Mapping Through Impression

   I have finally got both the screenprint and risograph version of the maps. The riso print consists of a full set of four maps, while the screenprint is limited to the Soho map. I was hoping that the map would not work when printed with serigraphy, so I was fully counting on the risograph. However, upon comparing both results, I realised I was completely wrong. There is something about the fragility of the lines of the illustration, as well as it hand-made quality, that is lost on the risos. The size, and specially the weight and smoothness of the paper of the screenprint is also far better looking as well. 

   I struggled a lot choosing which one I was to submit: the complete one, or the well-finished one. I consulted all tutors that were in today, including my personal tutor, and they agreed on the better quality of the screenprint. However, I am afraid there is no more time left for printing three more maps. 

   After hearing every single opinion and having several discussions, a conclusion was made: it is a fact that I will not be able to make any more prints for Thursday. However, the work I submit for assessment may not be the one I will actually be exhibiting. In other words, I will submit a piece of work that is finished (the risograph prints) and have the other as part of my experimentation work. My goal was to map Fitzrovia, Bloomsbury, Soho and Covent Garden based on my impressions, and to show how some places left much stronger (and numerous) impressions than others; technically, the one that fulfilled such requirement was the risograph series. They also have a conceptual basis developed throughout my project, recorder as my self-evaluations on this blog. In that case, although they may not work as good as the screenprint, I do believe they are suitable for a final outcome.

   Since my work for the final outcome was done, I decided to think more about how the filters are to work with the prints.

   One of the problems I brought up during the tutorials was how I was going to incorporate the filter to the maps so as both could work together as a single piece. Both my peeps and my tutor agreed that holding a sheet of acetate in front of ones face was uncanny and would probably not work. I then began to think about how I wanted people to read my map. I wanted the viewer to look at the map and not clearly read it at first sight; then, they would look at it through my eyes [the filter], and see my impressions mapped. 

   And how the process of reading would occur? When one can not read throughly something, what would he do? Hold a filter onto his face? Almost: one would usually reach for a pair of glasses. If those glasses were equipped with red acetate instead of lenses, much like the old 3D glasses were, it would work perfectly with both of my concepts: the idea of the difficulty of reading with bare eyes and the act of seeing it through my “lenses”.

   Since I had my group approval, as well as the time to experiment with it, I started modifying some 3D glasses I bought online. The lenses were quite easy to dismantle, and I had no problems swapping the red ones with the blue ones on my first attempt. However, upon trying to take the lenses off my second pair, I noticed that I accidentally damaged the thin cavity in which it was held. Therefore, all my attempts of swapping lenses and even cutting new ones using red acetate were of no avail.

   To make sure that my work was suitable for Risograph Printing, I sent my recently-finished Bloomsbury Map to them. It was indeed really fast, and results were amazing. 

   The colours worked really nice together, and the filter blocked the pink ink perfectly. The only thing bothering me is the enormous amounts of blank spaces on the paper, which makes the composition feel empty compared to the Soho Map, for example. However, I recall both Jon and Charlotte telling me that the lack of information would not exactly be a problem: some areas would had left deeper impressions on me, and other not. In that case, the lack of information on a map would not be a problem with charting, but rather a reflection of my interest in the area. 

   However, upon pondering on the possibilities I am left on the next two-weeks, I started considering using Risograph. I have already used this technique twice before, and the colour overlay and printing style are quite similar to silkscreen printing. Both peers and Jon had no objections on me doing it, for even if it did not come out as expected, it was worth trying. As Jon said: "Do it, try it and see what happens". So at least now I have some work for next week: research more about risograph print. 

   I came across some unexpected issues when transferring my drawings to a silkscreen. 

   Since I am working on an A2 scale, it is impossible to print my map on acetate, since the maximum size at the university is A4. Therefore I was working on tracing paper sheets, painstakingly outlining my drawing by hand.

   The map was alright for I used several layers of Indian ink, however my illustrations were not. Since the small details could not be drawn using a brush, I had to use a pigment marker; even though it appeared quite dark for me, apparently the outline was not dark enough. So I re-traced all the illustrations, this time using an appropriate permanent marker, but the lines were even lighter. My next option was to retrace the drawing on the backside, to try making it darker; however, the previous processes took me more than three hours to complete, meaning that even if I started retracing for the second time, I would not be finished by the end of the day.

   I have booked a meeting at Hato Press to get to know more about how to print using a Riso Printer, and how the colours and the ink work. 

   The process seems quite simple, and I have got samples of the colours and papers available; it is not a great variety, but each colour has a percentage rate, which results in a broader spectrum. 

   The only problem is that they only work with computer files. That means that I would have to not only draw all four maps, but also digitalise and vectorise every single one of them. It is not an easy task, but I still have a week to send them the finished files. 

   After the tutorials I have also started thinking about the scale of my maps. If I was to draw my charts according to the amount of impressions left on me from that specific place, Soho would definitely need to be drawn bigger than an A4.

   Jon advised me to be really adventurous with sizes; therefore I started redrawing my former map on a A2 size. At first I was afraid of having several blank spaces and gaps throughout the projection, but this concern disappeared as I realised how much better the map looked on a huge scale: the narrow alleys and all the nooks and crannies from Soho were much more visible. I did not have the blank-space problem with the illustrations as well; on the opposite, the big size of the sheet was incredibly helpful to lay all my impressions without having to struggle with free area (I did have to squish some of my drawings at the end of the drawing process however).

   After last week’s tutorial, I started experimenting with colour possibilities for my prints. Although I already had which colours I would use in mind, I had to see whether they really worked when filtered by the acetates; and for my surprise, most of them did not.

   What I first realised was that the inkjet print did not work properly with the overlaying colours, resulting in a failed blocking when covered by the acetate sheets (though, it was enough for just testing palettes). I also concluded that the green acetate filters only two colours (cyan and green), making the red one way more versatile and, therefore, more suitable for this project. 

   When I presented this filter idea during my tutorials, the feedback was really positive. But the first question Jon asked me was: “Why using anagliph? Why hiding/filtering information?”.

   To be frank, my first reason to try anagliphs was to diminish the disruption caused by overlaying both map and images resulting in a more difficult reading of the map. However, when filtering the screenprinted image and being able to see just the photos, that is to say the impressions left on me, I realised how it related to my personal mapping. 

   My attempts with typographic mapping, soundmapping, and even my experiments with map folding seemed uninteresting (and looking now, after hearing their full opinions, I do agree with them). They were good as experiments, but they do not seem to relate at all to how my project is actually developing. 

   However, my iconographic map did caught their attention. They seemed to agree with my opinion on illustrations being a more personal approach; however, Jon said something that I actually did not notice before: on those maps, I did not actually draw my impressions, but rather things I saw around me; and that is quite impersonal. 

   Drawing my real impressions and memories, my very own views and glimpses of the places would be not just more appropriate to my FMP proposal, but incredibly more interesting; for anyone could potentially draw what they see around them.

   Before my tutorial and group critics, I tried one last approach to mapping. I looked back at the ten-minutes descriptions I wrote at Fitzroy Square and Soho Square, and tried to create a sort of iconographic map.

   Since my last attempts with screenprinting, I started searching more about colour overlaying, and came along with Anagliphs. 

   As I said before, I was not satisfied with how the red and blue worked together, and thus was planning to use the same red colour for both layers. But upon finding out about how colours can actually be blocked out using filters, resulting in clearer and easier-to-read image, I realised I might have found the perfect technique for those maps.

Made You Look 1 from Sagmeister & Walsh on Vimeo.