correspondences through a particular diagrammatic graphic device, in which abstraction overcomes iconicity, leads the viewer to infer new knowledge, as space is represented in a subjective way. […] To make maps is to organize oneself, to generate new connections and to be able to transform the material and immaterial conditions in which we find ourselves immersed. It is not the territory but it definitely produces territory” (Mendez de Andes et al., 2006)
Another interesting example of abstract map-making is the cartographic production of Heinrich Bünting, who used to depict the world in a highly symbolical way. In his maps the vision is not given only by a merely spiritual intention, but by personal perspectives in terms of topophilia (‘Love of a place’, Yi-Fu Tuan, 1974): as the symbol of the coat of arms of his beloved city was a cloverleaf, he decided to give this shape to the world, still keeping the city of Jerusalem in the centre of his most famous map (fig. 2). So this abstraction is a kind of tribute to his hometown, Hanover, and a recall of the Christian map-
ping tradition (for the structure and hierarchy given to information). Bünting’s world is represented through his own abstract way, full of personal meanings. On that topic, Abram Moles defined a ‘scale of iconicity’ of representations, going from the object itself, the highest degree on the scale, to the verbal description, the lowest degree. In his description identity is the highest degree of iconicity (Moles, 1981). Analysing those abstract maps it is possible to argue that the shape of the world is not a real bond to its visualization, it can be modelled for many different purposes, according to the story the map wants to tell, to the context in which it is used, to the target of the communication. There is a complex relationship, though, among the real shape of a city and the perceived, experienced or visualized one. Whether abstract or iconographic, in cartography there is no form of superior representation to convey particular messages. It is always up to the mapmaker to face this complexity, to tackle its nodes and its linked elements, to understand which sense to convey, which technique to adopt, by impressing his point of view into the narration, like a book writer with his novel. Once again form follows function. Those observations lead me to an analysis of the role of the subject in map-making: the eyes through which we actually experience cartography. 6