Source/Link:

TRES Art Collective

Text:*

*Drafted shortly after completing our workshop; see detour 208

How can maps and mapping contribute to representing alternative imaginaries? Radical, critical, and participatory cartography have been a few frameworks that explore different perceptions of space, associations, and power dynamics that shape the social from a critical point of view. Two distinct examples for turning around a map’s traditionally colonial function are psychogeography and counter-mapping, strategies that have helped reshape the way we approach mapping. Psychogeography was proposed by the Situationist International in 1955 as a way to explore the territory from a personal and playful point of view: drifting through the city. Counter-mapping was coined in 1995 by Nancy Peluso as a way to challenge dominant power structures.

If we assume that all maps have an agency, that they not only represent physical space (or urban morphologies) but also produce space, it becomes clear that maps hold the potential to construct territories and enable certain social dynamics, while simultaneously closing down others. Maps can destabilize centers, exclusions, and knowledge domination. Yet, if we want maps to be a tool for dialogue and change instead of an instrument of dominance, it is crucial to examine the complexity behind their production. Three strategies that could help us use the agency of maps from a more critical perspective are: I) The examination of the cartographic intention, as Peluso did when she proposed counter-mapping. II) Considering of the act of mapping and not only the map as an end product. The psychogeography of Guy Debord is a clear example of the shift from a product to an experience. III) The awareness of the technical boundaries and possibilities that are chosen to make the map. Each technique, not just the map itself, has a certain potential with regard to what it can offer and to whom it is addressed.

I. The Cartographic Intention

Who makes the map and for what purpose? What is included and what is excluded? Every map has an agenda; there is a narrative both in front of the map and behind it. Claiming or exposing authorship is one way to be honest about the cartographic intention: to assume a position, both spatial and political in which the map maker places him/herself. There are, of course, many ways to express authorship. The most obvious is by including a name, date, and place of manufacture. Other alternatives incorporate a statement of purpose or an explanation of the circumstances that led to the map production. This alternative is still in need of a great deal of exploration. Peluso, for example, used a collaborative community mapping structure as a way to contest state maps and obtain social justice. In our collective, TRES, we have used instructions, observation clues, and questions to arouse interest for the intention of the map.

II. The Act of Mapping

The second strategy is a shift from the map to the act of mapping. If we are to understand a map as an action, it can show the epistemology used to construct it. Lived space and the understanding of place vary in accordance with time, location, and culture. Different spatialities require different modes of representation. Debord explored this issue using psychogeography at an individual level. In a broader sense, participatory, collective, or collaborative mapping can help express the spatial knowledge of local communities or groups. These types of mapping can also challenge the way in which spatial and social knowledge is represented. The act of mapping can become a space of negotiation, empathy, and socialization, thus actively crafting a space for dialogue. It can enable alternative perceptions of the networks, associations, and representations of places, people, and power. The process of mapping can then become an important strategy to externalize local concerns. One example of mapping as an action is game-based maps that allow involvement to be more adaptable. Games are simultaneously flexible and bound to rules that maintain the goal of the mapping exercise (regardless of whether the rules are predefined or determined collectively). A game often allows people to talk more freely in a more comfortable environment.

 III. The Technical Boundaries and Possibilities

An important issue at the forefront of mapping and maps is the technical boundaries and possibilities that each technique offers and the values it enhances or hinders. Choosing a mode of making is not only about how the map will look aesthetically in the end, but also whom it addresses, who can read it, and its purpose. Each technique, whether it be digital or manual, offers certain modes of communication across disciplines, communities, or cultures.

Thinking critically about what each type of technology or representation entails and enables can help shape the cartographic intention. For example, digital mapping allows for time-based maps (time-geography), multimedia inputs (sound, image, text), multiple scales (the possibility of zooming in and out), continuous participation for producing an ever-growing map (an archival quality), and a constant shift of different layers of information. On the other hand, manual mapping empowers participants. It helps develop observational skills, provides experience in the understanding of a particular place, and even embodies space (lived space). It also provides a more personal positioning (a more subjective point of view) that can be used as a tool of empathy.

Finally, mapping for change entails a great deal of critical thinking, at both the individual and collective level. It can permit the construction of new imaginaries, provide a means to understand relative and spatial positions of collective struggles, and offer propositions (and potentials) for alternative worlds. Last but not least, we have to keep in mind that mapping for change also has to challenge itself. All forms of knowledge generation and materialization, including maps, can be used against the initial cartographic intention.