| Note: If you see this text you use a browser which does not support usual Web-standards. Therefore the design of Media Art Net will not display correctly. Contents are nevertheless provided. For greatest possible comfort and full functionality you should use one of the recommended browsers. |
Software construction: Note#6 March 99 (Content totalitarianism continued)
Software should work in series, no binary choices. The difference between two and three is as large as the difference between the map and the experience the city. Lets make absolutely sure we do not waste pixels. Interface = the least effective difference.
The apparent confidence I feel, when looking at a map points toward a graphic illusion of our experienced urban space. It is so compelling over and above its use as a method of knowing where I was where I will be where I'm going. It is also obvious that maps present only one possible version of the earth's surface, a fiction constructed from factual observation derived from Descartes origin. This fiction maps itself onto the cities exterior the city image as a mediated concept, the city as seen from elsewhere. Out of the put-put and walking down to[3] Sarai, 29 Rajpur Road, Delhi, India, I realise the cab driver could not read the map! I could have been showing him an engineering drawing of the Boeing 747 - he does not care. This city is navigated by asking the way. The map is in the
exchange between people finding their way and recognising places. «That's where I got married - That's were the riot took place - That's where I lost my virginity - That's Delhi Gate where the British re-took the city.»
The modern map presupposes a certain worldview, a specific visual geography that takes a kind of birds' eye view. The map is a scale drawing not an exact reproduction. It is a symbolic representation by an agreed set of symbols figures, lines and shading. Software also presupposes the user to have a certain
