I found the interview with Jack Schulze that I mentioned.
Well, when I say I’ve found it, I’ve not really, but Jack pointed me to the 2009 write up that he did on his Here & There map. The interview I saw was with MIT I think, but the page that could confirm that has a broken .mov file.
Anyway, the two references that I liked were of Alfred Wainwright’s walking maps which…
…are drawn to suit their context of use, the books are intended to be used while walking. As the reader begins their walk, the map represents their location in overview plan. As the walk extends through the map, the perspective slowly shifts naturally with the unfolding landscape, until the destination is represented in a pictorial perspective view, as one would see it from their standpoint.
And the next reference is a clip of David Hockney dissecting some perspective trickery in an old painting from China, the trickery being that the painting looks perfectly acceptable, until he points out the M.C. Escher like illusions and perspective impossibilities.
I love how, that despite knowing the illusion and having it pointed out to me, that the painting still makes sense. To a much lesser extent, like the London Underground Map, which is far from geographically accurate but through which we can clearly translate and navigate the physical world above ground. Maybe that’s pushing the similarity, but here’s the clip…
These references really resonate with me at the moment, and after years of being intrigued but by how we ‘visualise’ our spatial awareness in our heads. Thoughts that I need to bring together in a more coherent form.