Scale, framing, selection, and coding add meaning to a map.
Scale being the most important, in my opinion, because we all have the same sense of 'scale'. Generally, humans use everyday objects to help describe a metric without using a number. Two car-lengths. 5 football fields. 4 arms-lengths.
We all can imagine sizes and distances based on these 'measurements'.
I started thinking about taking away the 'comfortable' scale and using a distorted sense of scale to push an agenda/intent/idea. Take away our conventional sense of scale on a map and one must focus much more intently on the content and relative relationships shown. Cartograms are such things.
Above is a map of the world 'distorted' to represent a country's size based on its wealth.
Is this map inaccurate?
What is an accurate map?
I think this method of looking at scale raises the question: Are maps with 'true' scale accurate? To whom and to what end are they accurate.
Do you learn MORE about the world from this map or from the cartogram?
An interesting article I read this past summer: What Transit Maps Reveal about Cities - Dwell
I think neither maps are 'accurate' in the (puns intended) Cartesian / logical sense, but rather both maps are valid sources of information. While the distorted map depicting wealth may be geographically incorrect, and frankly demands a further refinement / second iteration where whoe cities, regions are mapped out showing wealth disparities in communities even in the richest nations, the point is that the two have value *together*. When we compare these two distinct different data sets, the obvious becomes clear . . . Africa disappeared . . . so that even though it may be one of the largest continents, with innumerable resources, it's the smaller 'western' nations which control much of the world's wealth. Perhaps the intent (or agency) of this map is to make a cause for greater (NON-IMF!!!) social aide / economic assistance from the wealthier nations.
ReplyDeleteAh, interesting response Aaron. So maybe 'accuracy' is not the rule of thumb but INFORMATION...and with that - should we be looking at 'infographics' instead of 'cartograms'? What is the difference? Or maybe - together. How can we use multiple methods of 'mapping' to deepen as well as clarify spatial information?
ReplyDeleteAnd in regards to your last point, Aaron - would social aide solve the economic disparity? I almost didn't want to go 'there' (ha, there being politics), but this IS a studio of going 'there'. So, I have to say, social aide and western development in developing countries (and continents) have often propagated economic disparity over the past 60 or so years. When Britain 'aided' India in damming their rivers, they buttressed India's reliance on them by establishing a 'loan' system with which they would never be able to repay it. That SYSTEM was/is toxic and so new systems are now popping up to counter these issues - from the inside (aka social entrepreneurs). I say all of this because this is what we should be thinking about as architects, urbanists, designers of the built environment. How can OUR maps have the intent of activating social change and the agency to direct that change or to show a different path for this change? Does that make sense - so I'm separating intent and agency. Intent gives us goals. Agency shows how it could be done or potential methods of such changes. And I'm also saying that architecture must be thought of as a part of a larger SYSTEM(S) which we can influence with our design.