For this week’s blogging assignment I chose to continue exploring Digital Harlem, the project we began to dissect this past Friday in lab.
Digital Harlem is a virtual exploration of what the authors claim is everyday life in Harlem, NY 1915-1930. The sources for this project include closed case files from the New York DA’s office, newspaper records, and pieces from the Writers Program Collection. The researchers’ process then included organizing these sources by date and location. All of this information is presented using a google map.
I have a lot of issues with this project so bear with me.
This map is confusing and hard to use
While I applaud the research team on the specificity of their search functions, this project presents itself less like a map and more like an index. When I think of a digital map, I think of something that is interactive, guides the user. The way this map is set up, you have to know exactly what you are looking for (ie dates, types of crime, location) to actually view something of worth. There isn’t a lot of opportunity for true exploration, and this leaves the overall narrative and user experience lacking.
What even is everyday life?
Digital Harlem claims that their project is about everyday African New Yorkers, writing, “this project focuses not on black artists and the black middle class, but on the lives of ordinary African New Yorkers.” But aren’t artists, the middle class, and their respective cultures a part of everyday life in early 20th century Harlem? This is an example of Turnbull’s assertion that, “A map is always selective. In other words, the mapmaker determines what is, and equally importantly, what is not included in the representation” (Turnbull, Exhibit 2, 1).
Thus, if a grim crime record this is what the researchers at the University of Sidney believed everyday life to be, then I cannot argue with them. They may believe that crime is worthy of record, but family history is not. However, I believe there is more to everyday life in Harlem’s past than what they have presented and claimed to communicate.
All this map does is reveal a pattern of depressing crime statistics, with little individuality or narrative. By claiming that this map, this project, depicts everyday life at the time, they are obscuring the facts and presenting a biased side of history, a side only told by police records and newspapers.
My solution
To present a DH project that is true to everyday life in early 20th century Harlem, I’d begin with changing the sources. When I think of everyday life, I’m not thinking of major events or crime statistics. Instead, I think about culture, experiences, family, and the everyday interactions that give each human a unique perspective on the universe. Thus, I would search for sources that exemplify these qualities, like family photographs, pictures of apartment interiors, popular advertisements in the community, and music. I would then present this information on a map that doesn’t require a search function to be fully utilized. I would want my user to feel completely submersed in the world I communicated towards them, with a simple legend that allows the user to isolate content by its medium (ie art, music, family photos instead of date, location, type of crime). I wouldn’t necessarily omit evidence of crime, for that too is a part of everyday life, but I would make sure it isn’t the only interaction the user is left with.