|About the Taxonomy
A taxonomy as a model offered a means of comprehending an otherwise incomprehensible system providing a structure to construct an appropriate framework evolving through praxis, reflection and theory. The concept of a taxonomy here was to give a structure
to the knowledge gained and also revealing and allowing access to territory which could benefit from greater experiment to give an insight to essential mapness characteristics. Chapter 4 puts forth an initial taxonomy, an anchor, which is subsequently refined and focused through practice and experimental trial and error. The concept of a taxonomy was not envisaged as an answer or solution but as a tool to give a structure to the knowledge gained through research praxis and reflection. Helping transport both the theory and practice into the context of research through a previously existing framework enabling a textual map of maps but also revealing and allowing access to territory which could benefit from greater experiment to give an insight to essential mapness characteristics.
Chapter 8 outlines how these projects and my practice reflected on the structure and construction of a taxonomy. It outlines contribution through influences in choices for investigation and the incorporation of these investigations, projects and experiments. Development of emerging structures, changes in focus and gaps affecting sections and subsections of this taxonomy are shown.
It evidences a greater understanding that a textual taxonomy can only present the extent of the vocabulary
of ‘mapness’ and the more that it moves from textual descriptions to visualisation the more insight into the nature of the language of ‘mapness’ is attained.
Drawing on the underlying systems make possible the various visual interpretations to reconstruct ‘mapness’.
Conjoining, connections and independant information can be shown as visual examples but this would be difficult to describe textually. A textual taxonomy can only present the extent of the vocabulary of ‘mapness’ and the more that it moves from textual descriptions to actual visualisations the more insight into the nature of the vocabulary is attained, but it lacks the rules for assemblage. The images designed to be used in a visual taxonomy would need to be produced using a mix of the componants of the ‘mapness’ vocabulary. The process of discovering ‘mapness’ is through the integration of structure and function into meaning and interpretation, through weaving the various attributes and conventions,
a visual construction. Viewing these constructions trigger and release an understanding of the language of ‘mapness’. The attributes and conventions which make a map must be shared by the designer and the viewer. Through language people are able to refer to and think about real objects, abstractions, events and experiences
in both space and time. What is becoming clear is that there is a language of ‘mapness’.