2003-12-02 The Image of the City- imageability quotations p2 """ Moving elements in a city, and in particular the people and their activities, are as important as the stationary physical parts. We are not simply observers of this spectacle, but are ourselves a part of it, on the stage with the other participants. """ I think this is key to the argument about cyberspace being an unfair place. It's a nice argument that unfolds over the next few pages actually: An image is essential to make use of the city; the environment suggests the image; an image used feeds back and reinforces itself in the image and the environment itself, by individual/group action and extelligence. If this loop is broken, what are the consequences? If only certain people can contribute to the group understanding/image, what about everyone else? # p6 """ The observer himself should play an active role in perceiving the world and have a creative part in developing his image. He should have the power to change that image to fit changing needs. An environment which is ordered in precise and final detail may inhibit new patterns of activity. A landscape whose every rock tells a story may make difficult the creation of fresh stories. Although this may not seem to be a critical issue in our present urban chaos, yet it indicates that what we seek is not a final but an open-ended order, capable of continuous further development. """ There's some interesting parallels here with biology. A species-instance isn't just adapted to the environment, the species is adapted to adaptation. So (for example) there might be a small barely used bone which takes a small amount of energy to make (condense, rather), but it's better not to optimise it away because the flexibility might be needed for future evolution. """ Environmental images are the result of a two-way process between observer and his environment. The environment suggests distinctions and relations, and the observer - with great adaptability and in the light of his own purposes - selects, organizes, and endows with meaning what he sees. The image so developed now limits and emphasizes what is seen, while the image itself is being tested against the filtered perceptual input in a constant interacting process. Thus the image of a given reality may vary significantly between different observers. """ Two-way! # p8 """ An environmental image may be analyzed into three components: identity, structure, and meaning. It is useful to abstract these for analysis, if it is remembered that in reality they always appear together. A workable image requires first the identification of an object, which implies its distinction from other things, it recognition as a separable entity. This is called identity, not in the sense of equality with something else, but with the meaning of individuality or oneness. Second, the image must include the spatial or pattern relation of the object to the observer and to other objects. Finally, this object must have some meaning for the observer, whether practical or emotional. Meaning is also a relation, but quite a different one from spatial or pattern relation. Thus an image useful for making an exit requires the recognition of a door as a distinct entity, of its spatial relation to the observer, and its meaning as a hole for getting out. These are not truly separable. The visual recognition of a door is matted together with its meaning as a door. It is possible, however, to analyze the door in terms of its identity of form and clarity of position, considered as if they were prior to its meaning. """ Identity, structure and meaning. These three are different handles on an object. The parallels into the online world, into discussion of any kind, are fantastic. If you can't identify an idea, it's impossible to critique it. It's what, in Luminous Debris, was the difference between separable and inseparable. Once humans invented agriculture, we were separable. This is like becoming time-bound, I think. So online objects are nouns. They're URIs, or bits of code, or files. Things that can be manipulated. Were there words before we wrote them down, or were they just streams of sound? Lots to say here, not really sure how to articulate it, but this breakdown of imageability is definitely the most important part of these notes. # p9 """ If an image is to have value for orientation in the living space, it must have several qualities. It must be sufficient, true in a pragmatic sense, allowing the individual to operate within his environment to the extent desired. The map, whether exact or not, must be good enough to get one home. It must be sufficiently clear and well integrated to be economical of mental effort: the map must be readable. It should be safe, with a surplus of clues so that alternative actions are possible and the risk of failure is not too high. If a blinking light is the only sign for a critical turn, a power failure may cause distaster. The image should preferably be open-ended, adaptable to change, allowing the individual to continue to investigate and organize reality: there should be blank spaces where he can extend the drawing for himself. Finally, it should in some measure be communicable to other individuals. """ The risk of failure point is a good one. Well designed systems means that when you've got a bunch of developers working on code and someone does something that's not quite right, it's still sort-of right and doesn't catastopically break the overall design. Species that evolve, or scientific theories that evolve, or ideas that spread are all like this too -- the transmission of a replicator is always noisy, so you need something that's robust, and not just robust but that can actually make use of then noise and internalise it (genetic mutation, say). """ Since the emphasis here will be on the physical environment as the independent variable, this study will look for physical qualities which relate to the attributes of identity and structure in the mental image. This leads to the definition of what might be called imageability: that quality in a physical object which gives it a high probability of evoking a strong image in any given observer. """