Legends, Geographies, Armatures
The lecture and discussion session about the two contrasting ways that people thought about maps really brought to light the dichotomy of cartography that I’ve never considered before. Or to be more precise, the element of story-telling often flew over my head when anyone talks about mapping. In fact, when reading the Bourke article last week, I had wondered how a topic so seemingly distant could possibly be related to our armature exercise. Now, I see it as a guide on how to structure a narrative when doing any visual work, including maps.
Similar to the views of Forman and McHarg, I’ve always understood maps to be the documentation of geography or places in a scientific and empirical sense. GPS, GIS, and Landsat are all terms that nest itself in a contemporary context, which formulate some of the basis in the technology and information that we use everyday such as Google Maps. On the other hand, the Ortelius map of Islandia is more based on the subjective and reflect a certain attitude towards the place. It doesn’t just map what the locals thought Islandia looked like at the time, but also reflect certain aspects of culture, beliefs, and questions that GPS simply can not do.
In a discussion with classmates, somebody brought up the question of whether one form of mapping is superior to the other. I believe there is a context in which both forms of mapping is deemed more fitting than the other. For example, when developing infrastructure on land, people would find it way more helpful to review the local map of soil typologies than to look at The Tabula Rogeriana, which illustrates what the Normans thought the world looked like back in 12th Century A.D.. Whereas if we were trying to learn more about what the middle east Muslim population deemed important information and how the area supposedly looked like in history, The Tabula Rogeriana would provide much more information.
In terms of the maps’ connection to armature, I came to the conclusion that while the more scientific approach focuses on tangible, observable armatures, the “fantastical” one documents things that exist in our psyche. Perhaps what makes this type of map so fascinating is the individuality of the map; the fact that no two people in the world will end up with the same map, like a artistic rendition of the world that exist inside their head.
