|
This essay is part
of my coursework on the MA in Fine Art I took between 2001-2003
at Cardiff School of Art.
A reading of
Simon Patterson's piece The Great Bear
Introduction
This essay will
look at the development of the map of the London Underground to
the point where it was used in the piece of work by Simon Patterson,
The Great Bear. Focusing on these examples, it will look at the
different ways in which maps and art are used to interpret the world.
This will include the myths of maps, signs and codes, allegory and
'death of the author'.
Development
of London Underground Map
The London Underground
Map as we know it today was developed by Harry Beck in the 1933.
Beck was an electrical draughtsman, and based his map on circuit
diagrams. The map is a topological diagram of the 275 stations and
400 kilometers of tracks which make up the London Underground. It
uses coloured lines, either horizontal, vertical or at angles of
45 degrees, together with circles and coloured 'ticks' for stations.
The tube lines are various in colour - relating to the different
companies which in the past ran the different lines.
The map is reproduced
over 60 million times each year by companies other than London Transport.
This, together with the with 3 million journeys made each day on
the underground, make the map one of the most well known pieces
of graphic design of the 20th century.
The map successfully
solved the problem of representing the 'geographical bunching' of
the stations - that is, that the great majority of stations were
centrally placed on the map if produced geographically correctly.
The lines which extended to the periphery of London would cause
the dense information for the central London area to be unreadable
if produced at a reasonable size for carrying around. Up until 1961,
for example, the Metropolitan and District line ran all the way
to Aylesbury. The way Beck solved this problem was by jettisoning
the geographical information, but keeping the relational information.
The map nicely illustrates how maps are about relationships between
things.
The map was
originally rejected by the publicity board of London Underground
in 1931 because it appeared too revolutionary. In the first maps
of the London Underground, surface geographical features were included.
These were gradually dropped as superfluous, the only feature kept
being the river, which enables users to see some relationship between
the 'real life' geography and the station positions. The map can
still confuse tourists who expect there to be a geographical content
to the map, as Bill Bryson notes in his book Notes From a Small
Island, someone travelling from Bank Station to Mansion House could
either 'take a Central Line train to Liverpool Street, change to
a Circle Line train heading east and travel five more stops', or
just walk 200 feet up the road.
Simon Pattersons
The Great Bear, 1992
The Great Bear
takes the London Underground tube map and replaces the station names
with names of famous cultural figures throughout history, through
to the end of the 20th century.
Patterson chose
the tube map for its accessibility - the tube map is a well known
and loved London icon, and as such is accessible to those who would
not necessarily be accustomed to looking at artworks.
'…the Underground
Map is recognisable, although it is an abstraction that seems representative
of place; people who are not interested in art might like it, because
it is comfortable.' 1
Originally his
plan was to produce it as a poster and give it out for free, but
London Underground prevented this on the basis that this would be
too confusing for the public. When he finally gained permission
to use the map, he had to produce it as a limited edition print,
although it is now available as a poster.
The Great Bear
brings together layers of information and obfuscation, working as
a map in that it enables the viewer to locate themselves in relationship
to other 'things', but in this case the relationship is not with
underground stations but with cultural icons.
The three main
layers of information are:
- the immediate
icon of the London Underground map, a map which enables one to locate
oneself in relationship to the tube system, it includes the key
to the different coloured lines etc
- substituted
station names, of the philosophers etc, which allows one to locate
oneself in relation to philosophers, film stars etc - this enables
one to place both oneself and the artwork within a cultural context
and a time period (late 20th century / early 21st century). This
'layer' of information points at another one - the question of what
system has been used to choose a particular type of figurehead for
a particular line, and a particular name for a particular station.
- the title
'The Great Bear' brings in another layer of meaning, that of star
constellations, and with that, the myths which go along with the
name of The Great Bear constellation. These myths are only extant
in the work if the viewer knows them: the work changes depending
on who reads it.
The Myths
of Maps
Myth
Barthes describes myth as a mode of signification (not a concept,
or an idea, or an object), but one on a more complex level than
a 'simple' sign. A myth occurs when a signifier (in this instance
ink on a page) comes together with a signified (the concept of the
London Underground network) to make a sign, that is, the London
Underground Map, and the sign then goes on to act once again as
a signifier, in this case the idea of an easy to use transport network,
also an easily navigable city. It is this last part which is the
myth, in other words a second order signification, an idea that
there is another layer of meaning to the sign, frequently an ideology.
