I grouped with Budd to make a "greeting" map which means we touch shoulder of people passing by and say "hi" or "hello", and every 3 or 5 people we make a turn. This happened around FAC building but we reach as far as Criser hall. This map is dynamic rather than static but with good recording, this map can be totally meaningful on different levels. Through the greeting, we get to know reactions, apprearances, density and even character. So if this map has to be made in a graphic form, it can be a flowing beatiful picture and that's just one of the representations. Dynamic mapping is more complicated than static mapping and one of the issue is how to track the dynamic factors to make the map. Well, I think if we can figure this out, dynamic mapping can be even more powerful. And also, since this mapping gets involved with people, it is even more interesting and worth more investigation.
I followed Jorge's map at the same time. His map is about people density on American Plaza. The map looks good and the percentage marked is like star, which makes the map very enjoyable. Though the real situation changes since "Creshna"(?) left and made the plaza with less people when I got there, the map triggers very strange feelings when you see a whole different situation than the map. Actually, the feelings I got by comparing the map and the real world attrat me A LOT. The psychological gap, the expectation drop, or, just some kind of "disappointment" or even "lonelyness" (with the density reducing) can be a very potential issue about "art mapping". Should we create our rules ( or definitions of our map) and follow the rules to record, to make map? Or should we take advantage of the preassumption of map users that they think we follow the definitions of the map and at the same time give the users something different, "disappointment" or even "astonishment" by giving them a totally opposite map? That can be really interesting for "art mapping".
No comments:
Post a Comment