Mapping the Croatian Coast

some are very precise in dimension and measurement, others show
the atmosphere and environment, while some deal with data and a
complex set of information.
A diagram, a plan or a map are some of the visual vocabulary tools
that architects use in a design/research process. The plan is a
representation of a design or a proposal, it is a projection of a threedimensional
space, drawn in different scales, showing precise, detailed
information. The plan, like the map, requires (technical) skills in
drawing and reading. Another type of drawing is the “diagram”, which
exists across disciplines to compress and reduce information into
a comprehensible visual format. It is an abstract, illustrative figure
used to describe a scheme, a statement, a definition, a process, or an
action, free from representational and typological restrictions. It is a
translation of data into visual communication, without the connection
to its geographical surface.
[1]
Ray Lucas, Research
Methods for Architecture
(London: Laurence King
Publishing, 2016), 183.
[2]
Gilles Deleuze and Félix
Guattari, A Thousand
Plateaus: Capitalism and
Schizophrenia (Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota
Press, 1987), 12.
[3]
James Corner, “The Agency
of Mapping: Speculation,
Critique and Invention,”
in Mappings, ed. Denis
Cosgrove (London: Reaction
Books, 1999), 214.
And as for a definition of “maps”, matters get complicated. Maps
remind us of the complexity of representing the world and its surface.
There are multiple representations, depicting various realities. Maps
are often easily mistaken for objective descriptions of geographical
conditions, they are taken to be “true” and objective, as a measurement
of the world. But maps are highly artificial, abstract and never
objective. There is always an author (architect, geographer, planner, …)
who has selected, isolated and codified the space for certain reasons.
When we talk about mapping as a research method, this is not about
the “pure” topographical map – the process of mapping is much more
than describing surface. James Corner, in his essay “The Agency of
Mapping: Speculation, Critique and Invention”, describes the purpose
and potential of mapping as a creative tool for a better understanding
of spaces, cultures, and societies. Its opposite would be the traditional
function of “tracing” geographies, tracing simply reproduces what
is already known. In A Thousand Plateaus, Deleuze states: “What
distinguishes the map from the tracing is that it is entirely oriented
toward an experimentation in contact with the real.”[2] According to
Corner, our concept of space is formed by our participation with our
surroundings. In this sense, mapping creates complex relationships
to be visualised not only as a territorial but also as a sociocultural
representation. So, is mapping a cultural intervention?
Maps describe characteristics of a particular territory (routes, built
structures, land classification, …) but when we talk about mapping as
a research method, the quality of the map should never lose its spatial
qualities and human interactions. Furthermore, the map can also show
a narrative or indicate change and transformation. Maps can show
unseen and often immaterial areas. Corner describes these as various
127