My project explores the politics of Emotional Cartography (Nold, 2009), an emerging concept and methodology at the crossroads of science, technology, art, theory, and practice. Drawing upon critical theory and space (Gren & Soja, 2006), mapping as Action-Research (Saija & Pappalardo, 2018) and reflective practice (Schon, 1984), it goes beyond georeferencing emotional states in a certain geographic area, even quitting the topos (Casti, 2015).
What is the role of subjectivity and “emotions” in place-making?
How the “emotions” are being represented – understood, sensed and mapped?
How do emotional cartographies/mapping work to investigate and negotiate heritage?
Such cartography is thus about emotions in its broadest sense – senses, experiences, perceptions, attachments, memories, identities, lieux de mémoire, deliberate landscape narratives (Spirn, 2013). It is a form of imagination and co-creation of territory by multiple, collective, views – miradas territoriales (Wood, 1992). Building on Emotional Geography (Bondi, 2005), I rethink Emotional Cartography as an allegory in terms of (non)representation, storytelling, and semantics, both (carto)graphic and cognitive. By looking at mapping practices and meanings, emotional, cultural and social, spatial, and digital, it traces mapping approaches to spaces and memories, its invisible layers, patina and strata, the use of spatial analogies to memory, geographic metaphors of memory – memory as layers or strata.
Drawing on the dataset – “the Corpus of Emotional Cartographies”, I reflect on the “State of Practice” of Emotional Cartographies in Europe:
1) Mapping as process: cartographic “modes” and “discourses”, methods, techniques, milieu;
2) (Carto)graphic Representation and Visualization, map design, the intersection of emotions and maps; non-representation or beyond the representation;
3) the Meaning of maps and Communication;
4) Lexical and cognitive semantics of the terms and conceptions (listed in “Emotional Mapping Lexicon”).
Ultimately, by sensing space and mapping the spatial politics of emotions, through ethnographic methods such as walking methodologies (Truman & Springgay, 2018; Pierce & Lawhon, 2015; Wylie, 2005), Emotional Mapping has been tested as a tool for reflective (spatial) thinking in heritage, like participation (Quintero Morón & Sánchez Carretero, 2017), as a part of a deeper understanding of mapping as a practice, research method, and metaphor – not only visual, but also spatial, conceptual and cognitive. In line with reflective approach to heritage (Waterton & Watson, 2013; Winter, 2013; Witcomb & Buckley, 2013), relying on sensory and collaborative ethnographic techniques for sensing emotions and (co)creating maps with multi-layered stories̕ (Wood, 2012), I argue for the integration of “emotional” spatial narratives towards the negotiation of place, power, patrimonialization processes and heritage practices.
Filter by keyword