✏ ✏ ✏
a manifesto
on provisional mapping methods

This methodology is conceived as processual rather than definitive or outcome-driven. Map-making is approached not as a means to produce final, authoritative representations, but as an open-ended practice—each map a sketch within an evolving analytical process.

Rooted in repetition and variation, the methodology mirrors the rhythms of the everyday (Lefebvre 1988, Pink et al. 2017). Spatial representations are not treated as stable, knowable, or transparent, but rather as fluid, uncertain, and subject to transformation. In this context, incompleteness is embraced not as a flaw but as a site of potential (Corner 1999).

Form and aesthetics are regarded as equally significant to content. Maps are conceptualised not merely as representational artefacts but also as relational and analytical instruments. Material choices—such as "hand-drawing with crayons, pens, and inks on paper"—emphasise the human, situated nature of knowledge production and foreground the subjective, provisional qualities inherent to the mapping process (Rekacewicz 2021, Westerveld and Knowles 2020). In line with these principles, maps will initially be produced using analogue materials and subsequently digitalised for further analysis and presentation.

In line with a decolonial and relational understanding of knowledge, mapping is approached as a human, situated, and affective practice. Drawing on thinkers such as Glissant (1989), this methodology values opacity, emotion, creativity, and the everyday as integral components of knowledge. Maps, therefore, must also account for elements that lie beyond normative and disciplinary frameworks—those that resist clarity, linearity, or control.

The visual arrangement and juxtaposition of multiple maps will serve not only to convey findings but also to provoke new interpretations. The display thus becomes an extension of the analytical process, foregrounding plurality, fluidity, and spatial imagination; the basis for potentialities.