Kollath Questions:
What has prevented mapping from replacing
tracing as the main form of cartographic expression?
James Corner describes mapping as a cunning
technique used to expose new possibilities and to reveal that which had
previously remained unseen. How might we begin to perfect such a technique? How
can we speed up advancement of this technique? How might we reorganize
information that is already available to us in order to shed light on the
unknown?
Corner states that maps have agency because of
their double-sidedness. What are the two sides and what is their relationship?
Corner writes: “Such fantastic play across the
world’s various surfaces is characterized not only by a fertile heterogeneity
but also by conceptual elements coming loose from their traditional
moorings. The boundaries between
different foundational realities have become so blurred, in fact, that it is practically
impossible in a cyber-world to distinguish between what is information and what
is concrete, what is fact and what is fiction, what is space and what is time.”
(226) Is there a contradiction between this “blurring” and “fertile
heterogeneity”? Why or why not?
Corner states, “The application of judgment,
subjectively constituted, is precisely what makes a map more a project than a
‘mere’ empirical description.” (223) Does this application of a subjective
judgment and apparent lack of empirical value make maps less useful or more
difficult to read?
Duncan Questions:
James Corner describes several different types of
representing world maps such as Bucky Fuller’s Dymaxion World Maps and
Torres-Garcia’s Inverted Map of South America.
Architects and Cartographers often simply orient their maps or plans
with North as up. Do you think there
could be something gained by orienting drawings in different directions to better
understand relationships of site and/or programs? Has this been something you’ve tried in your
design work?
Do certain sites lend themselves to different mapping
operations than others? Is it easier or
more useful to map a specific site using the drift method versus the layering
or game board methods? Would it be a
useful or possible to map a site using each operation Corner lists?
Corner writes about the four instances or operations of
mapping: drift, layering, game-board,
and rhizome, but in his conclusion eludes that there may be more than just
these four operations. Can you think of
a fifth type of mapping that could be useful not yet explored by Corner?
The Highline in New York City, a project led by James Corner
Field Operations, is a good example of the mapping of the city and surrounding
programs directly playing a role into the design and experience of the
project. After the success of the
project do you think mapping is becoming more popular for architects to use as
a design strategy?
On page 239 Corner gives two examples of the layering
operation of mapping. First, he mentions
Koolhaas and Tschumi’s strategy of using layers to indicate future programs on
the site. In contrast Eisenmann uses
layers to create new formal arrangements. Koolhaas is well known for his designs being driven by programmatic relationships. Eisenman is more concerned
with form in his work. How can other
architects use this mapping technique to strengthen their design philosophies?
No comments:
Post a Comment