JenniferL_R06

This reading brought up some great points about how we use visual links to convey information. Visual links can be helpful, but as Tufte and others point out, the way links are expressed and treated highly affects the outcome of the information. I enjoyed the example of the art museum layout where we were presented the original map and a version without arrows. Without the arrows we were left with a bunch of words and confusing patches of white space that didn't particularly tell a story or hint at any sort of arrangement. This example showed the importance of the visual connections in this type of graphic. The way the connections are pictured might be more important though. I like the quote from art historian Michael Baxandall about reversing how you look at influence. My favorite part is when he says, "If we think of Y rather than X as the agent, the vocabulary is much richer and more attractively diversified." I think this is a good way to look at how things affect each other. People usually say that your past affects your future, but I can also see the reverse. I think how you pursue your future and how things happen affect how you look at the past and how you remember it. Some people blame the past for what happens now, while other people make changes based on what they learned in the past. It is the same for art and the way it changes and moves. The art created now affects how people and historians look at art of the past. Influence is not just a forward moving machine. I also liked how Tufte pointed out that some major connections in this exhibition map were missing. I almost think that this is an understatement. Yes, there were clearly major connections that were missing that are generally recognized by history. On the other hand, I think more things are connected than we realize. For the purpose of information design, I suppose it is only important to show the most important connections based on the goal of the graphic, but I do feel it is important to consider all the possibilities.