{"id":6533,"date":"2006-03-30T22:10:55","date_gmt":"2006-03-30T22:10:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.earthwidemoth.com\/blog\/2006\/03\/30\/scent-of-maps\/"},"modified":"2006-03-30T22:10:55","modified_gmt":"2006-03-30T22:10:55","slug":"scent-of-maps","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.earthwidemoth.com\/blog\/2006\/03\/30\/scent-of-maps\/","title":{"rendered":"Scent of Maps"},"content":{"rendered":"\u23f3 Approximate reading time: <\/span> 3<\/span> mins<\/span><\/span>

Again and again we’ve read articles by D.R. Fraser Taylor this semester on
\nthe coming revolution of cybercartography (even if that rev. arrived a year ago
\nwith Google Maps and its API). Taylor takes credit for coining "cybercartography"
\nin his 1997 keynote address, "Maps and Mapping in the Information Era" at the
\nICC conference in Sweden. Conceptually, cybercartography relaxes
\ncartography from the constraints of paper; the map-maker and the map-user blend
\ntogether; their products–often dynamic and unconventional–play a range from
\nphysical maps to imaginaries and abstraction (idio-data), often at the computer
\ninterface. The "false objectivity" of physical maps is loosened to the
\nenigmas and wonder. Consequently we have a disturbance of traditional
\ncartography (i.e. the map-maker, his instruments, and ink).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

We’ve read three articles by Taylor and in each of them he has mentioned
\nmultisensory maps. Beyond sight, sound and touch, these maps incorporate
\ntaste and scent. The article we read for Tuesday mentioned
\nOlfacom<\/a>, a company working to devise
\nolfactory devices that "diffuse odors from a changeable cartridge" (Cybercartography:
\nTheory and Practice<\/i> 555). Each time we read about multisensory maps,
\nwe wish for stronger examples. Skepticism piles on, and we’re left with
\nquestions about mapping scent using artificial devices that would–as I sit here
\nin our home office–fill up the room with a squirt of odor corresponding to
\nwhatever it was I was observing on the monitor. Taylor reminds us of
\nmarketing motivations backing much of the experimental research on olfactory
\ntechnologies–from popcorn breezes at Disney to some kind of museum funk (check
\ndusty, petrified relics and their rankness).<\/p>\n

I want to give this idea a chance, far-fetched as it at first seems.
\nMulti-sensory maps–including taste and smell; would we reject them before
\nthey’ve materialized? My first objection is that I don’t particularly care
\nfor the artificial scents. Perfume stores, wretched; incense the same.
\nBut we also read an essay this week on public map displays which got me thinking
\nabout shared map interfaces. Granted, the examples in the article were
\nretrograde: lobbies filled up with aging monitors used to display variously
\nscaled weather data for passers-by. But let’s adapt the logic of the
\ncarpet in the
\nSacramento Airport<\/a> (via<\/a>)
\nto this problem. Someone correct me if the rug is more of an aerial or
\northophoto rather than a map; it’s carpet. Now suppose we have a
\nfoyer–the entryspace to a hundred-acre flower garden carpeted in kind, showing
\na map of the grounds, paths, and foliage. The room still smells like new
\ncarpet, right? What if we add fresh cuttings from each of the zones of the
\ngarden and, well, we have something that approximates an olfactory map only with
\nnatural rather than artificial scent. Representative of the grounds, a legend of
\nodors. But has it lost its "cyber"? Well, not necessarily, considering
\nthat Taylor ties cybercartography definitionally to cybernetics as much as to
\nthe computer. I like it much better than having an Olfacom gizmo next to
\nmy desktop peripherals hitting me with a shot of fabricated scent.<\/p>\n

I’m tempted to run ahead with this, wrapping it back to taste–even
\nsuggesting a showcase of the Syracuse Hunger Project<\/a> (a local human geography
\nprogram at SU) where, in addition to mapping hunger in Onondaga Country, the
\nshowcase would promise a "taste of Syracuse" (as promoted, on fliers) only to
\nserve nada to the attendees. To what effect? I suppose this is somewhat
\nunruly, but it gets at the merger of multisensory experience and map
\ndisplays–particularly public map displays. <\/p>\n

Here are a few of the other catches in class–productive though they were:<\/p>\n