Space and Place
My research inquiry requires a critical understanding of the nature of senses and sensory information, an interpretation of what constitutes our sense of a place, and how mapping strategies can shape our ability to capture and represent it.
In order to understand the nature of senses, we must first acknowledge the intricate, dynamic relationship between our senses and how they connect to each other. Tuan [1] brings attention to the “spatiality of the senses”, assigning different roles to each sense in relation to the body and its environment. Further, in Sensuous Geographies, Rodaway [2] emphasises the interconnectedness of the senses to construct the notion of a sensed environment. For example, he suggests that the senses compete and cooperate, work in sequential, hierarchical ways, and often imply a reciprocal relationship to our surroundings. Therefore, an effective representation of a place must leverage the spatiality and interconnectedness of the senses.
Similarly, sensory information is spatial, transient, and affective in nature. This is particularly evident in the case of non- visual senses. For instance, McLean [3] makes a key argument that smells are “eye-invisible”, ephemeral, and fluid; they “rarely linger long enough to be identified quantitatively.” Nonetheless, these transient qualities carry strong affective associations: the “tiniest aromas and sounds can have a profound emotional effect” [4].
What is a place and how do we perceive it?
Traditional cartographic theories rely on a static concept of a place, a “concrete reality” [1] that changes slowly, if at all. However, to account for the transient nature of sensory information, a conceptual expansion is required to encapsulate place as ever-changing “spatio-temporal events” [5]. Multi-sensory approaches to mapping shift our focus from the formal to the sensory aspects of a place and require us to consider “activity, rhythm, and above all, ambience” [6]. Porteous [7] describes this shift in terms of remote versus intimate sensing, with remote sensing seen as “clean, cold, detached”, while intimate sensing is “rich, warm, involved” [8].
This subjective and situated nature of sensory interpretation [9] creates opportunities for introducing humanistic approaches [10] to mapping practices. In my praxis, I recognise the affective qualities of sensory information and aim to adopt a comprehensive approach to mapping strategies that extends beyond the quantifiable.
A departure from conventional cartography
Psychogeography, as led by Guy Debord and the Situationists in the 1960s, provides a theoretical framework for viewing mapping as a humanistic, artist-led practice [11]. Through the lens of dérive, or intentionally drifting through urban environments on foot [11], psychogeography shakes up one’s perception of everyday spaces and finds new meaning within them [12]. This method disrupts our customary patterns of movement, redirecting our attention to the “sights, sounds, smells and other psychogeographic details of a place” s up one’s perception of everyday spaces and finds new meaning within them [12]. These principles serve as a foundation for my inquiry into the experiential and affective dimensions of mapping.
This departure from conventional cartography speaks to my critical stance — one that champions a more nuanced, human-centric representation of places, where the emotional and sensory dimensions are integral to shaping our connections to our surroundings.