Question: Have the roles that art and science play in the creation of cartographic products shifted in recent years and over new media types?
In many ways, this is a silly debate that is predicated on a number of problematically subjective concepts. First among these concepts is a set of perceived definitions of broad terms. “Art”, for example, is a vague word, referring to anything from evil magic (Dark Arts) and military strategy (The Art of War) to food preparation (Culinary Arts) and walking while playing a saxophone (Marching Arts). “Science” is similarly difficult to pin down, and indeed can be taken to mean the same thing as “Art”. (OED definition I1 for Art: “Skill in doing something, esp. as the result of knowledge or practice.” OED definition 2b for Science: “Trained Skill.”) When considering pursuits in “computer science” and “web cartography” with respect to “art” and “science,” the definitions blur even more. After all, web cartography cannot exist without the science behind the web, right? And what on earth does “web cartography” really mean?
To clear up my opinions on this debate, I offer the following (admittedly idiosyncratic) definitions, each defined solely in the context of the field of cartography.
Art. The human element of cartographic production. Art enables the creation of maps with a personal, emotional, unique and (to varying degrees) unpredictable lens on the world. The implementation of art in cartographic production results directly in the subjective aesthetic appeal of the resulting image—and, by extension, the viewer’s impressions of the space it depicts. While artistic application in cartographic production may rely on some level of repetition or iteration, it does not blindly rely on templates or presets. “Artistic” maps may be influenced by “fine art” (which is increasingly conflated with and/or compressed into the technology-driven field of 20th century graphic design). Examples of maps that are likely to be influenced by art include one-off manuscript maps, cognitive and mental maps, psychogeographical maps, maps of emotional landscapes, &c.
Science. The mechanical element in cartographic production. Science enables the mass production of maps in all non-handmade media. Science in cartography refers to the technology behind the pen a cartographer uses, as well as his software, hardware and all of the formulas and algorithms that reside therein. Science drives the modern notion of “push-button cartography”. Humans cannot draw or walk in a straight line; the science in cartography “fixes” this (through simplification and generalization algorithms) and gives us the impression that we can and have walked routes straight as a (carbon-fiber) arrow. Examples of maps with high potential to be influenced by science include classed choropleth maps, maps based on remotely sensed data, maps of algorithmically interpolated data, &c.
Web Cartography. Any spatial representation existing on—and intended in some way for—the Web. The largest subset of maps which this definition excludes can be found in digital archives of analog maps, as they were not originally intended for the Web. Web cartography runs the gamut from custom and canned locator maps (and bizarre combinations thereof) to mapping platforms offered up by multi-billion dollar corporations and federal agency geoportals. While the concept of web cartography is often accompanied by images of animated and interactive maps, these are but a subset of all maps served up in this medium.
Spark. This debate (at least recently and insularly) was sparked by my somewhat pessimistic view of art and science as they relate to web cartography. I illustrated this view in a series of deliberately cryptic paper-bag style Venn diagrams, which I posted yesterday. My intention when creating these images was to offer a visual editorial on the way science (or, really, digital technology) has boxed out the ability for would-be cartographers to be truly artistic in the process of map-making for the web. The first diagram showed “hacks” overlapping with “science” and left “art” next to (but not overlapping) either; thus implying that “art” is still in the room, but slightly out of reach. To give this diagram a bit of context, I created another, where I showed the location of manuscript, print and web cartography on sets of two overlapping spheres of “art” and “science”. In this series, manuscript cartography resides near the center of “art” and on the edge of “science”; print cartography includes equal parts of “art” and “science”; and web cartography resides near the heart of “science” and on the edge of “art”. To clarify this standpoint for Venn-diagram-purists, I created a third version, where a circle of “cartography” is added to the mix.
After creating these diagrams and sorting through some much-appreciated feedback, I created yet another Venn diagram (above). In this version, it is not the influence of art or science on cartography that is changing; it is the natures of art, science and cartography that change from medium to medium. I have also removed the thick lines that bounded these three concepts, hinting at the lack of concrete definitions for each.
