for the design
OB-Y: yes, I think so too
N: so for example like…not only like the placement of this, of course we should consider,because I guess like in the rock design (it) is very important! but how this…so maybe is notcompletely buried, but maybe…
D: yes um…
N: …maybe is
D: showing a little bit…
N: I don’t know if…a strategy…strategically we should like kind of first like makethe…prepare the terrain for the rock, and then place it
D: place it…
N: so…it’s not totally, it’s not totally…it’s not on the surface like this (placing a rock on thesand as an example) right?
D: but just um…
N: but you are somehow like making an interaction with the…well I don’t like a role of that....
D: it like the *inaudible*
N: no, it’s not the *inaudible* that like, for example like the sand here is um…
D: is messy

322

Appendix

N: is totally messy
D: and I think we can…after that we can, try to make it eh…I don’t know
N: ok. And about like the use of the size of the rocks, because we have different size here, so
there’s like very tiny ones like this one
D: yes
N: medium size and like…the very…big one
D: ehhh…I like the...doing hmmm…several…
D & N: trials (in unison)
D: yes
N: yeah I think so
D: so If you want we can try one…hmmm…
N: yeah
D: hmmm…more…I don’t know…
N: yes
D: freely…or come up with a strategy, if you prefer
N: yeah, yeah
D: we can say, ok let’s concentrate…one, in one corner
N: for example…
D: and try to…kind of concentration in one corner and try to dissolve towards the…
N: ah that can be. But…
D: but then another…
N: but as we already have this one…
D: yes323

11

N: I would use this one to make the first trial…ummm, maybe the concept for this design…isthe…somehow like the interaction between sand and rock. So we can make likedifferent…with different rocks
D: different eh…
N: we can…different…eh…rock and...
D: design…like different interaction between sand and rock, ok
N: exactly. So in this one, like the most important part is not going to be the placement, but
the…how is it placed in the sand
D: ok, ok
N: so
D: this one is
N: (interjection) so we have two types (of rocks already placed with some relation to the sand,pointing at tray)
D: like eh…placed and…kind of
N: Maybe another one…can be…
D: one can, has to be buried, I think
N: totally buried…and another one has to be… just standing
D: this one which is flat, I’m gonna bury somewhere…(looking for place while moving hand
above different position)
N: ok, and I’m…
D: hereN: where?
D: no we can also make a gradation of of…exposed and buried
N: ok
D: somehow, I don’t know for *inaudible*
N: but maybe this is, this is whatever placed here (pointing at rock in back right corner)
324

Appendix

D: we can do it on that diagonal. Like for example, this one I buried, then second one, a little
bit, the third one almost, and the last one like very exposed
N: ok, ok ok ok, I like it (agreeing willingly).
D: so this one we can…(puts rock aside)
N: Ok so…about the size, we don’t care?
D: because of the…
N:…of the rocks for these eh…we don’t care no?
D: maybe…similar, or…
N: similar size?
D: do you think, or…?
N: for example like, this can be like…or is (it) too big. This can be the last one? (considering
to add another rock at the end of the series, at the back right corner). Or it’s more…I’m in a
D: maybe it can stand out?
N: like this one?
D: yes, perfect
N: (smiling and laughing)
D: then half, I’m doing half-in-half-out
N: Ok, and I’m doing here…(pointing to a desired position on the tray)
D: which one is nice? (wondering to himself). This one I like, it looks like an arrow
N: I want to place another one here (decisively, pointing to a place around the previously
pointed one)
D: ok (quietly, seems to be concentrating on something else)
N: ‘cause this is the diagonal no?
D: yes. kind of a (gesturing with hand in the direction of the diagonal).

325

11

N: so I’m going to prepare (digging a small hole in sand as preparation for next rock)…thisone was completely buried but…so this gradation here is…is going, like the intermediate
ones…are going to be…
D: do you want any tools?
N: not so exact, as for example as being totally standing out
D: need tools?
N: nah, I’m fine with the fingers….(laughing). This is not so round (holding rock)
D: you want round? This one (the one N is holding) is nice I don’t know,
N: I don’t know
D: like this one (picks up a rock)
N: But I’m picking round just intuitively, as…actually this is not really round (points to backright corner rock) like what I mean like the corners, this is more…edgy
D: ah so you just want like kind of…but then maybe
N: this is like round…
D: …another transition of form, kind of, maybe they (will transition) from more *inaudible*
to more pointy…
N: but this (back right corner rock) is more pointy than this one
D: but we can change it, even though that one (back right corner rock) is nice
N: nah. I really like this because I like…(hand gesture of an upward movement) this emerging
D: you like the pointiness, ok.
N: yes.
D: two more, no? one here one here (points to the prepared dimples in the sand)
N: yes
D: ok. This one is…(refers to second rock from the left)
N: ok

326

Appendix

D: somehow…this burying not-burying
N: (wonders to herself while holding rock) how about this…ok, I will use it inD: that one is nice
N: (picks up another candidate and seem as about to change her mind) or this one, this is(the newly picked one) is too big no? (places the newly picked up one back) ok this one. In
which direction?
D: I don’t know, you just eh…
N: because maybe…
D: you need one that is half-half no? This one is, kind of starting to emerge…
N: but actually, now I’m realizing, like the…the size of the, for this exercise of the emerging
rock (laughing)…
D: this? (points to middle missing one)
N: the size of the rock is very important
D: so most of the time it’s similar no?
N: yeah because, it’s not create…yeah
D: this one is surfaced with the…
N: ok
D: no? the other way?
N: no no, it’s it’s totally fine. But, what to do with this one (points to third rock from right)?
because actually this one seems more emerging than this one, because of the size
D: but we can cover a part
N: ok let’s cover
D: you want to use the…? (handing over rake)
N: so actually like, I’m relating…like the actual size of the rock is not so important, but the
ground is creating kind of a fiction, of the real size, so it’s like an iceberg. No? (speaks
Spanish)327

