A recent discussion concerning the validity and purpose of maps, and how they are biased was rather off-putting. Complaining about maps is a futile endeavor. Maps come in a variety of different shapes and sizes with many different purposes. Herein, it is illogical to disregard maps as for being “too subjective.” If one takes the position of somethings validity stemming only from how utilitarian and complete it is, one is bound to be perpetually disappointed. Everything created by man is in a way incomplete, no creation is entirely efficient or “useful.” It was pointed out it class how history is written by the victors—even further: literature is written from one point of view; films are not made collectively by their audience; and scary as it is, laws are passed by a select few. All of these examples show how biases invade all man-made things, and it is reckless to disregard any of the above for lacking total usefulness.
Many maps shown during the aforementioned discussion had little to no purpose for everyday use, but were no less useful. Hitotoki (http://hitotoki.org/) allows for brief empathetic moments with strangers—the classic version allows for an even better experience. Biomapping illustrates the emotional responses of participants through “Galvanic Skin Response,” while they walk through a specific area (city or town). Neither of these will help someone in their daily routines, but illustrate something unique nonetheless.
Another blog, Cartastrophe (http://cartastrophe.wordpress.com/) shows examples of many cartographic errors. Most are chuckle-inducing, insightful, or strange (face mapping?). This blog shows how mistakes can be made, even if it is just in how a legend is created. The maps shown are not useless, just flawed.
I guess the biggest problem I had with such negativity towards maps, is that such an opinion is either poorly developed, or illustrates an even more serious misconception: if it is possible to disregard maps due to their flaws and biases, is the same rationale directed towards their creators: people?
I like the philosophical approach you took towards analyzing whether mapping was subjective or not, and I'd say that your logic is pretty accurate. Creations are only as perfect as their maker, and, being human (therefore imperfect) our creations will also be as such. Maps are useful, but like you said, there's always going to be imperfections about them that hinder their efficiency.
ReplyDeleteHello Robert,
ReplyDeleteIn your post you elucidate your viewpoint that it is futile to disregard something as "too subjective". I am hoping you can elaborate a wee bit more on this point, as I am slightly confused by your comment. Do you propose that we have no limits on subjectivity and accept everything as didactic? If so or if not, why?
Cheers,
OneArrow
OneArrow: thank you for the comment, without much revision I would simply say that my sentence is a grammatical nightmare. Instead of it being illogical to disregard maps as "too subjective," I think I meant to say it is illogical to disregard them for being "too subjective."
ReplyDeletei like this idea of "making things too utilitarian makes them, in a way, worthless" because if everything has a purpose then it fails to have a reason. a human reason? (hur dur, look at me tryin' out my philosophical chops.) i dunno what to call that. the maps we saw were much better as art projects than as maps themselves and if i take a positive approach to it, i'm impressed by how creative people can be with such a simple medium.
ReplyDeletei think you're right in that we have to be more lenient towards maps. they can't encompass the world itself within two dimensions but i believe it's necessary to be critical of maps. there are still a set of guidelines they ought to follow otherwise then they become art projects.
I really like your last statement, relating the maps to people. I read this with sort of an existentialist view in mind...? In the sense that people are projects and can choose how to shape themselves... and cartographers can choose how to shape and map their city in a way that may be useful or informative to them. Everything is subject, right? I don't know if I'm making sense, but I'm drawing from Sartre. I just particularly like that you link the people with the maps that they may create, because everyone has their own sort of "map" of their space.
ReplyDelete