Before you dismiss this as a cop-out, consider the following: this entire debate is predicated on the assumption that cartography (in some form and at some time) was located at the intersection of art and science. But no matter what form or in what era, this assertion is problematic because there may be no such singular place. If it does exist, what does this intersection of art and science look like? Is it a fork in the road? Is there a blinking yellow light (White 2011)? To base a debate on a place and space that may or may not exist, and that is somewhat difficult to imagine (at least for me), makes the entire debate–if you’ll pardon the euphemism—pointlessly academic.
Opinion. I suggest that if we can agree that cartography existed at an intersection of art and science at some point, it may well still be “there” (or at least in the neighborhood). What has changed are the ways in which art and science are being employed in the creation of cartographic products. Therein lies the source of my frustration. As I mentioned in a reply to Daniel Huffman’s comments on the original Venn diagrams, it is clear that “artistic decisions” can be made quite easily while creating a map for the Web. (How much should I generalize this line? What colors should I use for this polygon? What typeface should I use for these water features?) But in other forms of cartography, the actions that follow these decisions are also artistic—hand v. algorithmic generalization, personal v. “brewed” color choices, hand-lettering v. selecting a preset font. In web cartography, the process is often complete when the initial decision is made.
Not to put too fine a point on it, in closing, I offer a final comparison. Imagine for a moment the analog art of painting a line. The paint colors are determined by the ingredients the artist mixed, the width of the line is relative to the artist’s brush and the amount of pressure exerted upon it, and the route the line takes is an artistic representation of a cognized concept of “line” (which, as mentioned above, will certainly not be perfectly straight). In the digital version of this scenario, the process of drawing a line has been distilled to a set of decisions based on software presets (digital brush, stroke weight, color, transparency, &c.), all accomplished with the click of a mouse. The choices made within these presets can certainly be “artistic”, but we have to admit that some of the “art” that was fundamental in the first scenario is unattainable in the second.
If the science behind the software we use makes these artistic choices possible, is the implementation of the choices more science than art? This is a difficult question to answer, and in the end, it may not be worth answering. Because ultimately, I believe that the intersections (as well as extent and influence) between of art, science and cartography are constantly changing. Perhaps the GeoWeb and new design tools will allow web cartography to move forward in increasingly artistic and personal ways. Or perhaps, we can bring more art back into the mix by refuting black-box, whizzbang tools and returning to manual techniques. Either way, I am not claiming that the art in cartography is “dead” (I’m not that inflammatory, nor do I believe it to be true). I am simply voicing my frustration with the amount of science masquerading as art in cartography.
Call. There it is, my opinion on the state of art in web cartography. And it is only that: an opinion. So, I call on anyone who happens to read this who has an opinion on the matter to write a response. If you have a blog, post it up. Or feel free to submit a comment to this post. Either way, I would love to hear from everyone who has thoughts on this. Heck, make your own Venn diagram or some other visualization.
————
Written responses: Andy Woodruff, Daniel Huffman, Daniel Reynolds. (thanks, guys!)
Venn diagrammatic responses: Tom Auer, Rob Roth. (thanks, guys!)
Stay tuned: I have also received some interest from Zach Johnson and Rich Donohue. I will post up links to their responses as they roll in.
Further reading: Cartographic Perspectives 53, special issue on Art and Cartography.
A bit of context (some recent thoughts via Bostonography): Boston’s Sketchy Appeal, Boston’s Designed Locations
Wondering if you’re familiar with my blog, which addressed this supposed intersection early on. See also in particular my 2006 paper from the AAG: http://www.hedbergmaps.com/assets/documents/nat/AAG06.pdf
Also see J.B. Krygier’s article on the subject at http://go.owu.edu/~jbkrygie/krygier_html/art_sci.html
ALso see the provocative spring 2003 issue of Cartographic Perspectives: http://www.nacis.org/documents_upload/cp45spring2003.pdf
I think my central take-away from all that, is that “art” (e.g. fine art) as a field of inquiry, necessarily does not intersect with “cartography” as a field of inquiry. The first, in its classical invocation, denies “usefulness,” whereas cartography is all about creating useful tools.
