This is an image of the pattern sequence on a carpet. It is a symbol of how people can “compare patterns visually”, and if you compare the 2 different patterns, everyone would interpret in a different way, not everyone see’s the same thing. And what I found very interesting is that geographers believe that maps lie, they are always distorted in a way in which the maker views it. The way the creator visualizes the patterns, and I completely agree with that concept. No one can map exactly what they see, everything is art, and whatever they create, or design will be a piece of art. And not everyone will see the same thing as that artist. And so the person that created this carpet, this pattern, may have potentially mapped his or her inner thoughts without even knowing it. However when people look at it, they will just think, “wow this carpet has a beautiful pattern.”
Alia,
You are making a very interesting and sophisticated point here, expanding Hall’s argument into a realm of art.
Your intervention poses a broad question about maps’ functionality: what are the functions of maps? What category do they belong to: visual attraction of legibility (is map a picture or a text)? How porous is this distinction?
It also brings the crucial meaning of “constructed environments”: the acknowledgement that spaces are negotiated/agreed upon their inhabitants/users.
You may want to tweak the structure of your comment. How could you make it shorter (and sharper), while not losing your main message? One way that would be helpful is a quick outline that will help you “label” your main points.
Also, try to make a connection to Hall’s talk more explicit. After all you have hear about “the lies of map” from him!