Vignelli explaining his map
Posted 18 January 2007 - 05:36 PM
Posted 19 January 2007 - 02:36 PM
He says that perhaps, like the London Underground map, he should have removed all traces of geography--including the boroughs and water/land differentiation. First, the London map has always included the Thames. Second, though there's perhaps a place for a pure journey planner (showing only where to change trains to journey from one station to another), the general-purpose "subway map" must serve many additional purposes, including telling people what subway station is closest to their destination. At that, the Vignelli map failed spectacularly.
Posted 27 January 2007 - 09:16 AM
I agree Dennis. Which piece of land you are on is fundamental to comprehending your location in NY. I see that same mode of mapping sometimes in other graphic designers' maps: the desire to get away from all physical geographical references as though they are impure elements of the design. Like there's an ambivalence to the land from the start. I'm thinking of some (not all) of the maps in Fawcett-Tang and Owen's Mapping: An illustrated guide to graphic navigational systems.
Though I think the Vignelli map was unfairly discarded, he doesn't present a very strong defense here.
He says that perhaps, like the London Underground map, he should have removed all traces of geography--including the boroughs and water/land differentiation.
Posted 28 January 2007 - 04:28 AM
The 1972 NYC transit map reflects Vignelli as a courageous and talented map designer. Though this piece did not meet with great acclaim, he can speak about 'why' he did what he did, and I respect that. He took a great gamble on bringing a design to the masses and not to the art gallery wall. Where would we be without it?
And now for: The NYC transit map explains Vignelli.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users