Ideology and the Map: Toward a Postmodern Visual Design Practice
Ben and Marthalee Barton put forth the idea that ideology is present in all forms of visual representations, focusing most of their efforts on showing the ideology present in maps. As Barton puts it, their essay “focuses on the ways in which visual signification serves to sustain relations of domination. More-over…ideology performs such services with a Janus face---its privileges or legitimates certain meaning systems but at the same time dissimulates the fact of such privileging.”(Barton 50) The authors cite countless historical references to the way maps have evolved and changed over the years and what these different styles have promoted or brushed aside, content wise. A central aspect discussed in the article is “the Other”(Barton 60), those things not commonly portrayed on maps or in visuals in general, because of their “unappealing” nature, a qualitative description that is determined by the mapmaker. The Bartons hypothesize that there are two ways to create better maps, through the map being created as a collage or the metaphor of maps as palimpsest. The map as a collage basically calls for the overlay of multiple sources of information, creating an item that is, “the juxtaposition of various representational devices, theoretical principles, or representational functions, e.g. resemblance, symbolic references, similitude, abstraction, exemplification, or expression.”(Barton 73) Maps as palimpsest are explained as texts directly overlaid with more text, almost as if stacking on top of one another, while still being able to read all of the layers. Ben and Marthalee Barton are speaking to an academic audience, as exemplified with the language used in the text, as well as an expected understanding of some obscure ideas such as the palimpsest. Very little can be derived from the authors through sheer analysis of the text, however it can be deduced that they care about seeing the entirety of the world and want it portrayed accurately, regardless of the less appealing aspects. Neither Barton have laid very much at stake by making these claims about maps, except maybe to lose friends who are cartographers, but they do point out faults in map making committed by governments and colonizers. The Bartons really only stand to gain by writing this text, because perhaps the text will prompt changes in how the world is portrayed on seemingly the most basic of levels.
I find myself agreeing with most of the arguments by the Bartons because they only point out common trends in map making which are indeed true, and then attempt to explain why these trends need to be changed. I have never really thought about it but the Bartons make a good point when they point out that only the apparent good things about society are ever put on maps, with some exceptions. I believe that the most effective way to create a map would be through the palimpsest metaphor because of the vast amount of information that could be placed upon a map without creating a map so large as to decrease its usefulness. Google Earth is not a palimpsest, however it shows the world exactly as it is, color, topography, geography, down to even street level. I believe with the programs we have today, it would not be difficult to create pop-up windows filled with information about the demographic of your choice for each country on the map. This kind of program is already created and would only need to be applied to Google Earth in order to achieve the palimpsest.
Questions to consider
1. What is your opinion of the statement, “Indeed, if the very decision to map is fraught with ideological implications, as we have already noted, the same can also be said of the decision not to map.” (Barton 59)
2. Do you have an alternative to the two main options the Bartons pose as substitutes to present day maps? Yes or No. Explain why if no or what the alternative is if yes.
3. Do you thing the Barton’s criticisms of maps are well founded or simply over examinations of essentially a picture?
4 comments:
The decision not to map, I agree, is definitely fraught with ideological implications, but they are much fewer and probably more controversial. Firstly, why wouldn’t something be mapped? Maybe the area is of no particular use, maybe no one is aware of its existence, or maybe someone doesn’t want it to be found. Try searching Area 51 in Google maps, does it show up? Well, yes, but how about Area 52? Didn’t think so… The point is, maps provide information, and when that information does not want to be shared, it’s easy to hide through exclusion. The same ideas can be applied to propagandist materials, because what are books/movies/etc. but different ways of mapping ideas, and censorship is the unmapping of ideological territory. Whether one agrees with this proposition or not, the basic ideal remains the same, and what it comes down to is one question: To map, or not to map?
The decision to map shouldn't be fraught with ideological implications. I think that the idea of how to map is really what is fraught with these implications. For example, the Mercator map deliberately changes the world it displays, and not necessarily for the better. In Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord Cutler Beckett says that “The world is shrinking. The blank edges of the map filled in.” Jack later says that the world isn’t shrinking, “there’s just less in it.” I think that how the people of this “time” looked at mapping is very important to what they thought of maps. The idea of maps shrinking the world is a fascinating concept and I don’t necessarily agree with the concept. I think that it actually makes the world more accessible and with the proper cartographers, the map can be made to represent the world accurately and truly expand the world and allow people to see it in ways that otherwise would be unattainable.
The exclusions of aspects on a map reveals what is valued and consequently what is not. In support of the quote from question 1, Barton and Barton say “we never see slums, buildings in poor condition, suggestions of danger. The feature map is an optimistic world view”(60). If you think of a map of Disneyland, it is depicted in vibrant colors more radical than those found in the magical land. It also omits showing the break areas where chip and dale may be sharing a smoke. Maps often depict the best of a given area, and omission of objects illustrates that they are not valued. Take for example this map of Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (http://www.colorfotos.com.br/MapaRio3.jpg). The famous Cristo Redentor statue and the famous Rio beaches are emphasized. Much of the hillsides in Rio are covered with favelas but the map doesn’t properly depict that. If you look at Google maps, which in no way am I saying is the end-all be-all, doesn’t have the streets of favelas names. From this example we see that the reality of smoking characters, construction and the marginalized poor are non-existent and in its place is a optimistic hypereality, masking the “desert of the real”.
In the idea of a collage map vs. a map of overlaid text, I think that this is actually something that has actually been done. Take this Google Map of Los Angels, for example:
http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=food&sll=34.056855,-118.241644&sspn=0.038186,0.084372&ie=UTF8&radius=2.42&rq=1&ev=zo&hq=food&hnear=&ll=34.063823,-118.241644&spn=0.038182,0.084372&t=h&z=14
First of all, if you look in the top right corner, there are buttons to change the map from a photograph to a pure street map, to one similar to a topographical map. This is similar to the collage idea of mapping from the reading, except instead of each area having a fixed type of map, the user can change it to suit their needs. Second, notice the simple search for “food” that I made, and the dots on the map that are search results. Click on any of them and a name, picture, description, address, and phone number pop up. This is what I see as the natural form of the overlaid text that Barton and Barton cite as an evolution of mapping. Together these things turn one map interface into numerous maps (and this is just Google maps, Google earth is much more in-depth) and a visual system to map information.
Post a Comment