Graffiti as Spatial Information
General, External sources ·Lecture given by Dr. Piotr Trzepacz
Data Manipulation and Accuracy
I was not quite sure what to expect from this talk but I had imagined that it would be focused on the cartographic side of geoinformatics. However, this talk turned out to be my favorite lecture so far. This talk truly surprised me and inspired a joy of curiosity I haven’t felt in a while; it was a joy that stemmed from my curiosity being peaked in a way that reminded me of when I first discovered geoinformatics. It felt like I had just discovered a whole new way to look at, explore, and employ geoinformatics.
An overarching theme for me in my reflections on this talk was data accuracy and manipulation in regards to our conceptualization of space. This talk challenged and expanded my own conceptualization of space. I had never before considered graffiti as a means of marking territory or the idea that territory is a process. The implication there is that boundaries might shift which may mean that with time, data becomes outdated and inaccurate. It is hard to represent the dynamic change of space over time in a static map and I wonder how we should address this dynamic nature of space and time with static maps. Are static maps inherently outdated or inaccurate when working with dynamic phenomena? Are they an important artifact that can stop time and attest to our understanding at a very specific moment in time? Should static maps come with a disclaimer as to this limitation or will the audience inherently understand the limitations of these static maps? Our choices in how we represent data have a huge impact on how the audience interprets the data and thus we need to take the utmost care in our design choices.
Another way that data can be manipulated that Dr. Trzepacz touched on in his lecture is through visualization. I was thrilled by the discussion on the best way to visualize point data on territorial claims (punctual, linear, surface-area) through the use of either administrative boundaries or hexagons. The discussion made me realize just how easy it is to accidentally manipulate data or give your own voice to it, to unintentionally bias your data through your choice on how to represent it or aggregate it or whose boundaries we chose to use (local populations might not consider their boundaries to be the same as the government delineated boundaries).
As a small side note on visualization choices, I have found in my work that my choices for parameters for analysis or visualization purposes are often arbitrary as I do not always know enough about the topic I am analyzing to make a very informed guess. This exploration of appropriate parameters is in a way an important point in better understanding my data, but it often leaves me vulnerable to misinterpreting or misrepresenting the data. Thus, one of the most interesting parts of this talk to me was Dr. Trzepacz’s answer to how he chose the size of the hexagons. He used the size of the main square in Krakow which could be seen as the size that best depicts what the unit of what something crucial in the city would be. His choice gave me a new perspective on how to make a more informed decisions when it comes to analysis and visualization.
To return to the topic of data manipulation and accuracy, the localization of space and our relationship to the local phenomena, whether we have experienced it ourselves or are outsiders, is another potential pitfall when it comes to data manipulation. Dr. Trzepac’s discussion on understanding the actual meanings of the symbols used in the graffiti and the importance of language deconstructing in understanding a symbol reminded me that as a researcher, when researching a phenomenon that you are an outsider to, it is vital that you make sure as best you can that you actually know what things mean as your assumption to what something means might not be true and you can come to some crazy incorrect conclusions as a result and embarrass yourself.
Overall, I was greatly inspired by Dr. Trzepacz’s study of a local phenomenon. I had never heard of the phenomenon of football graffiti. All of the graffiti I had ever seen or heard about was related to gangs or kids acting out. Based on what Dr. Trzepacz said, it makes sense that I have never heard of it as it seems like football graffiti is a phenomenon mostly constrained to central and eastern Europe. This reminded me of the importance of your local space as a source of inspiration for analysis as some phenomena are only apparent in certain spaces (i.e. they aren’t global). Moreover, being able to observe and experience a local phenomenon may give you deeper context for understanding the true root causes and various impact affecting the phenomenon you are observing.
I found it fascinating how a local phenomenon (or football team in this case), because it exists as connected to a specific space, can take on all the meaning that comes with issues in the local region. I have gotten to a point in my studies where we are working at a very high level, trying to solve global problems with advanced techniques and massive datasets, and I had forgotten the implications of the fundamental idea of geography: that everything is tied to space.
As a last note, Dr. Strobl brought up the idea of graffiti on mobile elements, such as trains and trucks. This made me think more generally, about how the idea that everything is tied to space and mobility interact. This is not yet a fully fleshed out thought but I feel the stirrings of some interesting research.