11

D: yes, iceberg.
N: (laughing)
OB-Y: yeah it’s hiding behind the surface?
N: yes yes yes yes
OB-Y: (laughing)
N: are we talking a lot?
OB-Y: that’s completely fine! (laughing)
D: or not enough…
N: or not enough, I don’t know (laughing)
OB-Y: (laughing)
D: we usually…
OB-Y: if I don’t say anything assume, you’re fine
N: no no, if you want to say something please, or collaborate in the design…
D: it’s very, it’s very (happy about the activity)
OB-Y: thank you
D: yes if you have a, any input….
N: yes yes like…review alreadyD: client…it’s…I’m not sure…
N: yeah you are our client actually
OB-Y: (laughing) kind of client…
D: shall we do the, lines with this? (referring to the rake)
N: yes
D: it’s because I’m not –N: actually I’m trying to (use the rake)…but I am not so good at making models so
328

Appendix

OB-Y: it’s not so easy as it looks, like…
N: no I don’t know how you manage to…fix the sand, and make it perfect
OB-Y: yeah everybody finds out that it’s difficult. I use that one, the black one, the ruler…
N: whaaa, so difficult
OB-Y: without it, like with the small tools I find it really difficult
N: wow…
D: (mumbles)
N: ah its very nice, I like it, because you’re creating somehow a path, of the emerging rocks(refers to the manner in which D manipulates the sand) (laughing)
OB-Y: hmmm (laughing)
D: we say that, oops…(speaks Japanese: gomenasai, translation: sorry). Should we, or…try
to do be more…? (gestures a circular movement with hand)
N: are you satisfied with this emerging one? (points to third rocks from right)
D: which one?
N: the one that I did…(laughing)
D: yes (stressing satisfaction)
OB-Y: if you talk about some one, like some rock, point to…
N: this one (points to third rock from right)
D: yes, huh?
N: do you think that this is like eh…the gradation between this one and this one is ok?
D: yes. I think its fine. Because this one already has like a…hmmm, you know it’s alreadyseparated from the ground
N: yeah
D: and the other one is still the…the sand is…
N: ok

329

11

D: should we stop or…? because the surface is not so important, I don’t know…
N: no but if you’re doing that, you have to finish it.
OB-Y: right.
D: ok so the next one, let’s talk about the next one…should we do the…
N: ok, this one is going to be like the first one no?
D: yes, should we do gradation ofN: how long?
D: of density?
OB-Y: uhhh, I didn’t measure but for now its ok.
N: (laughing) ok but, because if we are too fast or something, because when we work weusually make a lot of trials, actually.
OB-Y: really?
N: yes.
OB-Y: oh that’s perfect, so you can work in the same style
N: yes yes…
D: ok, (speaks Japanese: daijoubo?, translation: is it ok?)
N: I don’t know if we are committing eh….some kind of, bad offense with the buried one(points to tray, seems to enjoy “bending the rules”)
OB-Y: (laughing)
N: burying the rock (laughing)
D: yeah. No because no…traditional burying places, no the Japanese ones are also mounding
N: I hope!
OB-Y: right
D: but I have…I think life and death (points to the two edges of the composition)

330

Appendix

N: ah yes, emerging
D: should we…we can destroy?
OB-Y: yes
D: destroy…
OB-Y: (laughing)
D: what do you like for the next one?
N: ehhh, you were saying before….something that I like, to make a gradation of theaccumulation of rocks. So, from one corner, then to disperse
D: (completes N) dissolve. Ok
N: no? I understood that. Is that ok?
D: (mumbles in agreement)
N: do you have a….
OB-Y: tissue?
N: yes please
OB-Y: oh I’ll get from the other one
N: sorry
OB-Y: no, its ok
N: this works (refers to the black ruler and the way it smooths out the sand). I have an allergy
I think…

{2nd composition, 12:01}
D: ok, no?
N: yes
D: or this...(mumbles)...also

331

11

N: this works, yeah yeah yeah the ruler
OB-Y: yeah yeah it’s much easier with this one
D: but i’m not eh...doing it...well...
N: ok so now, yes, maybe, maybe the accumulation here (points to front right corner)
D: I don’t know
N: ah it’s fine, I guess…ok, no?
D: enough *inaudible*, later we can
N: yes
D: fixN: ok for this accumulation, I think that we should consider the size now
D: yes
N: ummm, for example prepare the rocks before, like the bigger on the side so…wecan…ehhh…(saying this while moving the available rocks around as if sorting them)
D: ok. Should we start putting or?
N: yeah you can…you can start putting
D: ok
N: so, to the smaller ones…
D: they, they can touch…can they touch? (asking about the rules of the exercise)
OB-Y: yes, no problem
D: ok. just…I’m just, placing, kind of creating a core… density, so maybe, if you want to
also…
N: ok
D: maybe the ones that look nice, the smaller ones, the ones that you likeN: these ones no?

332

Appendix

D: yes
N: I’m preparing like the small ones for the end. This are somehow medium size, here…andI think that there’s like these three categories
D: there’s also color, ah but color is not…an issue no? color of the rock is a…(again asking
about the rules of the exercise)
OB-Y: could be an issue…
D: ah could be (a bit surprised), ah maybe…
OB-Y: yeah that’s another thing
N: but maybe this is another…concept
D: for another…
OB-Y: (laughing)
N: so, yeah I guess that actually, for us it’s important to…put like kind of a main topic, andthen like other things, maybe are accompanying this main topic but somehow…not soimportant. So for example, if the previous one was the “emerging” one, here maybe the mostimportant thing is the density…
D: yes, you just can…density and (showing a movement of spreading with hands)….no?
N: and dispe-(wants to say dispersion) yeah like the contrast between…
D: and like the…
N: so maybe here we can start dissolving (gestures with hand from the far left corner of the
tray toward the close right one). We are making another diagonal in the other…ehhh
D: do you want not a, not diagonal?
N: no, I don’t want it
D: you don’t want diagonal
N: I want to…I don’t know why (laughing), by I…for this time
D: yes
N: to make it a little bit more diverse with the previous one…

