Just my Imagination

I think that the power of the maps as tools became a bit fuzzy, so to speak, during this week’s readings. The Harmon book wasn’t quite as useful for what I am hoping to produce as my final project, as imaginary and personal geography really doesn’t apply to dead people. The take-away’s that I did get from her book are the unique and innovative ways that we can picture time and space, not necessarily in the same scale as the official maps. I felt that personal maps are the difference between an official story, like one one would see on the news versus an eyewitness account of the same story. Both give generally the same facts, but are presented using a different scale and use different colors to present their information. What would be interesting to find is a personal map that was produced from the past relating to my research. Understanding how these people envisioned themselves can be a very insightful methodology, but one that I’m afraid isn’t utilized as much as it could be.

I think that the chapter from Akerman, by Padron also has very interesting implications, albeit not necessarily for my research directly. I felt that the thrust of this article gives an interesting peek inside of the early modern mind, in addition to continuing this concept of how individual map out space whether it is real or imagined. I found the section on the maps of Dante’s 9 rings of Hell particularly interesting. As time progressed, and people became more ‘logical’ and ‘modern’ the maps became more sophisticated. Perhaps this growing desire to order space and Nature also had a corresponding effect in personal geographies?

Switching back to some of the applications of these types of imaginary and personal maps. The entire Cartography 2.0 website deals with the ways that these personal maps can be utilized as teaching tools in the era of Web2.0 and the technology available to us. The chapters presented on the website bring to mind many of the questions I had to ask myself from Clio II, many of which involve interface, access and ease of use for the end user. I think that these kinds of maps will be the most profitable for students in the near future. We were supposed to look at Google Maps and Bing maps for this week as well, and I think that when examined in conjunction with the information presented in Cartography2.0, that we can begin to conceptualize how to create maps to be used on the computers and to teach the upcoming generations.

Again, this seems to be outside of the scope of this class, but how will digital map API’s be used in conjunction with the traditional mapmaking techniques that we have learned so far? As much as I dislike asking questions, I feel that there isn’t a direct answer to what I want to accomplish? When writing my dissertation, will I be able to include a digital map, that displays cartographic information over time? Will I be able to publish my entire thesis digitally, so that my maps and displays are well-integrated? I think that the problems presented by Cartography2.0 are much the of the same that historians are encountering: that the traditional forms of publication and dissemination are not going to be around forever. So, I say let’s move forward in the digital realm and begin to publish maps that are user driven, user oriented and friendly so that both personal and physical space can be mapped efficiently and for the greatest effect!

Advertisement