Thoughts.
There is a small part of the reading mapping reading i'm skeptical of, Cosgrove explains that the maps can free the reader from the confining perspective of the photograph or painting. I don't want to undermine
the idea completely because I can see how that might be the case but I would argue that it is more the
cartographer who is freed from the constraints. The reader Cosgrove is speaking of is left only with
the distilled information the cartographer wished to convey and is perhaps more confined than before.
That said the added restriction is the maps primary virtue, if for example the reader wishes to see a
map of roads in a particular region they don't want to be disrupted by topographical information as well
and so a map of restricted to highways alone is more suitable. In this way the reader had been freed of
unnecessary information but perhaps not perspective.
This particular aspect of mapping relates well to my experiences with mapping our current site. In
most regards creating my map has been an endeavor in finding what my perspective is. If I were to
include all the information I could the map becomes illegible or misrepresented and what I wish to
show becomes clouded and unapparent, similarly too little information and it represents little. My final
thought is that the map exists in a state of mutability, as selected information is coming together I expect connections will be made which I will want to then emphasize by altering the content.
I agree with your statement, and the selective properties which parse out which information is deemed 'relevant' has its purpose . . . but I think these maps mean different things to different people. For example, in my own bicycling experience, often times even with satellite view on, I do not get a sense for elevation changes (A FACT I BECOME KEENLY AWARE) and as such I end up encountering delays or even complete impasses. For example : Summit Ave in Allston . . . Its a 'beast' of a hill and I've never been able to bicycle up the hill without having to get off my bicycle and walk (or crawl) up the remainder of the hill . . . then, once at the top of that hill, even though there's a lovely vantage point of the city and a city park, THERE'S NO WATERFOUNTAINS!!! so although Googlemaps may tell me it's the best way to get from Brookline to Allston, these are important factors which would be imperative to plot were I to map this area.
ReplyDeleteI almost want to see maps where EVERYTHING is listed, every bus-stop, every security camera's scope plotted, every park bench, and metered parking stall with the hope that this might generate 'mass-informational-density' . . . almost like an 'Information-Age' approach to mapping; plotting every tiny, minute, seemingly 'irrelevant-to-my-interests' map where none of this information is plotted with the agency or visible hand of the map-maker . . . just pure visual overlap of a multitude of information.
It would be incredibly visually chaotic, but in the same respects would allow the designer / urban planner / or viewer to chart/parse out the information they needed and to go forward and pull maps from there as a baseline resource.
I think it'd be an interesting example of JUST HOW MUCH INFORMATION there is out there, and would show how 'dumb' a lot of these things are . . . sort of like a commentary on the 'gender-neutral-anodyne-one-size-fits-all' presentation of information which seems to be the aesthetic of most mapping devices / platforms we have today.