The Patterson
map, however, both maintains and parodies the myth from the London
Underground Map, disrupting it and adding new layers of meaning
to it. The key is absent, the station names are absent, you can
no longer use the map as an aid to navigation around London. Most
people viewing Pattersons map however will be aware of its origins,
and as such it continues to hold the myth outlined above.
However there
is new information - the philosophers, the football players, the
film stars. The myth could be seen as the idea that it is possible
to construct a map of cultural figureheads, that there might be
an easy way to systemise such an unruly concept.
Maps as Signs
and Codes
Denis Wood,
in his book The Power of Maps, describes maps thus:
'Maps are about relationships. The map is a highly complex supersign,
a sign composed of lesser signs, or more accurately a synthesis
of signs; and these are supersigns in their own right, systems of
signs of more specific or individual function…..the map image
as a whole is the supersign, and the various systems it resolves
to are its constituent signs, sings that can only have meaning in
relation to other signs.' 2
In this case,
the myth (according to Barthes) is signified by the whole, the supersign.
Wood (1992,
p108) describes how a map is a conglomeration of codes. He defines
a code as that which assigns the signifier to the signified, in
so doing creating a sign. So in order to understand a map, we must
be able to understand the codes which make up the map:
A code is:
'an interpretive
framework, a set on conventions or rules, which permits the equivalence
of expression and content. A code legislates how something may be
construed as signifying, as representing something else . In this
respect signs are encoded in formation and decoded in interpretation;
and it is only through the mediation of a code that signification
is possible. ' 3
Wood defines
two types of codes: intrasignificant and extrasignificant.
Intrasignificant
codes are indigenous to the map. They can be iconic, linguistic,
tectonic, temporal and presentational. (Wood, 1992, p117)
Extrasignificant
codes operate 'outside' the map itself, and can be thematic, topic,
historical, rhetorical, and utilitarian. (see maps and myths above)
'The map is
simultaneously an instrument of communication - intrasignifcation
- and an instrument of persuasion - extrasignification and its propensity
toward myth.' 4
Thus the London
Underground map communicates how to navigate round the tube system,
but is also used to persuade people to make journeys by tube. With
certain versions (e.g. the online TubeGuru version at http://www.thetube.com/guru/index.asp)
you also get information about eateries and bars near the station
you choose. With other versions adverts are included for other services,
for example the Pocket Map carries and advert for Yellow Pages.
Intrasignificant
codes
Iconic codes
assign graphic expressions to geographic (or topological) features,
for example, the use of the coloured lines to represent tube lines.
Linguistic codes
are the way in which places are named, terminology and the nomenclature
used. The Underground map obviously uses the names of the stations,
whereas the Patterson map uses the names of famous figureheads.
The code that Patterson used to assign the names to the stations
is not clear:
'…..I didn't
alter it arbitrarily, it has my own logic but it is a completely
personal, idiosyncratic one'. 5
Linguistic codes
also include other messages, such as exactly how much help you can
expect to get from London Underground if you are a wheelchair user.
This is from the Tube Access Guide:
'If you are in difficulty, contact a member of staff or use the
help points where available on the stations.'
Followed closely
by:
'If you use
a wheelchair, you must bring enough assistance to ensure you can
make your journey safely, including getting to the train, changing
trains, and leaving your destination station.'
Tectonic codes
'configure graphic space in relation to geodesic space'. (Wood,
1992, p124). They are the codes assigning the plane of the printed
map to the sphere of the earth.
Temporal codes
fix the map in time. The first London Underground map was produced
in 1933 since when there have been many iterations, for the most
part due to refinements in the actual design of the map, but also
due to stations becoming disused (e.g Mornington Crescent), or new
lines being built such as the Jubilee and Docklands Light Railway
line. In September 2002 London Underground produced a Tube Access
Guide, which gives people who have mobility problems information
about how to plan a journey without using stairs or escalators.
This kind of information dates the map as being produced recently,
since there has been increased awareness of disabled peoples needs.
Patterson's
map refers to the past - the London Underground map, and all the
time which is inherent in that. It finishes at the end of the twentieth
century - there are no cultural figureheads named after then, not
surprising as it was produced in 1992. However, Patterson also leaves
no stations unnamed, thereby 'fixing' the map in time, denying it
future development. The work, or the concept, becomes 'closed',
apart from the mystery still to be solved: why did the artist give
that station that particular name?
Presentational codes bring together all the other signs and codes
to give an overall coherency.
