During the first day i’ll talk about the history of wayfinding and maps, then we’ll start a short workshop about the visualization of the city. The students will be asked to think of their relationship with the city, their imaginaries, landmarks or key-points. So Bari itself will be mapped from a subjective point of view, in order to obtain and to visualize a kind of “Personal Geography”, using mind-mapping, diagrammatic languages or photographic surveys.

It’s an experiment we’ll start on that event and try to continue in the future, with the same students and maybe new discoveries.

Everybody who’s gonna pass by Bari is invited to the event.

More info to follow

Throughout the centuries cities have been constantly changing, together with their image, their imageability. Therefore their graphic representations must be constantly ‘adapted’ to those changes too.

Classic cartography deals with the topographic aspects of the cities, without explaining what happens inside them, describing their elements, whereas recent technological approaches (MIT Senseable City above all) are using the city as a data to analyse, elaborating flows, activities, habits, offering new images of it, but somehow discarding any cultural aspect of the city.

During the middle age, cartography was a way of conveying sense, maps were not so closely linked to the territory, they were most likely a tool for understanding a vision of the world. Some city maps were only a symbolical artefact, people didn’t use them to find their bearings; sometimes map-makers hardly knew the mapped city itself. They were conscious of the meaning of the city, that was enough.

“To ask for a map is to say, Tell me a story” said Peter Turchi.
It’s only a matter of deciding which story to tell: design is choice.

My PhD research aims to identify new ways of looking at the city, in order to find a graphic language that can show cultural aspects, telling a different story about the city, showing its sense, its values, its history.
A kind of archeology of sense.

HANDLING CHANGES THROUGH DIAGRAMS
To change towards a more sustainable development could means to make decisions not only with a systemic approach, but also to be able to decide in the right time: the density. It seems that, when the discipline of Design integrate a systemic approach with the competences of designers in visualization, it can cope with dense situations, providing effective artefacts – diagrams – to improve the decision process and making profit from the richness of complexity. The prior findings of the Complexity Science are here assumed as a theoretical framework to have an interpretative model on how the knowledge about systems could be organized and depicted. Three tools to produce effective diagrams, framing, graining and scaling are here discussed though six case studies.

Have a look

Have a look at the presentation

RESHAPING COMMUNICATION DESIGN TOOLS
During the last thirty years the level of interest in Complexity Science has been constantly increasing. Combining the opportunity offered by the findings of the Complexity Science with the framework of the multi-disciplinary debate on the meaning and use of diagrams, we propose a design methodology to help designers support their interventions in complex environments.
The structural features analysis of Complex Systems has been our key point to outline a methodology to offer designers a new mindfulness in the use of design tools. This methodology is based on five phases: analysing, representing, pinpointing, timing and telling. It provides a theoretical framework that incorporates many tools suggesting a different use of them with a special attention to improve the designer’s consciousness of the system he is designing in.
When design is addressing complexity, diagrams could become generative tools that can be used to produce metadata relevant to the design process.
Have a look here

Have a look at the presentation

“[The diagram] never functions to represent a persisting world but produces a new kind of reality, a new model of truth.”
Deleuze, G. (1986) Focault, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Following the link you will find my paper discussed during the Ph.D. Course “Design Phenomenology” held by E. Mazini.