Corner praises the landschaft as more complete while condemning
the landskip as only picturesque and having no relationship to those who move
through it, but is there a place in the world for the landskip?
How do the concepts of the eidetic, Mitchell’s five families
of image (161), and imaging relate to each other?
Corner repeatedly references the milieu and how mapping as
an exercise can find order in it, but to what end should milieu influence the
making of a map?
Corner asserts that “Extracts are the things that are then
observed within a given milieu and drawn onto the graphic field. We call them
extracts because they are always selected, isolated and pulled out from their
original seamlessness with other things; they are effectively ‘deterritorialized’”(230).
Corner repeatedly uses deterritorialized and
similar terms in the negative connotation. But is there greater value in separating
objects from the milieu to gain clarity or should clarity come from the milieu always
in context?
How does Buckminster Fuller’s map and subsequent rearrangements
of that map of the world help us better understand the geography of the world?
In what instances are Corner’s four mapping techniques unsuited?
In his conclusion Corner suggests new ways of mapping would
be a “means of emancipation and enablement, liberating pheonmena and potential
from the encasements of convention and habit”. Are Corner’s mapping techniques
at this point already?
How could they go further as tools to democratize?
How do we as architects or designers begin to incorporate any
of Corner’s four mapping techniques into a legible site plan?
Many of the maps Corner creates and uses as examples are
abstract (in a different way than we’re used to) and would be difficult to explain
to the general public Corner so wishes to empower with these better maps. Where
then, does the responsibility lie in educating these very people in how to read
these differently abstract maps?
