Taking a Closer Look at Historypin

Preface

In an effort to identify a mapping project with elements closely tied to my research topic, I spent the last two weeks refining my spatial argumentation and research plan. While my project will still focus on the Queens Museum, I have decided to forego a comparative spatial analysis of museums across the five boroughs and will instead do an in-depth analysis of the architectural renovations that have taken place at the New York City Building over the past 80 years. While only the last 40 of those years mark the period in which the Museum has been housed in the Building, it is important to understand, from a historical perspective, the architectural precedence that has not only caused major spatial barriers, limiting the Museum’s overall attendance, but have more or less shaped the Museum’s approach to developing outreach and educational and public programming—in other words, how the architecture has informed the Museum’s social dimensions, and vice versa. Since I will only be plotting points on one building and looking very closely at architecture, the use of photographs and other visual documentation has become a high priority. For this reason, I decided to take a closer look at Historypin.

Map Overview

Historypin, made and maintained by We Are What We Do, a nonprofit organization devoted to facilitating positive, sustainable behavioral change, is a history-mapping tool that crowd sources histories through the geographic plotting of various digital media (i.e., images, videos, audio). [It is essentially a global, digital photo album that takes geographic setting into consideration.] The tool uses Google Maps as its base map, but it is almost entirely filled with user-generated content (we’ll come back to why “user” is italicized). Users can identify locations either by manually navigating the map or by typing it into a search box. It is also possible to narrow down findings by date or subject.
“Pinned photo” icons indicate where there is content on the map. Each piece of content has the following metadata: title, date, location/approximate address, author, description, number of user views, and tags. Each piece of content also has the following tabs a user can switch between: details, which is the metadata; comments and suggestions, which solicits feedback from other users; repeats, to tie old photos to modern replicas; and copyright, which includes content attribution, an original link, and a repository name. Some images are accompanied by street views, in which the image is laid over a contemporary view from a similar vantage point.
Additional features include projects, through which software administrators create special interest projects that users can contribute to, and in some cases co-create; collections, which bring content together around a particular topic or theme; tours, which lead users, step by step, through a series of individual content to tell a story, explore a space, or walk through time; channels, which are essentially user profiles; and a blog, through which administrators generally communicate with users.
Map Critique
To begin with the major pros, while the Historypin map has an obvious geo-temporal dimension to it, items with shared locations are not listed in chronological order. The map rejects a linear approach to history and instead places emphasis on the collaborative activity of identifying various histories in one location, and projecting the validity of each by placing them in no noticeable order. This aligns itself really nicely with a quote I recently read from cultural planning consultant Joy Bailey Bryant: “Everyone owns a piece of the truth.” Even when both dates and locations are similar, images may display completely different perspectives of the same object or setting, demonstrating the subjective and multifarious nature of history. As Historypin notes, this tool tells “the untold stories of everyday people.”
It also contextualizes geography. As James Corner notes, “The Experiences of space cannot be separated from the events that happen in it…”, and this is something that derives from Henri Lefebvre’s notion of spatial practices. Through Historypin, we are able to see geography that is no longer abstracted as fixed, static space but space that is lively and in constant flux, continually shaped by the movement within it. This is also demonstrated quite well through the map’s street view option, which overlays historical and contemporary images. The street overlay is a great example of media archaeology, through which history can be told not through conventional narrative but through what Jussi Parikka calls “concrete apparatuses that physically carry the past into the present.”
Moving on to the major cons (and revisiting an earlier note), one must be cautious of Historypin’s gathering of user-generated content. What constitutes users? Certainly some are individuals, but there are also tons of cultural institutions that actively use the mapping tool. While it makes sense for these institutions, especially archives, to use their digitized materials actively on crowd-sourced sites, we can’t assume the stories being told are from individual users. Institutions are much more sensitive about what kinds of histories are projected, especially those promoting nation-configuring narratives, so one must really pay attention to the sources of these digital media. Also related to user-generated content, it seems all plotting is fair game. It is difficult to determine what the terms of plotting may be as they  vary based on the perspective of the user. While some may plot an image based on the directional perspective within the image, another may plot based on the relevance of a subject.
Another major con is the map’s “pinned photo” icon. It does a terrible job of representing a consistent quantity of media in a given geographic area—placement is completely distorted based on the zoom level of the map. Even when using the alternative “no-thumbnail” view, the numbers are large for fewer plots, when zoomed out far (or aggregated), and there are more plots with less media per plot the closer you zoom in. When looking at visual representations of this, it can be a bit confusing for the user. It can also cause someone to overlook a geographic area with content that is not well labeled when zoomed out. While the icon has aesthetic resonance and attempts to convert a tangible activity into digital form, it doesn’t translate as well as it was perhaps intended.
Lastly, while I understand Historypin’s mission is to “share small glimpses of the past,” I worry this exclusivity closes doors to use of the map as a “futuring” or speculative tool. Our current and future spatial practices are deeply informed by those of the past, so why not move away from our constant concern for what was and what is and start thinking about what could be?
Map Creation
As mentioned in the preface, I appreciate the emphasis Historypin places on visual media, and this is something I, too, hope to prioritize in my project. As a prototype, I decided to mirror many of the great organizing elements Historypin offers with adjustments made to fix the few elements I didn’t think were as strong: the icon depicting geographic placement of content and the lack of speculation. Essentially, what I’ve done is replace the icon with a simple dot and number indicating the quantity of media available at a very particular geographic point, so that it remains consistent at any zoom level, and images, namely, photos but also architectural renderings that have not been physically realized but mark what could have been potential design interventions at the Queens Museum. If I were to use the map not just as an illustration of what exists but as a generative research tool to determine what’s missing, certain findings could lend themselves to strengthening or identifying gaps within my spatial argument. I also hope to further develop this prototype by demonstrating similarities or ties among designs beyond tagging, perhaps by incorporating orthographic projections, renderings, and photos over current street views, creating layers of images with intersecting or overlapping design elements. This isn’t a skill set I have readily available, but hopefully I can build that capacity in the coming weeks.
 
Screen Shot 2013-10-23 at 3.59.57 AMScreen Shot 2013-10-23 at 4.00.00 AMScreen Shot 2013-10-23 at 4.00.02 AMScreen Shot 2013-10-23 at 4.00.05 AM
 
 
 
 

 
 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *