In designing this little exercise in its earliest incarnation, I drafted out a quick kind of criteria as to begin to analyse the Memory Maps against, as to begin to find similarities and differences between our individual recollections of the site. The following are the areas of analysis:
Boundaries: Where the edges of the site are to be perceived, where the limits lie and where we feel is separated or independent of the site and suggestions why.
Sequence: What was considered first? Perhaps the strongest feature was a particular space, structure or footprint, and why this might be?
Finishing: What were the final touches of the drawing, in terms of a sequential hierarchy?
Detail: How much and where detail has been included, leant more to some areas or spaces than others?
Warping & Scale: Whether the scale and the shape of existing building footprints and spaces have been corrupted or sacrificed in size perhaps, due to importance or prominence in retrospect?
Absence: In terms of built structures or entire spaces missing from memory.
I have attempted to pick up on small inflections in the drawings and their detail, as to gauge more accurately what had been included within the boundaries of the following images [figs. 1,2 & 3], as to translate them to graphics of the actual site plan. I plan to further develop and refine these as more of the maps are collected and would like to hear if anyone has any other ideas in how to begin to learn from and deconstruct these drawings!
I began by considering what the boundaries of the site are in our memories. However, in doing this I became distracted by picking up potentially traceable trends within the three images.The first and perhaps most obvious trend from this small sample of three drawings, was the emphasis of the edges, in the railway line and the main road in how they encapsulate the site on the northern and western sides. The second however, presented a possible gap within the site in terms of recollection. This became apparent in the substantial warping, floating and in some cases, complete omission of a small green space within the entrance of the site [4.]. This could however just be a boundary issue, in being unsure of the extents of the site, which presents an interesting perception of the site itself. I will expand on this idea in following posts, as it became apparent that the criteria overlap in terms of analysing the drawings, as well as presenting graphically clearer the ideas and processes. Propositionally.
I aim over the coming weeks to upload more little looks into the drawings, and have tried to keep the word count down on here so there isn’t a whole lot of analysis really!
However, I’m also interested in how outsiders to the project perceive the site against this criteria. I tried to convince my girlfriend to draw a map of the site from memory, but she didn’t fancy it! In following this idea, I’ll be preparing a post from a visit I made to the site with a friend who is a Crimonology Masters student at Trent and looking at his drawing once he’s done it! I’ve no clue if it will be useful, but I thought I better take advantage whilst he was in Sheffield..
Word counts a bit over 500 sorry!