Week 2: Barton & Barton, Schriver

1. “The hierarchization of space” is one of “the representational strategies used to legitimate dominate interests” (Barton). It is important to define what he meant by “space” in terms of the ideology of the map: centering, placement on top, and order. It seems that in modern times, space is utilized to create aesthetics and a hierarchy; not meaning to legitimate dominate interests, but overall organization and usability/comprehension. In the Schriver article, all of the brochures are considered visually boring and they abide by the centering, placement on top and order conventions observed on the map. More so, the students were astute enough to realize that even as the intended audience, they were in most cases seen as the “Others.”

2. The hegemonic process plays a dual role in attempting to maintain the dominant elements within a culture – this dual role is best seen through the rules of inclusion and the rules of exclusion. I view this as a symbiotic relationship; one cannot exist without the other. The visual representation of the nonhegemonic groups are seemingly nonexistent as they are absent from “organization charts” and from “maps” as Harley states. In an effort to be in tuned with “the otherness of the Other,” it in effect excludes the hegemony that was once represented. If this in fact occurs, although Mathes and Stevenson can be admired for their “egocentric organization chart,” which “adopts the perspective of the traditionally disempowered,” it must be asked, is this in itself a form of “exploitative domination?” Shifting perspective does not undermine the ideology. The dissimulative nature will always exist. The only benefit to a more inclusionary visual design practice is that it decentralizes the cultural domination and opens it to different perspectives.

3. Peter’s certainly sticks his neck out with such a bold claim that a map “entirely free of any ideology” could possibly exist. I only point this out as a means of reflection: someone actually thinks that this is possible. Clearly, there is disconnect in regards to how maps (or I suppose you could extend it to any representation of information) visually display information. Tufte is clearly an advocate of maps in regards to their ability to display numerous bits of information in such a limited area, but cares nothing about the ideology of the visuals; he rather provide textual messages for the viewer that instruct him/her how to interpret the information instead of having a visuals serve as “objective” artifacts (Did you notice how Schriver employs Tufte's practice of placing references and notes alongside the relevant course material? It did make a difference!). There is no way to produce an object that is free from ideology, just as we can presume there is no way to create an “objective” artifact. So, is the “difficult unity of inclusion” even a possibility?