333

11

D: yes
N: I would actually like…maybe it’s because of this line that was randomly created here(refers to line in the sand created while raking in the beginning to clean the tray; laughing),
but I want to create a…a void here (points to right side of tray), and then make this dispersion- it’s not exactly this line ok? –D: ah so…
N: but like kind of like…
D: ah so, a lot of void… and…
N: more void like…
D: from this line void (hand gesture delineating the line and moving right)
N: more or less
D: ok
N: so we can make like the dispersion here…(hand gesture from left of tray to right) and thenhere a void (hand gesture to right of tray)
D: ok. I’m going to…but then I’m going to compress (the group of rocks)
N: yes, you can compress…and then…
D: (speaks to himself) these guys…
OB-Y: definitely speaking enough…(laughing)
N: (laughing)
OB-Y: good good good (laughing)
N: yeah maybe…we speak a lot
D: this is close to what we kind of do…
OB-Y: really?
D: yes because…yeah I don’t know if it’s our Spanish genes…
OB-Y: ohhhh

334Appendix

D: that…kind of…we cannot stop talking
N: yeah when you were saying ‘you should say everything’…it was like ok that sound verymuch like me…
OB-Y: (laughing)
D: we think…
OB-Y: maybe I should only ask Spanish people to join (laughing)
D: no no but its…
N: no because as you are seeing we are really transgressing the rules of the Japanese garden,
so right now I think that we are making like a rocky…landscape (laughing), rather then…
D: should we start to dissolve…? or when do you…
N: yes right now I think we can start dissolving
D: ok
N: so I like this, this distance more or less no…?
D: yeah…it’s like that it feels a bit…ehh…no? kind of…
N: so I would like, kind of like start separating them…
D: ok
N: with more or less like this distance…
D: I don’t know where to place this one…
N: hmm, placing this one…
D: I guess were also doing a little bit of diagonal…no?
N: yeah but I would rather like try to…(gesture of half circle with hand)
D: like a circle, kind of
N: like for example, occupying with the dispersion, but until…until more or less here (points
to an imaginary horizontal line which is a bit after the front of the tray), I think.

335

11

D: ah maybe I can, sometimes it’s also… no but…to create…(mumbles) things…but maybe(speaks Japanese: “daijoubu”, translation: never mind).
OB-Y: what are you thinking D?
D: no no I was thinking that maybe, we have one big group here, and then it starts to dissolve,
I don’t know if it’s also interesting to add another group, in another point…(means location)
N: yeah, I think that...
D: maybe...here or or or where do you, do you think…
N: ah, because you are thinking in three different groups (tries to understand how D sees thesituations)
D: no, I like the dispersion, the density and dispersion…
N: yes
D: but I don’t know if maybe there is another focus of…density here (points to near left cornerof tray), so it feels more like the dispersion towards that side…
N: so in that se-…in that sense you want to create like also the density here, but the only
problem is that we don’t have enough rocks…already
D: ok so then…
N: so maybe we can…
D: then its fine. let’s do a…
N: we can…
D: same exercise…
N: place them here…
D: (speaks Spanish), here. All of them…should we use all of them? yes, no? we have three
OB-Y: you don’t have to, but…yeah
D: we have three left, or not…what, what do you want? I feel bad for these three…
N: you can create the density that you want here…no?

336

Appendix

D: yes, maybe (speaks Japanese: daijoubu, translation: no problem). Can I put one…? we canmove right? no? it’s not like its set on its, like once its placed, we can move right?
OB-Y: totally
D: so, how do you feel? N? (speaking to oneself) here? yeah, last one…all the pressure for thelast one (last rock), here (hold above front right corner which is the “void” area) no…(places
on table as if gives up or allows N to place it)
N: really?
D: no no…
N: no…but
D: I like the… (supposedly means the void area). It can be…closer to eh (points to the middle
dividing line in the sand), or do you like the…(hand gesture of division between two sides)
line?
N: I don’t know why I am affected by this line that was very randomly created...
D: yeah…from your side it’s different…
N: yes! like the thing is…from my side is different maybe…
OB-Y: you can…definitely change places if you want..
N: yeah let’s change
D: just to see
N: oh but from your side it’s also nice…
D: oops sorry (hit the camera device)
N: I don’t know why I’m going for the…void um…
D: I think eh…I like this one, so we can place the last one and…ehhhh, change to the next
one, ok
N: yeah
D: ok, (speaks Japanese: daijoubu: translation: ok)
OB-Y: hm, before we move to the next one

337

11

D: ah yes
OB-Y: before we move to the next one, can you talk a bit about this one?
D: do you want to… (proposing to N to speak)OB-Y: anything it could be criticism if you want, or eh what you like about it, or what you
tried to make…
N: actually, I think that really depends of the experience of the garden itself, because I thinkthat the…the contrast between these two sides, when, for example if you’re like in the scaleof a person…for example let’s imagine a person like this (shows a size of a tiny person withhand gesture), right? for example no?
D: like as tall as this rock…(points to tallest rock, the one in the back left corner) no?
N: yes, and remind like…very big rocks, so like the experiencing of walking here, can be likevery…and then you can hide for example, or lie between rocks. But of course it’s not the way
to use a Japanese garden, so sorry about that. But I also like, like the feeling of…eh, having
the contrast between like very empty space, and a very crowded one (refers to the twodifferent areas of the composition with a hand gesture, i.e. right and left), kind of like therocks as entities, or as…even like…
D: or as people…no? there’s like a…
N: as living things…living like…
D: they kind of gather and then…
OB-Y: ohhhh
N: because like…in this kind of like, gathering position
OB-Y: um hm
N: they look like, uhhh, like a group, with all the agency that has, like so…
D: yeah they look that…thinking something…
N: they look like they know…(laughing)
D: they’re thinking something bad, they are going to…(humorously)
OB-Y: (laughing)338

