In her recent book Classical Rhetoric and the Visual Arts in Early Modern Europe, Caroline van Eck argues that classical rhetoric influenced both the producers and consumers of visual art and architecture in early modern Europe through concepts related to vivid representation. Indeed, according to van Eck, both oral communication and image making share the goal of establishing vivid representation (or enargeia). In addition, she argues that both rhetoric and the visual arts work “to bring to life that which is absent.” Building upon her work and also following the work of Buchanan (2001) and Kaufer & Butler (1996), we suggest that an even stronger argument can be made for the interrelatedness of rhetoric and the visual arts, particularly in the field of design. In this paper, we speak from within two intellectual traditions—rhetoric and visual design—that have developed separately. Despite this separation, we argue that what emerged as two distinct fields of study are intricately related, as reflected in their assumptions, goals, and functions. For instance, scholars in design and rhetoric define their practices and objects of study similarly. In addition, they have similar values and goals particularly related to the possibility of changing an imperfect situation and instigating a level of social consciousness. Furthermore, both fields work toward human advancement in both functional and moral senses (Figure 1). Indeed, Twyman1 and Bonsiepe,2 both of whom write from a design perspective, argue that ancient rhetoric resembles modern design because both arts deal with functional, contextual, and social aspects of language and symbol systems and thus are well suited to design issues. In their book, Rhetoric and the Art of Design, Kaufer and Butler suggest that rhetoric belongs to the family of design arts, like architecture and graphics, because all of these arts are arts of production.3 They conclude that theories of rhetoric are theories of design. Meanwhile, Ehses, a design educator, argues that rhetorical theory is relevant for information design because of the applicability of the three operational functions of rhetoric—to instruct, to move, to please—to the nature of design.4 Twyman and Bonsiepe also argue that ancient rhetoric did in fact consider, and therefore address, the visual. Gronbeck,