A lot of thinking about maps

"The roads by which men arrive at their insights into celestial matters seem to me almost as worthy of wonder as those matters in themselves" Johannes Kepler

I've been giving the idea of thinking like a mapmaker some time lately - the middle of the night seems to suit this one. Not that I want to paint or make maps per se(nothing wrong with maps - they'reincredibly cool). Its a process I want to create - a process that acts as an overlay to the end results; and which interests me, like Kepler, almost as much as creating the art itself.

What do I mean by 'thinking like a cartographer'?

Well here goes.
For a start I want to impose a map making process that will influence my making and my thinking through the length of an artistic exploration - maybe a year. One that I haven't formalised before. I'm not sure yet just how different it will be to that which I already operate within or am bound by. But I want to see what richness or learning it may offer and how the work will be influenced by imposing some constraints over and above a subject or theme. Lets make it a bit more challenging, she says.

I said in my one of my last posts that there were things I took away from the 'Beyond Words' show in March. One of these things relates to the unspoken. The unknowable, or unacknowledged. Or just the unknown. Perhaps the areas we choose to leave deliberately empty. What we don't say.
Remember?

So I though it might be possible to describe spaces like these by implication. By stealth, or by mapping the territory that surrounds them; thereby defining them. I like the idea that these spaces will be different for different people - and the idea of creating variable experiences is growing on me. Interactivity. Allowing others to build meaning in the work, literally.

I did a bit of hunting and I found an interesting essay here by Nat Case titled 'Art is a Tool, Maps as Pictures'. Nat talks about the intersections between art and modern cartography - 'art' maps and 'mappy' art.

Then I talked to a friend about what making maps meant to him; about his Fine Arts Masters project which was based on map making and which included mapping emotional journeys,instances and interpretations of mapping. We also talked about his latest project in which he's exploring cartographic iconography and typologies within a graphics context as they define national identity, both for New Zealanders'as
individuals and of New Zealand as a global entity.

Here's some understanding I've come to -just some of the early thoughts I've had (that I want to expand on over time) about mapping. My thinking's certainly not comprehensive and it's definitely not based on deep knowledge! But here's the things that I've taken from the little exploration I've done so far.

I think they might make some interesting points that could support a process. I won't say steps - it doesn't seem at all linear to me so I'll bullet them.

• maps define boundaries(in a physical sense, so do supports like canvas or paper,and gallery spaces or viewing points) Metaphysically maps lay out where the edges of things are.(I like that. I need to know where boundaries are.)
• they describe relationships
• maps argue for things
• maps are political
• a map has or has not got a sense of authorship or voice, and it CAN lie
• maps can be functional (some thinking says a map must be functional to be good)
• maps are subjective interpretations which are in turn interpreted subjectively but which attempt to describe information objectively (sometimes)
• an instance can be a map (and so can a sensory experience - mapping to a memory for example)
• maps do not necessarily reside physically in space or time (woa!)
• maps can be wordless,directionless,wayfinding devices,internalised,remembered,
indelibly etched and imagined.
• maps sometimes have keys

What does that mean for a process?
It probably means I'll define elaborate or discard each of the characteristics I've described as being 'map-like' and look for ways to build them into a set of perameters to work within.

I'm thinking initially, there are some obviously simple responses like - use the whole space. Involve the space in the art and the art in the space. Allow the pieces to be built up like fragments in a non linear sense with some element of dimensionality to them - even if the work is still canvas or paper. perhaps it might mean they could be moved about and composed by individuals to narrate their own interpretations of provinces. Allowing multiple perspectives,simultaneous open ended stories.Perhaps with set boundaries like a limited colour palette.

Some thoughts...What could a key be? what about scale?

This looks like fun. Tell me what you think.