1.) Referring to the two examples he provides at the beginning of the reading Tuft claims “comparisons are more effective when information is adjacent in space rather that stacked in time.” (pg. 81) Describe the differences between Dega’s Cheval a l arret “adjacent” comparison and Humphrey Repton’s Observations on the Theory and Practice and Landscape Gardening “stacked” comparison.
In your opinion, which is a more effective comparison? Why or Why not?
2.) Tufte describes Peter Apian’s Cosmographicus liber as being “utterly flat and without dynamics, treating the sun, earth and moon as fixed cardboard cutouts rather than as three-dimensional objects moving in space” (pg. 86) Also claiming that “if the earth were represented as a cube it could cast the shadows shown in the scenes above” (pg. 86)
In your opinion, would this change make the diagram a more effective tool at proving the earth is indeed round? Why or Why not?
3.) Tufte describes Robert Winter’s CD Companion: Ludwig van Beethoven, Symphony No. 9 as a “synchronized parallelism between the silent visual explanation on the screen combined with the sound of the music” (pg. 88)
What are some other examples that use technology to create similar synchronized parallelism (not exclusively between the visual and musical)?
4.) When describing the cyclogram of Cosmonaut Georgi Grechko (pg. 92-95), Tufte fails to tell us the benefits the cosmonauts may have gained from these parallel methods of representing time.
What, if any, do you think these benefits could have been? Why bother if it was filled with “witless ploys that did not help much” (pg. 93)
5.) Tufte describes “faulty parallelisms” citing Humphrey Repton’s Designs for the Pavillion at Brighton where Tufte claims that Repton shows “substantial embellishments quite beyond the scope of architectural work.” (pg. 102)
As architects we may on occasion contribute to these faulty parallelisms through our representations. What are the benefits/drawbacks to this in the professional environment?