Appendix

N: not!
D: there’s some kind of…
N: because like the logic in the…in this kind of like eh, accumulation, there’s like a point
here (points to top of tallest rock, in back left corner), a force point, invisible, but somehow
its attracting the rocks towards this final one, like the vertical one
D: it looks totally like a leader of ummm…rocks, somehow, that corner
N: so I feel like probably like the….
D: maybe…(mumbles)…yeah
N: but of course we are making all this up because we have to say something…
D: yeah but that’s, it’s also is clear as this, as the first one, it’s clear to express things kindof…contrast no? like eh…maybe we also…that’s maybe not very Japanese, but we think verymuch in kind of concepts, like eh, ah ok we have this, and then we try to achieve that somehow
OB-Y: yeah
D: and, for us its very…I mean we can experiment on the way, but we…ok we have this ideaof, so If you put this kind idea of concentration or density, then it’s easier to see voids, it’seasier to think all the things, because there one kind of core idea
OB-Y: yeah
D: one form or one ehhh…concept, then other ideas can unfold from that big ehhh, kind of,
not gesture, but maybe totally opposite from what it should be, no like? maybe it’s more
ambiguous and…not…because if you show this to someone maybe it’s very easy to say, ah!
density, or black and white! or….
OB-Y: uhhhh
D: but maybe Japanese garden is more about eh…ooh, I don’t know why this rock is here, somore less…more…no? I don’t know
N: yes
D: maybe we are doing it in a way driven…
N: (laughing)

339

11

D: maybe we can say for the last one doing it…ah no but we have to talk…but then without
a concept, no?
N: without a conept…
OB-Y: ahhh without the concept. That also would be interesting, but I have to say that what
you have done so far is completely fine, I mean in term of comparing with the Japanese style,because we are not really interested in the product, more about the process
D: oh good
N: ok
OB-Y: yeah, so even if you have your own way to work, and…everything is done in your own
style, that’s really really fine
D: ok
N: ok
OB-Y: yeah, wooow, so this one is…finished (confirming with the subject)
N & D: yes yes
OB-Y: ok. Usually I just a small still in the middle, because ummm,
D: ah so we should have told you…ummm, in the middle?
N: he took…
OB-Y: ah no no, like when you finish, I mean like when you finish one composition, I take astill just in case, because the image from the phone camera is so-so, but if you want an imageof the finished one, it’s good to have that.
N: ok don’t worry
D: we can…
N: yes yes. Ok
D: we can also do like…ok from this one…final….
N: noooo
D: ooh but I like the…the…(holes that remain in the sand after removing rocks)

340Appendix

N: (enthusiastically) ooh yes, leave it leave it leave it
D: can we…not…you mean the…
N: like the…footprint of the…
D: yes, of the rock. But that, that doesn’t count for the…no?
N: no but we can use it, for the next
D: no I like this, but, but what I mean is…for you, for your study, doesn’t count so much thetreatment of the sand, no? like for example…
OB-Y: ahhhh
D: what?
OB-Y: not so much…
D: like the...emptiness of…like we were liking ‘ah there is a rock there but there is not therock anymore’
N: we are really appreciating the void that is left, like the…
OB-Y: ahhhh
N: the…
D: footstep, no? the print…yes
N: of the rock….
OB-Y: I think that count as well
D: counts as well? ah, oh nice
N: but I also like these kind of….ehhh, discovery during the process, that...this is totally
unexpected, so we were not like planning to...appreciate the, the footprint of like the...but byworking with the sktech or hands or model or in the project itself, sometimes during theprocess some things are revealed that were not there before, that can be like kind of likethe...thread for another line....
OB-Y: right
N: of thought I guess

341

11

OB-Y: right
N: so I don’t know if you want to use this…
D: and you're interested in people working together no? At the same time
OB-Y: ah so we do like usually either one person, or two people
D: ah ok ok
OB-Y: yeah. And it’s very different by the way
N: really?
OB-Y: yeah, one person tends to not change so much, unless they are professionals, you know
they go one way, and in a couple there is always this kind of balance, somebody want to dosomething, somebody want to do something, and then they find a way to…
N: negotiate
OB-Y: work together, yeah
N: yeah yeah
OB-Y: but one person, if he is not professional, usually goes one way, like idea-solutionfinished
N: wow
OB-Y: yeah its very different
D: (laughing)
OB-Y: yeah, so like a couple makes it way more interesting, and way more complex
N: really?
D: yeah it’s interesting, yeah that’s, actually that’s hN: I really want to read the paper
D: that’s how we, that’s how we, that’s how we work
OB-Y: yeah you experience this in real life342

Appendix

D: yes, because actually we always want to have a third person, like eh, in our mind ‘ah wewould love a third one, because a with third one there’s ma-’
N: you (referring to Y), that’s why we're inviting you (laughing)
D: there’s majority, and then...sometimes when you're super stuck, the third one is like ‘ok,
you both guys see that this one is the one, ok I kind of trust both of you, we go..’, but if bothof you are kind of, you know posit parts, there you are forced to convince the other person.
OB-Y: somehow…
D: which is..it’s good
OB-Y: yeah
D: and also, but more...takes more work, always fighting and then…
N: and always
D: trying to convince and negotiate
OB-Y: yeah yeah yeah
D: and sometimes it’s like ‘I like this one, but you don’t like it’, then we erase this option,and then start from the...start from the scratch, until we...kind of meet somewhere
OB-Y: ohhh (laughing)
D: so I th-, I don’t dislike it, I think like working two, and also all the time back and forth,until it’s…
OB-Y: yeah
D: probably more interesting for this…
N: yeah but eh, the, the third entity is more interesting, because right now we are being very
well-behaved, and we are polite, and we don’t...scream and bla bla bla
OB-Y: (laughing)
N: but, but for example, when there’s like very...two strong ideas…
OB-Y: yeah
N: like, I have (a) very clear option, and he has (a) very clear option

