I came across Maps of Uncomfortable Boundaries / Atlas of My World by Zarina at the Kochi Biennale. I would like to narrate my immediate set of thoughts, or observations, as a way to argue that maps are not simply representations but also vessels that contain, the visual nature by nature.
I immediately notice the Urdu text on the map. How often have I seen non-English text on India? Or on America, which traps my attention even more. The sheer visual quality of the map, with its obvious focus on the crude line that goes beyond the borders, semiotically represents more in weight and narration than any straight and clean line on a map or a word seemingly can. The handwritten, non-standardised text, also non-anglical text also narrates more.
At the time I was thinking of these things, I had been thinking of the visual design of the Safe Yelli map at the time. It was a standard looking map that had these red dots that would mark a reported incident. To any person who saw the map, they would recognise and/or understand it as an interactive web-map, possibly. But I wonder… should a map that carries so many people’s sharp memories: of trauma, disgust and any of the deceptively complicated feelings that comes with being sexually harassed that I can never fully understand be held, be contained and be shared on a map that by itself carries no visual mass… no understanding.
These days, when I think of what the average individual’s showcase of what a map is, the obvious response would be Google Maps. With its clear, clean, real text and boundaries, it has standardised the perception across the globe (globe? Questionable… at least in India!)
Some attempts
