maybe the most confounding graph i have ever seen in any book
- they them ze hir etc
- nora.zone/
hello i am nora reed
you may know me from all the bots i have made. they live on nora.zone now. i also run an abortion resources page at abortion.cafe and have a jewelry store at nora.jewelry.
bluesky
bsky.app/profile/nora.zonemastodon
mastodon.social/@NoraReedYou must log in to comment.
in reply to @prophetgoddess's post:
is this implying 2 separate timelines?? I really hope ours is the Postmodernity timeline
i said this elsewhere but: i have no idea. literally all azuma says about this graph is "Consequently, the shift from modernity to postmodernity can be thought of as something gradually occurring over the seventy-five years between 1914 and 1989, with a single focus in the 1970s (see Figure 16)." which is a sensible enough statement except for the part where it refers to this incomprehensible graph and then moves on with not another word said
i think it's sort of a math pun, too, the intersection of the vertical line for 1970 and the bottom horizontal line is the "focus" (as in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(geometry)]) of that curve
oh i think i finally get this!
the curve isn't representing a data series or anything—it's marking the boundary between "modernity" and "post-modernity." imagine modernity (the area to the left of the curve) in one colour, and postmodernity (the area to the right of the curve) in another colour, and the curve as the border between the two colours. modernity starts giving way to postmodernity at 1914 and fully backs out of the picture in 1989 (and the vertical line at 1970 marks the focal point of transition between the two i guess)
the horizontal axes aren't separate things; they're just at the top and bottom of a single solid bar of time moving from left to right.
just a guess though!
You got it. Widescale colour printing and developments in graphic design really were a godsend for these sorts of graphics haha