343

11

OB-Y: yeah
N: but this third party, if he or she doesn't exist, it’s very very difficult to take like the...thedecision. And it doesn't seem democratic at all, because when you have your standard veryclear...
OB-Y: yeah
N: then there’s like, really one, very clear that one winner and one loser of the final eh…
OB-Y: right!
D: no but it think, but I think it’s, it’s, it’s a good thing because in the endN: really?
D: you're, yeah (response to N’s doubt), because in the end you have to convince….
N: clients, yeah
D: eh, I mean of course you have to be open to receive the...input
OB-Y & N: yeah
D: but eh, if you want your option, and... really you think it's better than the other one, thenyou have to come (up)...with arguments
OB-Y: right
D: to say...
N: yes
D: then that’s for us...
N: yes yes yes yes
D: I think is…
OB-Y: you have to be like, brave to stand behind your idea…
D: yes, but if, if there’s three, it's like ‘ok no, both of you, ok now we can erase, even though
this idea might be better, no? But thOB-Y: ahhh344Appendix

D: just because two people say that it's not…
N: ahhh
D: then, it would be decided to...I don’t know i’m just convincing myself that it's good to be…
OB-Y: (laughing)
D: working with you (with N) and screaming
Y&N: (laughing hard)
D: every day, for everything like ‘nooo this, no this!’
OB-Y: how long have you been working together?
N: eh, since school, so we’ve met in the...in MadridOB-Y: uh huh
N: architectural school, so maybe from 2011…
D: I think the first time that we’ve worked kind of together was 2010
N: when we were eh, still undergraduates
D: and then working full time together (laughing) but full time is, 24 hour, 7 day, 365…
OB-Y: two jobs (laughing)...
D:in everything, since eh I don’t know, 2012 I think, when we started the final thesis project,
and then, we did it kind of together
OB-Y: wow!
D: first one...then the other ones, so...it was…
N: yes yes yes
OB-Y: so you're used to…(laughing)
D: yes yes, it’s, it’s...I think…
N: yes, yes yes
D: we like it…

345

11

N: I don’t know if we are good at, I thinkD: I don’t know
N: I don't think that we are good at rock gardens but…
D: but it's fine
OB-Y: it’s ok, think about it as “F studio garden” (F is the name of their studio”)
N: (laughing)
D: ah exactly, exactly. Ok, what should we, what should we do for the next one? Do you want
to go, process ehhh, like not think of an outcome
N: let’s try to challenge the process, because as they are...because right now we are being
like, as we work usually, no? We throw things, and test them. But maybe right now we canthink about changing the process?
D: one thing I was thinking maybe you can start, or I can start, I don’t know if it works withyou (referring to the rules of the task), and work for two minutes, and talk while you're doing
it, I’m here but I’m not, eh mmm, saying anything, and then after that I come and kind ofmess with your thing, and then if you want to...do three rounds, or something like that
N: really?
D: I don't know, it's an option of messing with the process, I don't know if eh…
N: ok
OB-Y: as long as you explain what you did after, its ok
N: ok
D: yes, I think...or what do you think, do you prefer another way of challenging the process,what do you think?

{3rd Composition, 30:56}
OB-Y: if you want to have some challenge, maybe you can create one composition, you cancreate another, at the same time, and then, at some point you can try to…merge. Like, ah,
you can work on the right side of the…

346Appendix

D: ah ok
N: ok that’s a good idea!
OB-Y:…then try to integrate somehow
D: ok
N: ok that’s a good idea
OB-Y: would not, not be so easy
D: it’s good. it’s maybe like a chess…a chess match, no? I put here and it’s…action-reaction.
Maybe that’s good, that’s a good idea.
N: ok
D: do you think…?
N: yes yes yes yes yes
OB-Y: ok
D: (laughing)
N: oh it’s very difficult because they accumulate (the sand)
OB-Y: yeah yeah yeah, (laughing) it’s very gentle.
D: yes yes
OB-Y: not like the real ones you use, like a rake or something (laughing)
D: that would be…I mean of course it’s makes more sense, but I would love to do it in a fullscale
OB-Y: full-scale – me too!
D: but maybe, moving one of these eh, it’s impossible
OB-Y: yeah, we can go like, one scale up maybe next time you know, one table or something…
D: yeah like eh…
D: yeah would be nice to…

347

11

N: ok
D: because also, if we experience, like…you know this... to experience the space or such,maybe it can be done with a room, with…not rocks but maybe I don’t know chairs
OB-Y: it could definitely happen yeah
D: or…furnitures…
OB-Y: hollow rocks maybe…or…
D: yeah also
OB-Y: we can think about it
D: like and, because also…I don’t know for us, would be also like…no?
OB-Y: to walk around…
D: yeah to walk and see and, uh, maybe, you know like
OB-Y: yeah, I think in the small scale some, some of the real dimension is obviously lost, youknow, of experiencing the thing, we look at it like an object
D: yes
N: yes
D: ah but also, also, it’s it’s…I mean it’s like a model, no? we’re used to that…
OB-Y: definitely, we can imagine, so…
D: but eh…yes, because we cannot experience buildings, at the same time, but this maybe
there is a way of experiencing it (excited about this idea)
OB-Y: maybe there is! it’s very inspiring you know…
D: ok, eh, I start.
N: but we should it simulti-, simultaneously (asking about the rules of this session)?
OB-Y: yes
D: yes yes, I like the…and we have to talk, but eh
N: and we talk…but

348

Appendix

OB-Y: I mean like, I’m doing bla blab la…
D: do you want to eh…take turns, or the same time without…saying anything
N: ummm, I’m already…
D: wait, I’m putting one here (decisively, decides to act)
N: (laughing) I’m considering now like the colors
D: ah colors, f* it but eh…then it’s not going to be…separate eh..
N: yes it’s separate, you’re just putting one, I’m considering
D: ok
N: (laughing) no, I’m considering, I’m picking right now, like the one that are like, very, thathave like these…
D: textures
N: like hybrid texture
D: um, that one is nice
N: so, I think I’m only going to select these ones
D: ah only the…
N: for me, for me right now, this matters a lot
D: so maybe like…like a family
N: yeah a family of rocks with these textures
D: um hmmm
N: so I don’t want at all like the rest
D: ah give me the …
N: so for me, right now my idea is this, so…actually maybe only have these two
D: only two? wow
N: yes349

