The history of Dutch cartography in the sixteenth century is often explained in terms of the opposition between cartography as Art and cartography as Science. It is our contention that this polarization is flawed, based as it is an artificial divide fully established only in the nineteenth century. Between these extremes lies a conceptual vacuum which hides the ideological meaning of the map. Our alternative is to see maps as a form of power-knowledge. Cartography, like painting, is the record of a subjective domain. Map-makers classify and select knowledge to be presented or to be omitted; they state their own involvement in a complex world. Our contention is that maps can also become active agents, helping to impose a reality they pretend merely to mirror.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harley et al. (1992) studied this question.