Visual Veracity

Just as I discovered some element of relative comfort in Edward Tufte’s instructive constructions in Visual Explanations the suggestion came to mind that it was at least a first cousin of Franco Moretti’s Graphs, Maps, Trees. Both Tufte and Moretti use narrative text and diagrammatical contrivance to describe abstract concepts, and both do it fairly well. Last semester Moretti’s trees seemed to be a target worthy of a casual lampoon, but this semester he emerges apparition-like from Tufte’s penumbra to display some real sense (Tufte is the elder, having published first in 1997, Moretti shuffling behind in 2005). Both are about visual displays of information and the correct and incorrect interpretation of data (hats off to the brewery boys who stayed away from the Broad Street Cholera Pump). (30) But central to Tufte’s argument is the cohesiveness and integrity of visual evidence. As he unfolds his approach he engages in a useful, if not entertaining, set of devices to demonstrate design, scale, de-quantification, relationship, integrity, clarity, cause and effect, and parallelism, to cite a few. Peeking under his charming flaps (which must have caused the publisher fits and us a few pennies more) I realized that Tufte may have just as well been instructing us in writing. That epiphany came just as I arrived at his textual example of Gibbon’s narrative parallels (79). That cerebral bridge having been established it appeared easy to understand that both the visual and narrative bodies carry the burden of proof on their shoulders. For the analog historian the crafting of the word is the thing, for the visual artist the image is central. But for the new media journeyman the word and the image are twined imperatives. The digital page must engage both employing available devices in an effective Tuftesque manner to underwrite the veracity of its argument. That’s the charter for our digital design, keeping in mind also Occam’s prescription.’