In his The New Nature of Cartography, cartographer John Brian Harley analyzes a number of aspects of both modern maps and their colonial-era predecessors. A common thread of this analysis is that Harley asks the reader to examine maps through various contexts, including those of cartographers, society, and other maps. In one of his discussions of the many possible relationships between the cartographer and the map, Harley asks the reader to reflect upon the position that contemporary map-making companies act as the cartographer. Specifically, Harley argues that the modern cartography industry has corrupted its primary export simply because of its fiscal motivation.

Harley claims that “cartography acquires a corporate image” (Harley 41) because of the increasing size and scope of modern map businesses, meaning that the content of mass-produced maps have been intentionally altered by corporations for financial gain. While these maps may not have the intricate commentary and artistic flair that world maps from several centuries ago had, Harley asserts that one form of content that can always be seen by an eagle-eyed observer is the “financial balance sheet” (Harley 41). One apparent implication of Harley’s claim is that the overwhelming majority of modern maps are inherently biased because of their commercial origins. Otherwise put, the industrial production of paper and laminated maps necessitates a common worldview that as many customers as possible will support, even if such maps must be factually inaccurate in order to meet this goal.

Harley’s thesis has its roots in cartography from the early modern period, when European monarchs, nobles, or others with a surplus of wealth would become patrons to cartographers in exchange for maps (Harley 40). In such a transactional relationship, and especially in one with figures of enormous prestige and political influence, cartographers would have felt uneasy about presenting their patron with a map if it appeared to be empty or lacking in any apparent way. By definition, maps need only to be visual instruments of land, but the influx of money into the cartographer’s pockets and anxiety into the cartographer’s mind transformed maps intended for patrons into elaborate works of art with embellishments and detailed cartouches. This seems counterintuitive to the purpose of a map, but in the context of the patron, it didn’t matter. Instead, it was actually beneficial for the patron to have a highly-decorated map, as it was much more of a decorative piece or conversation starter than it was a legitimate navigation tool.

In the context of modern society, this practice could translate into the creation of a map that is factually incorrect but is accepted as truthful in a target market, mass produce this map on an industrial scale, and then advertise it to potential customers in this market. In this intricate process, these customers, altogether fulfilling the role of the patron, would be compelled to buy these maps because they would validate and reinforce their worldviews rather than forcing them to confront geopolitical realities. Moreover, this trend of falsely-based maps could easily expand their regional prevalence into clothing, tapestries, jewelry, and other commercial mediums.

Another contemporary view is that Harley’s claim can also be enlarged to encompass not only maps created by corporate entities, but also by individuals to be sold via websites such as Etsy. While the creation of copies from a print-to-order platform such as Redbubble may not directly involve the original artist with its industrial production, the artist’s work could theoretically be mass produced and therefore the artist would be profiting from daily orders. What makes this scenario surprisingly more worrisome than the corporation is that there are no checks and balances for what is created and sold. In the corporation, the artist or group of artists would create a map, but it would still have to survive a lengthy and bureaucratic process of review from the company’s management. Likewise, the artist needs only to consult themselves. Admittedly, both of these processes can result in either intentionally or unintentionally misleading maps, but the possibility for greater distortions and factual inaccuracies are much higher in the case of the individual artist.

Harley would have been unable to predict the phenomenon of print-to-order e-commerce when he published The New Nature of Cartography because it was published in a different societal context, but one must wonder if his opposition to inherent bias that originated from a “financial balance sheet” (Harley 41) was applicable to all contemporary for-profit maps or simply those created by corporations. As a whole, the text would appear to indicate the latter, as Harley’s stance towards cartography is generally critical towards businesses and governments rather than specific individuals. Perhaps this speaks more to Harley’s thesis, a generalized form of which asserts that maps are a type of text that have inherent biases and narratives which are rooted in the contexts of their cartographer, other maps, and society. Still, Harley’s thesis indicates that biases can exist in the maps created by a digital artist, but that they would more than likely originate from that artist’s personality and society rather than the balance of their bank account. Although this discussion does not directly address the specific argument at hand, it does reinforce Harley’s wider stance that “rhetoric permeates all layers of the map” (Harley 37).

In its entirety, The New Nature of Cartography provides the aforementioned stance as a basis for many subclaims, including how a “financial balance sheet” (Harley 41) can change the very nature of a map and how such changes have existed over the past few centuries. Harley describes the transactional binary of patron and artist (Harley 40), and from this it can be surmised that the artist generally prioritizes a map’s appearance and frills over its reliability and accuracy. In the twenty-first century, the role of the patron is associated with the consumer, whereas the artist is associated with the corporation or, on occasion, with the digital artist. In spite of the differences between the patron, the corporation, and the digital artist, Harley’s claim of financial-based biases in maps persists to this day and will continue to persist into the inconceivable future as both individuals and corporate entities continue to express their particular biases through the process of mapmaking.