MFA THESIS :: A Legible Cartography?
by Paul Bruski, MFA, UofM :: May 2005
Abstract
The image of a neighborhood is important to its residents, yet it isn't always easy to define that image, or understand its origins. Can this image be better understood through maps? Interactive maps derived from interviews and personal observations are combines with data obtained from various map sources. The interview maps indicate that some areas have clear landmarks, but in some cases they seem to cut off from the majority of the neighborhood, and that other areas have no landmarks. Observation maps seem to show that personal observation can be a useful tool in revealing the underlying structure of the neighborhood.
Sections
01. Introduction
02. Background
03. The Neighborhood
04. The Project
05. Precedents for the Project
06. Process [Research, Interviews, Personal Observation, Project Design]
07. Public Display and Distribution of Work
08. Conclusions
09. Bibliography
10. Appendices [Influential Projects, Sample of Interview Maps, Observational Maps, DVD]
1 comment:
01. Introduction
A couple of pages in length, it sums up even better than the abstract what the project is about, what format the creative portion takes, and why the differentiation of "location" and "place" is relevant.
02. Background
Paul's personal reasons, motivations, and inspirations for settling on this topic (about 1 page)
03. The Neighborhood
This section, like Louise's MFA on Lake Nokomis, contains the history, the demographics, the geographics, the nitty gritty data. I'm still wondering why this even plays into the ultimate research...does it pretend to infer something about the outcome of the creative project? Does the average age and income affect anything here, and if so, will it be referenced later?
04. The Project
describing the research as learning about the process of mapmaking (traditional and non-traditional), community involvement in mapmaking, interviews with community residents of Dayton's Bluff about their community and direct observation as well as mapmaking practice.
He states that the final product outcome (the creative project portion) was purposely left undefined at this point in embarking on the research. He intended that the project reflect the process. <--Interesting!
06. Process
Initial portion of the project broken into 3 parts; Research, Interviews, an Personal Observation. (my note: aren't all 3 of those actually RESEARCH?)
Project Design:
Paul chose to do an interactive Flash based web site to present a navegable and image-rich version of his collected data .
08. Conclusions
Paul leaves a lot of open-ended questions I think, explaining that some of the endeavors exceed the scope of the thesis, and some of the observed data (like the maps based on quanitifiable instances of flags, fences, and flowers) do not illustrate clear conclusions as to Why or What For?
Was this an issue in not identifying external variables?
Post a Comment