11

D: you have all of them
N: really?
D: *inaudible*
N: no because I don’t see the…I don’t see like more like this one right
D: but you can find similar in other colors, make families, or not? what do you…
N: ooh, we are already collaborating! (laughing)
OB-Y: oh you see!
N: yes!
OB-Y: that happened naturally
D: sorry, but eh…(speaks Japanese: Daijoubu, translation: no problem)
N: yes I’m, ah families is very nice. And we have like this obsession for classifying all thetime, you see? like…
OB-Y: yeah
D: yes, maybe it’s not eh…
N: I, I’m…
OB-Y: having some categories..
N: and then like, had the biggest one, the tallest one like the…
D: because also the…we’re used to work with context, no? of things, of clients, money
and…where’s the sun, what is this for…and then, so for this we have to make up our own,
no? rules
OB-Y: right
D: even though, maybe it’s not needed
OB-Y: right, yeah sometimes it’s needed
D: but eh, it’s like “ah ok, face, face the borders, and then we can play within the borders,even though…are completely made up

350

Appendix

N: ahhhh
OB-Y: right
N: so, what about if for example with this family that we already have here classified, let’s
start to make like…for example, these two are clearly a family
D: and if we do like a super grid, superimpose grid
N: superimpose grid?
D: like a…like if its suddenly this becomes a…like a…biology, like with the insects, you know
when they catalog…
N: I was thinking more for example, because as we areD: for me eh-, ah did you..
N: now, two concepts
D: ah two concepts, ok
N: we are already one I think
N: (reconsiders what was said) no, it’s not. we are already one, I think. But for example like,
I was trying to make…to put like these groups that are already classified here…
D: um hm
N: as…eh, making different tensions between the,D: ok soN: so for example, these one (points to back left corner), they relate like this (adjusts the tworocks there), here right? so in another place here in the garden…I don’t know which familyis this one actually (looks and point and the single rock at front right corner), maybe this one(points to dark rock group in collection)
D: I don’t know, I’m, I’m gonna…
N: no, this one?
D: I’m thinking the…the outcast, no? the ones that are not family…no?

351

11

N: these are some…these are (a) family (pulling back several rock which make a family inher opinion)
D: so I’m taking these five, no? or…
N: yes, and this is family also…(covers darks group of rocks with hand to stress theirgrouping). And this, this is another family, and this is another family
D: so, since this is family, I was thinking maybe doing it in a…very classified…no
N: I don’t like it
D: you don’t like classified, ok. I’m going, but I don’t know what to do with these ones, ok
I’m gonna try, things…
OB-Y: just taking a picture of the families
D: a sorry
OB-Y: no it’s completely fine, ok
N: laughing
D: I like this (the miniature rake), because it looks like: I’m a giant!’
OB-Y & N: (laughing)
D: it’s like ‘oh no! what happened? now I can…’
OB-Y & N: (laughing)
N: you are su…for example likeOB-Y: it’s like the espresso cup
D: yes, like this
N: ahhhh (discovery)
D: ‘I woke up and suddenly-‘
N: what about like if we, like this composition is about, couples (laughing) so…eh, it’s like
D: ok

352

Appendix

N: ok these are family, he already has a family, but we put like, like the minimum unit offamily that we have right now, its two right
D: couples, ok
N: so, we have another two here
D: ok
N: and we put like maybe…
D: ok, I like
N: another two rocks
D: but this one might not have a…I can, can I remove?
OB-Y: yes
D: yes, I am removing this one,
N: ok
D: because doesn’t have a…couple, but maybe this is a little bit eh, problema-, ah I don’tknow why just putting together the one the I….
N: ah I, no no no…
D: that resemble…ok they are rocks not people, it’s um (speaks Japanese: daijoubu,
translation: it’s ok)
N: I don’t know they are in the same place…
D: yeah…*inaudible*, but they are not relating with each other, it’s just only family
N: they relate in the space
D: ok
N: ok
D: it’s very…completely
N: ok, I cannot make this fine…
D: hm…if not we can do, uh…I think it’s fine, I will…put something…

353

11

N: ok, these two
D: on top. Ah, you’re occupying my corner…
N: I’m sorry, I’m so invasive…um, can I put it here
D: of course, of course…
N: like this (refers to placement of the rocks D is holding, jokingly)
D: you want like this?
N: (laughing) no, no no. No no no. Another…let’s try with another…for example these aresimilar no? it’s same family butD: I like these two because (they) are kind of concrete
N: place it, ok
D: like…fake rocks. But then, I don’t know where…hm
N: are we creating a space here, or are we like occupying the whole…? uh, ok
D: also…(mumbles to oneself) three is nice no? (referring to the desired number of groups in
the final composition) but maybe…
N: three is nice…
D: becauseN: three or fiveD: yeah, has to be
N: I don’t know why…(laughing)
D: no but…what I gotta say is like, these two couples kind of talk together (points to couple
on the front right) and that one (the couple on the back left)…is kind…so…. but (speaks
Japanese: daijoubu, translation: never mind). Maybe we can keep, eh…adding couples, yes I
like couples, more couples.
N: about couple…
D: it’s like a dance of, of…mmm rocks354

Appendix

N: yes! so, for example, this one here (placing a couple in the back right), and these ones…doyou like these two (holding a couple)?
D: the-, these one, ah those two are nice. I like this one standing up, do you think or maybe..
N: you already put it standing up before (slight criticism)
D: maybe too, too phallic…
N: no, but its fine, no no (laughing)
D: ok, we can
N: it’s fine it’s fine (laughing)
D: we can put it ehhh…
N: no no, but where do you think?
D: I don’t know. Let’s…
N: it’s true that right now…
D: let’s throw it…
N: I like it…
D: do you like right now?
N: I like the…again the
N & D: diagonal (in unison lead by N)
D: eh, no. We are repeating ourselves (with slight tone of defeat) yeah…
N: why…ehhh
D: the dance of rocks…
N: ok put is
OB-Y: which is not bad…
D: um?
OB-Y: it’s not bad to repeat yourself

