Hi Justin (nice to meet you) Ken, Don, Terry,

I forgot one reason why ekphrasis should precede exegesis: because 
exegesis is performed over a written text. The question is how do you 
"translate" without reduction a complex symbolic system such as "A 
Design" into a text. If you regard it (the Design) as a text you will 
certainly be in danger. Semiotics and Semiology has been fairly in 
trouble doing it with images, architecture, design etc. So I think 
description as a robust scientific process common to the humanities, 
social sciences and the hard ball sciences. An equation is a fairly 
mathematical (ekphrastic) description of a parabola. As for eisegesis as 
'the activity of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces 
one's own ideas as if they were in the text' as Terry has put it, I 
can't see the problem in doing it with your own text. In fact, I really 
don't know how to misinterpret my own text, except as a rhetorical device.

For instance, take a look at Foucault text on the Panopticon (it was 
recently printed in the Hazel Clarck and David Brody's /Design Studies 
Reader/ pp.237-245, published by Berg). I think the text is mostly 
ekphrastic. Foucault densely describes an architectural piece which is a 
Design mostly since its structure was replicated in so many places. The 
description resonates up to the consistent change of the episteme of 
power that moved from the King's body to Geometry. I think that Foucault 
does this text more as an ekphrasis of a Design but yet he also 
interprets Bentham text (this one clearly ekphrastic and eisegetic) 
producing, in order to do the ekphrasis of Bentham's design, an exegesis 
of the author's text.

In a way, Bentham is the PhD student, his text and his drawings are his 
PhD practice led thesis and Foucault the examination jury (this is a 
risky metaphor, I know).

Going a little further down this argumentation, I should explain why I 
think Bentham's text is eisegetic: Because his text deals with no 
existing objects and situations. He does not interpret his own device, 
he thinks that the device will operate in a way and produce determined 
(by him) social results. Bentham, OBVIOUSLY, "introduces (...) own ideas 
as if they were in the text (the Design)" because they were his ideas!

The Panopticon is also an example of a practice led PhD, because in 
Bentham's argumentation it is clear the social relevance outcome of his 
design resulting from a thorough critical attitude towards the (legitime 
at the time) exercise of power. By arriving to a formal result, even 
using the state of the art similar buildings of the time, proposed that 
change in geometry can change social relations.

Regardless of the history of the panopticon (in Lisbon there is a 
perfect panopticon in a lunatic asylum) and for what it stands 
symbolically, one could only whish for similar practice led PhDs.

Cheers,

Eduardo

PS: Ken and I have thes ongoing gests about dictionaries. He even bought 
me and send me the Mirriam-Webster Collegiate. In this the meaning of 
the word Portuguese is something like this: "Person born in Portugal, 
Person with Portuguese ancestry." This second meaning will get lots of 
people in trouble at the Portuguese border.

Ken, hope we meet soon for a glass of Muscat.