On the other hand, while reading this essay I could not avoid thinking of Nelson’s essay “The Map of Art History.” In his essay, Nelson questions the relation between the mapping of Art History and, probably, the same systems of power that are performed on/with cartography.
In either way, as Harley declares in his essay, “deconstruction urges us to read between the lines of the map (…) to discover the silences and contradictions that challenge the apparent honesty of the image.” This projection is also controversial do to the enlargement of certain continents however, it is believed to be more precise than the previous one. In any case, there are also other representations as the Gall-Peters projection which is supposed to depict the correct size of all the mapping areas, Nevertheless, their “relevance” in certain socio-political contexts (where the “exercise of power” is implemented) might have affected their cartographic representation throughout history. For instance, Africa and South America are supposed to be “larger” in proportion to other countries or continents. Nevertheless, when I grew up, I start listening how the dimensions and proportions of certain countries (or continents) in relation to others were not as accurate as they should be.
As Harley assures, “maps, like art, far from being ‘a transparent opening to the world,’ are but ‘a particular human way of looking at the world’.” For example, this is how I have always conceived the map of the world, at least while I was in school,Īs you can see, Europe is located on the center of the image (Eurocentric perspective). Therefore, “cartographic facts” are also a matter of perspective. As Foucault suggests, there is power (or authority) “in all knowledge,” even the one encoded in maps. For instance, Foucault’s notion of “maps as a form of power-knowledge.” Indeed, when making a map, there is a process of selection and omission, classification and simplification, and, above all, hierarchical systems are created. In Harley’s words, we are still “the prisoners of our own past,” and “we should encourage an epistemological shift in the way we interpret the nature of cartography.” In his essay, Harley adopts Derrida and Foucault’s discourse to make his point. In other words, we need to “deconstruct” certain notions which have historically been taken for granted in order to construct again. Harley’s essay suggests that “if the history of cartography is to grow as an interdisciplinary subject among the humanities and social sciences, new ideas are essential.” But what are those “new ideas” related to? Certainly, those new ideas are connected to new interpretations of what it has traditionally been interpreted by cartography.
0 kommentar(er)
