Digital Harlem Map Critique: Blog 6

From the large assortment of DH mapping projects, all of which cover completely unique social events in history, I focused on Digital Harlem, Everyday Life 1915-1930. When I initially heard of the title, I was curious how a story could be told via a map interface when there is only one general geographic point of interest, Harlem. But as a I started to explore the map, I came to understand that the multi-layered interactivity of the map was what allowed users to craft their own knowledge journey, as well as guided them to specific perceptions of Harlem from 1915-1930.

For a map focusing only on a single general location, there was an extensive amount of data that was available regarding both the historic and common background of Harlem. Users are provided with the option of selecting data sets that they are interested in and having them displayed across the general Harlem region. What provided an added layer of complexity and insight for me was that I was able to apply multiple layers to the map, allowing me to draw my own correlations of concurrent happenings during this time period.

While insightful in its data, this interactive map does not escape the critical lens of being perspectival and subjective. Even though users are allowed to select their own layers to add, there is a common narrative throughout the map that highlights social inequality and cultural growth. Of particular note are the picture panels on the right side of the map, which pre-combine layers of information into a common category (i.e. “Church”, “Nightlife”, “Number of Arrests”, etc.). This selective layering of information directs users to look at these particular statistics, many of which are shockingly high. Arrest numbers, as well as the number of nightclubs during this time periods, are so great in number that they flood out the geographical backing of the map.

From this, one can speculate that this article comes from the perspective of perhaps someone that has ancestral or cultural ties to Harlem. This can be seen through the attempt to represent the duality of Harlem, through the disparity and cultural influence of that era. The focus isn’t solely on the good or the bad, but on revealing that Harlem represents a microcosm of historical complexity and change in the early 20^th century. While assumptions are made about the type of grouped information that users would most readily want to see, the intention is to provide a balance viewpoint. However, I felt as though the numbers provided under each category (such as number of arrests) lacked impact due to not having a point of comparison outside of Harlem. This in turns obscures the level of social inequality and cultural influence that was present in comparison to other regions.

In order to address this obscurity, I would create a map that also included the same sets of data for both Harlem and for surrounding neighborhoods. Additionally, there would be an option to highlight these regions by themselves and comparatively among each other. This would allow users to gain better insight as to just how historically relevant Harlem and the Harlem Renaissance was in shaping both performance culture and modern social equality.