The font used,
Johnstons 'Underground Railways Sans', was designed by Edward Johnston
in 1916. It was a very influential typeface, being adapted later
to produce Gill Sans. The typeface is very clean and clear, with
sans serif letters - a modernist type, reflecting the new age, printing
and mechanical reproduction, rather than being derived from handwriting
(from www. typotheque.com website)
The Underground
Map is used by millions of people each year in book, poster and
leaflet format to help them navigate round the tube system. However,
printed on a t-shirt or a mug it becomes a souvenir, no longer a
functioning map but a proclaimer to others of a place visited, a
reminder to oneself of times spent there.
Presentational
codes also include the production values of the map - is it throwaway,
free, a framed limited edition print? These aspects of the map effect
our perception of it - we see The Great Bear Limited Edition print
as Art, whereas the London Underground Pocket Map is to be used
solely for navigational purposes.
Maps and
Allegory
'Allegory is the extrinsic union, or the conventional and arbitrary
juxtaposition of two spiritual facts - whereby it is posited that
this image must represent that concept.' 6
'In allegorical
structure, one text is read through another, however fragmentary,
intermittent, or chaotic their relationship may be, the paradigm
for the allegorical work is thus the palimpsest.'' 7
To use the term
'allegory' to describe all presentations of one thing by another,
would be to render the term so unspecific as to be useless. The
London Underground map can be seen however as an allegory, of other
maps, in that the information from geographically correct maps taken
and changed into coloured lines, circles and text of the map. However
the Patterson map lends itself much more to being designated 'allegorical'
- the layers of information/ implication being so much more complex.
Craig Owens
also associates appropriation with allegory:
'Allegorical
imagery is appropriated imagery; the allegorist does not invent
images but confiscates them. He lays claim to the culturally significant…in
his hands the image becomes something other. He does not restore
a original meaning that may have been lost or obscured, …rather
he adds another meaning to the image.' 8
Patterson takes
the London Underground map, and not only substitutes all the station
names for the names of people of cultural importance, but also adds
on another layer of meaning, that of the title, The Great Bear (see
Appendix). The original meaning of the Underground Map becomes lost
or obfuscated, the memories of it remain, but it becomes taken over
by the assumed / pretended / false 'map' of figureheads, purporting
to give us a real life 'classification' or systemisation, but in
reality giving us a reflection of the system inside of the mind
of the artist, and questioning how we, as individuals, would systemise
the same information:
'People say
"Why did you put this person there, I would have put somebody
else". Obviously I placed the names in a way that is particular
to me, but I like the feeling that nothing is fixed. Its almost
like a game that people can participate in. The idea of the viewer
finishing the work is important. It is not a code that people have
to decipher. The meaning is not prescribed.' 9
Another characteristic
of allegory is 'to pile up fragments ceaselessly, without any strict
idea of a goal' (Owens, 1980, quoted in Art in Theory, 1992, p1054)
Patterson made
the remark below about another of his works, 24 hours (24 paintings
based on the periodic table) in which the names of the elements
are replaced with the names of stars and galaxies, but it is equally
applicable in spirit to his work The Great Bear:
'Its human nature
to try to make sense of the world. People feel that in order to
understand something, they have to impose a structure over it to
the point of mania.' 10
Maps and
Death of the Author
One of the characteristics
of postmodernist work is that of the 'death of the author', or the
fall from importance of the author / artist, to be replaced by the
importance of the reader.
Wolff describes
how a piece of work is no longer seen as a unique creation, created
in isolation by the author, rather it is a manifestation of the
coming together of social structures and a reflection of / result
of current ideologies, beliefs and values. She describes this as
'…the personal mediation of a group consciousness'. ( Wolff,
1981, p119)
'A text is made up of multiple writings, drawn from many cultures,
and entering into mutual relations of dialogue, parody….a texts
unity lies not in its origin but in it's destination, the birth
of the reader must be at the cost of the death of the author'. 11
A map is already
an object in which the presence of the artist / author is frequently
minimised, many maps aiming to give the impression that they are
less a personal point of view than an accurate interpretation of
'fact'. Many maps are nowadays put together by many people, with
information fed into computer software which generates the final
images. Curiously though, maps have the same copyright status as
works of art.
We have already
seen how Patterson feels that the 'idea of the viewer finishing
the work is important' (although not to the extent of leaving some
of the station names blank!). His piece is also free of obvious
relationship to the artist, at first glance it gives the impression
of being generated through some kind of software system / game.
However on looking closer there is some kind of system behind the
way the stations names are designated: the various tubes lines are
dedicated to a particular kind of figurehead - e.g. the District
Line becomes the Philosophers line, the National Rail line which
runs from Richmond to North Woolwich becomes the Thirty Comedians
Line. We look for some reason why, when there is a doubling up of
lines (for instance with the Circle and District Lines), Philosophers
take precedence over Explorers. Why, at stations where several lines
intersect (e.g. Paddington), does Pythagoras take precedence over
an engineer, journalist or explorer? Is it simply because there
is a triangle shape joining three stations at Paddington / Pythagoras?
