All of the Pecha Kucha presentations on November 7 were well delivered and the feedback was marvelous and highly constructive, but for a week now I have struggled with the difficult task of making a choice, of narrowing down my project so that my map will be able to sustain a solid argument. My largest “problem” was selecting an argument that would lend itself to spatial representation, more specifically, an interesting form of spatial representation.
While I do like the idea of the more symbolic, metaphorical readings surrounding the contemplation of Manhattan’s morphing edge, I feel that this topic is better suited as a side-bar focus, something mentioned, and perhaps woven throughout the data points on the map (ideally as a shaped connection between points) rather than the map’s main purpose. For the most part my research is complete, however, I would like to gather a little more information surrounding the pre-standardized- cargo-box dispersal of goods into lower Manhattan. As I have stated before, I want my map to show the types of goods that arrived and the directions they took once unloaded. Color and line will be key in the mapping of paths: the lines will be colored, each color corresponding to the type of good dispersed. In order to best express these paths, I must have solid, trustworthy data. In the next ten days or so, I plan to finish the collection/sorting of raw data and to begin the task of ordering and arranging the various points on a physical, printed map and then apply the ‘final’ result to a URT setting.
Great, Andrea. I think you’ve made a wise decision: to use the map to represent the concrete stuff, and to weave your more metaphorical, poetic interests throughout the project via captions on data points, arguments, the introduction and conclusion, etc. It’s always difficult to arrive at such decisions — because they inevitably mean bracketing or “side-lining” things that are near and dear to you — but it’s almost always liberating when those decisions are made!