Is it a Map? The Map / Not Map Question

Authors

  • Mark Denil sui generis

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14714/CP104.1879

Abstract

This paper is an evaluation of the issues raised in my own “Making Explicit What has Been Implicit: A Call for a Conceptual Theory of Cartography,” and Matthew Edney’s “Making Explicit the Implicit, Idealized Understanding of ‘Map’ and ‘Cartography’: An Anti-Universalist Response to Mark Denil” (both published in Cartographic Perspectives 98, 2022).

In the first of these articles I make some proposals about how to go about investigating how a map reader decides that a given artifact is a map, and what that decision means for the user’s relationship with the artifact. In the second, Edney vigorously rejects my argument as, variously: irrelevant, reactionary, subversive, pernicious, obvious, and trite.

What are Edney and I arguing about? Does the map / not map question I raise even exist and, if so, does it matter? Is Edney correct in dismissing it, and are his reasons for dismissing it valid?

This paper examines some of the salient points raised in the Denil / Edney controversy, with an eye to the pragmatic, real-world ramifications of each writer’s positions.

Downloads

Published

2024-12-09

How to Cite

Denil, M. (2024). Is it a Map? The Map / Not Map Question. Cartographic Perspectives, (104), 42–64. https://doi.org/10.14714/CP104.1879

Issue

Section

Peer-Reviewed Articles