Questions of Method Positivist cartography uses a series of operative concepts to define its object of interest and its framework for operation. As a counter to the hegemony of the positivist model, and to open up new cartographic fields, contemporary critical cartography needs to develop its own operative concepts, its own taxonomies and its own interpretative frameworks. The following pages present a series of concepts that let us talk about maps from a critical perspective. The concepts in this eidetic atlas are not organized according to a tree structure, but rather as a constellation, as we asserted above. A classic tree structure implies, on the one hand, an overall coherence (mutual reducibility among the concepts, comparability) and, on the other hand, a hierarchical order (leaves break off from stems, stems from branches, branches from the trunk). A constellation however – in the cosmic sense, or as Joan Miró describes it – is made up of isolated points, which are connected to one another by a specific and mutable narrative. In a constellation, there are no fixed hierarchical relationships between concepts, nor are there presupposed coherences that overdetermine the conceptual sphere. Rather, there are poles of attraction and repulsion that generate a dynamic interpretative framework – each new point of intensity can realign and reconfigure the others. A constellation is radically open, and it is an attempt at articulated thought free from the crutch of a systemic classificatory structure made up of mutually exclusive elements. On a methodological level, these maps were chosen without chronological or geographic limitations. However, this section avoids specifically architectural examples, since those will appear in the final chapter. The goal here is to draw from the history of cartography at large, to talk about overarching questions that are not necessarily tied to a certain period in a time, a specific space, or a particular approach to mapping. The format of the diptych helps us to establish relationships between the two component parts. Each of the diptychs aims to highlight similarities between the two maps. In that sense, the greater the difference between the maps being compared, the more evident what ties them together. It is worth noting that the goal of this chapter is, above all, to expand our cartographic imaginary by establishing principles of cartoliteracy – a certain map culture that is not solely based on historical categories, thematic classifications or chronological relationships, but rather on the maps themselves and their nature as rich and open documents. The eidetic atlas that follows works in two simultaneous directions: interpretation and projection. First, it aims to construct a certain cartographic imaginary based on images
__123