All these names, the system itself, is a reflection of the system
inside the artists head, rather than one we can interpret simply.
It is obviously created by a 'mind', a specific mind at that, and
so although the viewer is important in the creation of the work,
to a large extent the viewer is engaged in making steps towards
reading the mind of the author than creating the work oneself.
Conclusion
As Denis Wood
said, 'maps are about relationships'.
'The map is
simultaneously an instrument of communication - intrasignifcation
- and an instrument of persuasion - extrasignification and its propensity
toward myth.' 12
(p141)
The London Underground
Map was revolutionary in its day in the way it jettisoned superfluous
information used on the maps of the day and focussed completely
on the important relationships in the map: that is, between the
lines, the stations and the river. The information given is pared
down to the absolute essential, the resultant design is elegant
in its minimalism, and affects the way Londoners and others perceive
the geography of London.
With Patterson's
"The Great Bear" the opposite is true: the navigation
information is removed and instead replaced with more complex, less
comprehensible layers of information, from names to lines to the
title. It pretends to offer
'…..the opportunity to travel the famous names of history and
popular culture, passing a succession of comedians on the way to
a philosopher.' 13
The piece of
work becomes, however, a
'metaphor for the "connectedness" of things, …..suggest[s]
new relationships between them, parallel readings, other ways of
configuring the data which govern our lives.' 14
Appendix
The Myth
of The Great Bear
A Roman myth
involves both bears, Ursa Major and Ursa Minor. A beautiful maiden,
Callisto, hunting in the forest, grew tired and laid down to rest.
The god Jupiter noticed her and was smitten with her beauty. Jupiter's
wife, Juno, became extremely jealous of Callisto. Some time later,
Juno discovered that Callisto had given birth to a son and decided
that Jupiter must have been the father. To punish her, Juno changed
Callisto into a bear so she would no longer be beautiful. Callisto's
son, called Arcas, was adopted and grew up to be a hunter, while
Callisto continued to live in the forest. One day Callisto saw Arcas
and was so overjoyed at seeing her son that she rushed up to him,
forgetting she was a bear. Arcas thought he was being attacked and
shot an arrow at Callisto. Jupiter saw the arrow and stopped it
from hitting Callisto. To save Callisto and her son from further
damage from Juno, Jupiter changed Arcas into a bear also, grabbed
them both by their tails, and swung them both into the heavens so
they could live peacefully among the stars. The strength of the
throw caused the short stubby tails of the bears to become elongated.
Juno was even angrier with Jupiter and managed to exact still more
revenge on poor Callisto and Arcas. She went to the gods of the
sea and forbade them to let the two bears wade in their water or
streams on their long and endless journey around the pole star.
From: American
Association of Variable Star Observers website
Footnotes
1. Patterson
quoted by Pirman (1997) p22
2. Wood (1992) p132
3. Wood (1992) p124
4. Wood (1992) p141
5. Patterson quoted by Pirman (1997) p22
6. Croce (1913), quoted in Art in Theory (1992) p112
7. Owens (1980) quoted in Art in Theory (1992) p1053
8. Owens (1980) quoted in Art in Theory (1992) p1053
9. Patterson quoted by Pirman (1997) p22
10. Patterson quoted by Pirman (1997) p21
11. Barthes, (1977) quoted in Wolff (1981) p117
12. Wood (1992) p141
13. British Council Website
14. British Council Website
Bibliography
American Association
of Variable Star Observers website,
http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsotm/ursamyth.stm
Barthes, Roland
(1977) The Death of the Author, quoted in Wolff, Janet, The Social
Production of Art, Wolff (1981) p117
British Council
Website, http://www.britishcouncil.org/singapore/arts/mcdet14.htm
Croce, Benedetto
(1913), Guide to Aesthetics, quoted in Art In Theory 1900-1990,
Charles Harrison and Paul Wood, 1992, published by Blackwell Publishers,
p112
Owens, Craig
(1980) quoted in Art In Theory 1900-1990, Charles Harrison and Paul
Wood, 1992, published by Blackwell, p 1053
Pirman, Alenka
(1997) Interview with Simon Patterson, Sculpture, January 1997,
vol 16 no 1, pp 21, 22
Typotheque website,
http://www.typotheque.com/articles/EK_PhD_historiography1.html
Wood, Dennis
(1992), The Power of Maps, Guilford Press, pp 124, 132, 141
|