In the practice of writing articles it's easy to overlook the importance of the flows between them, especially when these traces can't be made visible. In FW we can see the links we make but we can't see the traces made by others who follow them.
The practice of following links is critical to the human network of FW writers. This form of connective learning is not just about gifted writing; it's fundamentally about reading. But only writing is given a journal, a history, in FW.
Related: Forage Threads
Doina Petrescu writes on mapping and indeterminacy, referring to Francesco Careri, Walkscapes: Walking as an Aesthetic Practice (2002).
quote
By considering ‘walking’ as the beginning of architecture, Careri proposes another history of architecture – one which is not that of settlements, cities and buildings made of stones but of movements, displacements and flows .... It is an architecture which speaks about space not as being contained by walls but as made of routes, paths and relationships.
...
If for the settler, the space between settlements is empty, for the nomad, the errant, the walker – this space is full of traces: they inhabit space through the points, lines, stains and impressions, through the material and symbolic marks left in the landscape. These traces could be understood as a first grasping of what is common, as a first tool to size and constitute resources for a constantly moving and changing community.
How to make this ‘common’ visible, how to map these traces? The traces contain information, but how to reveal it, to communicate it in another way than by controlling, by imposing, by knowing before hand – how to map unknowing? What lines do we need for this mapping? What lines are those that map the indeterminate relationships between subjects and spaces? What kind of place is revealed through these lines? What kind of knowledge?