After walking a classmate’s map, and reading the accompanying commentary, I couldn’t help but consider the shared experience of space and mapping. In my opinion many cartographers—including myself as it turns out—choose to map a space they know intimately. With respect to treasure maps, or directional maps for that matter, such a process makes sense. That is to say, it would be difficult to plot the geographic and natural locators necessary to establish oneself, without already knowing their unique existence. Such an idea seems obvious; yet one cannot forget that many maps are not retraced by their original cartographer. What seems important to consider, then, is how prepared pathways can effect individual interpretations of space.
To borrow from an old adage, you cannot see the forest for the trees. In other words, maps can only ever truly plot one interpretation of space; thus, if one focuses oneself on the specific details (or locators) of maps, then one risks missing the bigger picture...
....are you focused on the means or the end of a map? Should one focus on the goal, or the journey necessary to reach that goal?
To return to the prospect of “treasure” or “destination” mapping, I would like to consider the individual who engages in metal detection. In many respects, there is a ritualism associated with cartography, which, in my opinion, ostensibly deals with the end and not the means. Contrary to this method, the metal detector undoubtedly relishes in the means, not destination, of his/her travels. There is no map, no specific location, and no plotted pathway—the individual goes where he/she pleases. In my opinion, this freedom allows an individual to experience the “bigger picture” of space and environment in a way that traditional cartography cannot.
No comments:
Post a Comment