While it is tempting to call the human-mechanical aspects of cartography “art” and “science,” this is misleading. Both of these fields (can we call them fields?) has a fundamental, ideological heart. For fine art, it is the expression of the human spirit or a greater-than-human spirit, an attempt to reach the ineffable through the effable materials of creation. For science, it is the cycle of hypothesis, repeatable experiment, and evidence.
While there are elements of all of these, cartography as a field—and I’m not equating “cartography” with “mapmaking”, because anyone can make a map of any material, and there IS a broad consensus amongst professional map makers and organizations of at least the outlines of judgement of quality—does not put these values front and center. Maps may be arguments, but they are not hypotheses (despite what Denis Wood tries to argue). They are grounded in a culturally agreed-upon basis of geographical fact: while we may disagree how to present a thing or quality that is here and not there, in order to make a “good” map we agree that that thing or quality should be self-evident or measurable. “Bad mapping” includes making stuff up.
Is this science? kind of, but more in the old sense of descriptive Natural History, which is different from the must-be-quantified ideology of more recent science. It has a culture to it, and admits to that culture.
As to the argument towards a human interaction: why must this be “Art”? That is such a loaded term, and there are all the rest of the Humanities to pick on… why not “literature” or “craft” or “human touch”? It’s not that this quality is unneeded or outdated, but that the notion that if it’s visual and clearly made by a person, it must be art.
One of the results of thinking of the human touch as “art,” it seems to me, is the kind of faux-humanised mapping: faux-antique, faux-childish, faux-textured. It’s a veneer, not a real exploration of what it means to make a map as a child or a copper-engraver or a printer on parchment. It cheapens the real understanding that comes through research, maybe through trying to make a map in someone else’s shoes. And in the end it’s a little disrespectful of the lost times those actual old maps came out of, and of the enormous work that often went into making them.
Sorry to ramble so long, but this post struck a nerve. I hope I have not offended, too much…
Thanks so much for sharing all of this, Nat. It’s great to have the perspective of someone who has thought through this issue on such a grand scale (well beyond that of a hasty blog post). I believe that much of the debate (as was my intention) has been focused on web-based maps (some of which are computer-generated). This specific type of map has yet to receive the same kind of scrutiny in the art/science debate as some other types of maps. Hopefully this will change over time, starting with a session at NACIS in Madison!
[...] Wallace: “Web Cartography in Relation to Art & Science“ Tim Wallace: “On Art & Science in Web Cartography“ Andy Woodruff: “Apart from being dead, Art and Science are strong in web [...]
[...] discussions going on in the cartography branch among UW Madison geography folks. Start with the post by Tim Wallace (where the above Venn came from). Then read the responses of Andy Woodruff and Daniel Huffman. [...]
Very interesting discussion. As a cartographer I struggle with the concept of art & science as well though I often find it an apt description of what can be a difficult to describe profession.
I tend to view this more as a phrase not to be parsed out than a recipe for what makes me a cartographer. I am not some fixed portion artist or scientist, but when I work as a cartographer I employ degrees of each and that may vary by the work or even my mood. The process is melded in my view. The ‘art’ in art & science describes the human factor but is not to be equated with ‘fine art’. I don’t think that was ever the link that phrase attempted to make. I would regard it closer to ‘craft’ in it’s implication. I’m not sure if there is a real distinction between craft and art here. I did hear an interesting quote on NPR recently about the distinction between craft and profession regarding photo journalism, “Journalism is not a profession. It’s a craft. So you don’t need any training to become one” (Greg Marinovich). Could the same be said about cartography? Maybe, although I think probably not and that may be why we adhere to the phrase as whole to describe what we do.
I agree, David. If cartography is a mix of art and science, the portions of each are never fixed. That is at least partly what makes this discussion fun. For different maps, different media and different cartographers, any level of art of science can be argued.