There is a dichotomy in the cartography profession. On the one hand it is a discipline with standards for all sorts of things ranging from the use of color to typography to what gets included on a map. On the other hand cartography is also an art and as such must embody the enthusiasm of artistic work in bucking convention and dealing with the particularities at hand by innovative means.
Sometimes we have cartographers who are firmly stuck in the slow and dismal state of “standards only” output and sometimes we have those who are revolving in their own alien world of mapping for aesthetic purpose and not for any utilitarian purpose. Most of us (sigh of relief) would put ourselves somewhere between the two extremes.
I wonder if, as we progress through our respective careers, which extreme we will tend to drift toward? Or maybe stay somewhere right in the middle? I’m a little bit toward the aesthetic side of things but not too much.
I still am fairly certain my next map will include some kind of blue hue for the water, it probably won’t have more than two typefaces, I’ll italicize stream names, I’ll use brown for contours. But I am also quite convinced that my next map will not have a logo on it anywhere, will utilize fashionable colors within those restraints mentioned, and will have the most simplistic, non-jargon, descriptive title possible.
How about you?
Recent Comments