355

11

D: ah it’s not bad?
OB-Y: noD: if, we can leave it like this if you want…
OB-Y: does it happen in real life?
N: I think a lot…
D: yes, but…eh…
OB-Y: to you guys I mean
N: yes, yeah you can likeD: yes
N: you can trace the projec-, you can see like the genealogy of the projects, how,
OB-Y: yeah, yeah yeah
D: yeah, not…
N: how that some element…or some prototypes are totally repeated…or reused
D: yeah, also when you fix one, ok, well you start to take out branch, so in the beginning it’s
like whatever flows
OB-Y: yeah
D: and then you start to cut…branches, and then you have three, and then you have two, andthen you have just one, and out of that one – five, no?
OB-Y: yeah
D: so, then you start to ‘ok, we have the diagonal theme’, but then you start to…play withthat one
OB-Y: ahhh
D: and then other five, but with an…no? it’s just, always I think
OB-Y: so it still exists as an option, maybe you won’t use it, but
D: yes356

Appendix

OB-Y: it comes up as a “branch”
D: yes, so I think yeah, it’s always making options, no? oh what happened N?
N: I put one
D: ok, yes
N: unintentionally, but actually I don’t know if it is good
D: ah it’s good it’s good
N: because right now it’s parallel to this one (refers to the other close light gray diagonallyplaced rock), from my perspective
D: ah but then you can put this one, make a couple but put it maybe...far away
N: but if you put it too far away, then it stops the tension between them
D: looses the…
N: of the couple… you have to keep it, no?
D: no (is not satisfied with the way he positioned the elements), they are similar to anotherone
N: maybe we, I can remove it
D: no no, it’s (speaks Japanese: daijoubu, translation: no problem)…it’s, like that, no? you
don’t like it
N: no, I don’t like it.
D: ok
N: I don’t know why. like um…
D: um
N: no no no (refers to using the small rake which seems not so useful compared with the rulerin smoothing the sand as desired)
D: no? um, ah. I can put in these black ones.
N: ahhh, its so difficult (speaking to oneself, refers to smoothing out the sand)…we are
putting all of them, in the…in the right part right? so…
357

11

D: in the right part?
N: I think thatD: ah you want in the…
N: no no no no, I think it’s nice but, I think that intuitively, we are like…creating a void
D: again
N: towards these two
D: same topics (with some dissatisfaction)
N: so we are somehow, doing similar thing to the density ones, in one…point
OB-Y: ahhhh
N: we are actually combining the density and the diagonal in…
D: I don’t know what to…
N: in this one. no?
D: but eh…but we have more families no? no (holds the rocks examining possible positions
and negates them)
N: yeah but I don’t know if we want to put it or not…
D: eh I don’t know what to do with this one…
N: ok.
D: (speaks Japanese: ok desu, translation: ok?)
N: but, these stop ehh being couples, no
D: they stopped being couples? why? maybe these…these two are too far away? (points tofront rightmost couple)
N: because I think like the distance between are not, it’s not right
D: maybe those two are a couple, but maybe these ones need to be…far away, let’s, let’s try.
No? so that…those two..

358

Appendix

N: yeah, these us, these two are working but for example this and this (refers to backrightmost two couples) are not so understandable, maybeD: no?
N: they could, be understood as a group. Because like the color is too similar,
D: ok so thenN: and they are too close (means that a group of two couples seems to be formed, which isundesired). Like the distance between these ones and these ones are not so…
D: and if we remove, for example these ones? (refers to the left couple, out of the two underdiscussion)
N: ok, actually I put it this way I put…
D: no no no but eh…now do y-, you are, you understan-, you still understand as a, as a couple
right?
N: yes
D: then…I put it here?
N: hmmm
D: no? can I try?
N: ah yes
D: yes?
N: do you want from….
D: more couples? now we have five
N: it’s fine
D: (confirming) five is fine? hm
N: I think I like it, five (separating the rocks on table into subgroups while talking)
D: these two are nice, but they are similar to those big ones no? (similar to the dark couple inthe middle front of the tray). These small ones…
N: where?
359

11

D: I don’t know…and with the, with the other group, or…
N: I want, I don’t know why but I wantD: (expects N’s words) those two alone
N: leave these ones alone
D: like they are running out of, running from the party, ‘uh, this this kind of…’.
N: no because they are too beautiful
D: yeah its true its true I agree
N: because I really like the…the texture of these ones
D: and to…
N: so actually this is like the public (refers the group of couples in the right of tray) for this(as opposed to the couple at the left which “ran away”) (laughing). Like the main…
OB-Y: D what is the most interesting part of the composition for you?
D: hmmm, um um um, I mean l like the colors, like the couples, and the, the intense of thecomposition of eh…I don’t know, it’s similar to before no? There’s like a density, and…kindof a void, and then, but I think it works…well , kind of two that are…there and then, theseones kind of are together, but not grouped like in the…It was the thi-, the second one no?
OB-Y: second one, hm
D: second one maybe everything was very…no? very…
OB-Y: yeah, condensed together
D: condensed, and here it’s like ‘ok there’s a dance of rocks here, those one are…going for
drinks or something…and then (everyone laughing). No but if if I’m eh the, no? if we…think
like in…there’s a, eh, eh density but in, not in mass, but kind of in…movement, or in…no?
OB-Y: ahhh
D: in…dynamism, no? it seems like there’s some dynami-, some dynamics going on here andthen, there’s a…quieter space and…eh…those ones that also with the form which is kind ofa pyramid, they are very kind of, ehhh, taking their place these one, no? these ones, which is360

