INFO-GRAPHIC OR GRAPHIC INFO?
Above shows an info-graphic I produced for recently defunct classical music website Sinfini.
On the left is the initial idea, based on the look of the Ordnance Survey maps; as one of the facts is the mapping agency birthdate.
After a change in the facts, this map idea didn't really work and the whole thing really became less of an info-graphic and more of an illustrated fact-sheet.
I re-worked the idea (correcting the featured instrument shape, as it turns out I don't know my Basset Clarinet from my Basset Horn Clarinet), reverting to a colour palette I had come up with earlier for the same site, for another Clarinet Concerto feature.
My idea was to pull apart the instrument in the same way that the given facts reveal the separate parts of the Concerto itself. The result is quite Cubist, although Picasso wasn't in my thoughts as I was doing it, and maybe that is why I think, and hope, it doesn't appear as a pastiche.
I prefer the second attempt, but can't help but feel the initial aim of producing an info-graphic was lost. It seems that too often any information with an image is labelled as such, whereas I feel it should represent the data in a way that wouldn't be clearly understood just by looking at the facts; the relationship between them, for example, from which new conclusions can be surmised.
This is a problem when the 'data' is really descriptive facts, and although I made some attempt in the map version, it doesn't quite work...so it was probably best to abandon any pretence and just produce a graphic-info, to coin a phrase.
To see the two pieces above in more detail, I have popped them up on Pinterest.
If anyone is interested in maps and the Ordnance Survey, I can recommend a documentary I watched recently on BBC4 - available here if you fancy.