Appendix

like a very…big base, and kind of pointing up so, they feel like very grounded for me, thesetwo, I don’t know. What do you think N?
N: yes
OB-Y: what do you think?
N: I, I was wodering, I agree, but now I was wondering if eh, we are, eh making a…a veryclear…direction, in this one also (refers to the diagonal directionality of the whole
composition, shows the diagonal direction with a hand gesture)
D: yeah, might…mm I think ifN: if we want to keep it, or if we want to…to for example if we…put another two, or anothertwo other couples or another couple of these ones…
D: to try to lose the diagonal (completes N’s thought), ah that one..
N: (tries to hold another candidate couple above the tray to test position) but it’s the-, it’s notworking right?
D: ehhhh, yes. I thinkN: it’s not working
D: I think it’s like, it’s true that…we go for the longer…direction, which is the diagonal,
and..we kind of, the moment you play with that one, it becomes more dynamic.
OB-Y: ahhh
D: I think
N: yes
D: so if we, if you start to play with…these….ehh borders (refers to planes parallel to theviewer, shows with hand gesture) I think, everything is more kind of…standing, but the
moment you take this (referring to a plane which is diagonal to the viewer, in contrast withthe parallel ones), shows by hand gesture)
N: yes
D: it’s kind of…breaking a little bit the…
N: yes361

11

D: no? it’s more dynamic this than this.
N: so for example, if you experience theD: I don’t know why we do it…
N: like the garden walking here (shows a possible route through the garden with fingers), I
guess like the…the diagonal, ehhh mm, composition, allows you to have like deep, morediverse ehhh
OB-Y: ah routes
N: visions and routes in the…as things inside the garden
OB-Y: hmmm
N: so…because if like yeah (shows a parallel rectangular grid with hand gesture), like if there
is like a grid like Los Angeles or something like that (laughs), like the, the street is always
like the same vision, like there is no surprise
OB-Y: right
N: but, if you are like
D: yeah but maybeN: maybe like a person right here, no? (points to a place in the tray)
D: yes
N: can have like…different…ehhh
D: (mumbles)
N: very diverse
D: maybe we can make it like eh…because these ones
N: some very different…*inaudible*
D: a- all of them are…if, if we make like kind of the grid one, it becomes suddenly…hmmm
more about the rock than the composition I think, no? or something like eh, like here they
are working together, but suddenly the moment you apply a very…strong geometry to what
you’re doing, or…space them, no? ehhh, I’m sorry (apologizes for touching the camera holder)362

Appendix

OB-Y: ahhh, it’s ok
D: ehhh, equeally, suddenly it becomes more about, uhhh no? about order, or about ehh
OB-Y: ahhh, individual elements or…
D: yeah, instead of a group no? if we make, like if you over…ah maybe it’s…also…similar
with otherN: you want to try it?
D: yeah, but maybe, maybe it’s fine I think (speaks Japanese: daijoubu, translation: it’s ok).
OB-Y: hmm
D: we can, this one I think it’s…
N: it’s fine
D: it’s ok{post-activity interview, 48:25}
OB-Y: ok, I want to ask youN: yes
OB-Y: think about a title for this one, one sentence, in your head – don’t say. After you haveit, then say, I don’t want you to affect each other’s…(laughing) yeah
N: ok
D: ah me too
OB-Y: you too?
D: yes, but because we’ve said before
N: yes…(laughing)
OB-Y: is it the same?
D: (laughing) I don’t know

363

11

N: for me it’s “dancing couples”
D: ah “rock dance”
OB-Y: “rock dance”? ok!
N: “dancing couples”
D: but its…kind of the same, I think
OB-Y: ahhh it completes (each other)
N: ah I like more yours (D’s)
D & OB-Y: (laughing)
D: sorry (touches equipment by accident)
OB-Y: ah it’s fine, don’t worry don’t worry. Woooow, wow wow wow, that was very nice!
N: (laughing)
OB-Y: ok, that was the last one
D & N: ok
OB-Y: ah, so…ummm, just one last question: how, how was it, like compared with how you
usually work, what do you think?
D: hmmm
OB-Y: this kind of process of making something, compared with, when you design anapartment of a building or something like that?
D: (speaks Japanese: douzo, translation: go ahead first)
OB-Y: ladies first
N: (laughing) don’t worry. For me, the most fun of this, is that somehow, like the big
difference of between having an apartment or having this kind of rock garden, is that it has
not program
OB-Y: ah
N: so only const-…like the…how you play with the element, is more direct, in this kind ofgame…also like (criticizing oneself) ‘game’ like, process364

Appendix

OB-Y: yeah yeah yeah, it’s also a game
N: because…it’s not only…thinking about, for example, very functional or technical issues,of…maybe somehow like restrictions or constrains when you are designing. But here, ehhh,
like was very very direct, the way to interact with the physical element
OB-Y: yeah
N: but maybe…maybe if we are designing (an) apartment for example, ehhh, there’s like a
lot of discussion on the background…umm
OB-Y: ahhh
D: yeah, all the…or kind of, we are used to…like for designing for us it’s very usual to haveeh, kind of vectors or rules somehow, that come from the climate, from how is it going to be
used, or the money, or the material, or the expectance temporality of what you’re doing
OB-Y: yeah
D: so here, I think everything is so…I mean there are some rules but, they’re so…kind of free
OB-Y: yeah, extremely free
D: while for us…for me at least, it’s, has been difficult, it’s ‘ok, from the beginning, let’s set
some rules’, no? let’s eh…or let’s think about the concept first. Because maybe when we
design its more about, ‘ok, we have all these ingredients-‘ no?
OB-Y: yeah
D: ‘that…the whole…reality of the project has, and then we start to prioritize once, andmaybe another once (time), because you cannot always eh, get everything no? like eh, youstart to prioritize, ’ah so ok, let’s talk about this part of the network, and then this one we
can deal with it later and so on’
OB-Y: ahhh
D: but here it’s kind of, you have to make you own…rules
OB-Y: yeah yeah
D: which…it’s also, it’s also fun, but different from what we….no? are used to probably.
OB-Y: wow, I’m really happy.

365