Johanna Drucker’s Graphesis: Visual Forms of Knowledge Production (2014) presents a critical examination of the role of visualization in shaping knowledge, challenging the notion that data visualizations are neutral representations of reality. Instead, Drucker argues that visual epistemology—the ways in which knowledge is structured and communicated through visual means—fundamentally constructs meaning, rather than merely reflecting it. This perspective is highly relevant to my research, which explores the visualization of orchid growth data in relation to Taiwan’s colonial history. By analyzing how data is collected, structured, and visualized, Graphesis offers a framework to critically examine whether data visualizations reproduce colonial modes of knowledge production or offer opportunities for decolonial narratives.
 

1. Key Arguments in Graphesis

Drucker’s central thesis is that visualization is not a neutral practice, but rather an act of interpretation embedded within historical, cultural, and ideological contexts. She critiques the traditional scientific assumption that information graphics merely “display” objective truth, emphasizing instead that they are constructed artifacts influenced by social, political, and aesthetic considerations. She introduces several key concepts relevant to my study:

(1) Capta vs. Data: Drucker distinguishes between capta (that which is “taken” or “constructed”) and data (that which is assumed to be “given”). This is crucial for understanding how colonial botanical studies, including those involving orchids in Taiwan, framed plant classification as an “objective” practice, when in fact it was deeply intertwined with imperialist expansion and resource control.

(2) Visual Epistemology: The way knowledge is structured and communicated visually shapes what is seen and understood. Colonial botanical illustrations and taxonomies historically framed orchids as objects of scientific control, similar to how contemporary environmental data visualizations might continue to reinforce technocratic perspectives.

(3) Aesthetic Dimensions of Visualization: Drucker highlights how the form of visual representation (e.g., diagrams, graphs, maps) influences its perceived legitimacy. This raises questions about how different ways of visualizing orchid data—whether through traditional scientific charts or more experimental, artistic methods—may either uphold or challenge colonial histories of botanical knowledge.

 

2. Application to Orchid Data Visualization and Colonialism

The framework provided by Graphesis allows for a critical re-examination of how orchid growth data is visualized and interpreted within the context of Taiwan’s colonial history. Several points of intersection emerge:

(1) Colonial Scientific Visuality: During the Japanese colonial period (1895–1945), Taiwan’s orchids were extensively cataloged, classified, and appropriated within imperial botanical research. The visual formats used—such as taxonomic drawings, herbarium records, and ecological maps—legitimized Japanese scientific authority over Taiwan’s natural resources. Applying Drucker’s critique, these were not merely neutral representations but epistemological tools that reinforced colonial governance.

(2) Data Visualization as Knowledge Production: The contemporary practice of collecting orchid growth data through sensors (e.g., Playtronica Biotron for bioelectric signals) and visualizing it through digital tools (e.g., TouchDesigner) can be examined through Drucker’s lens. If the data is framed in a manner that continues an extractive, classification-based model, it risks reproducing historical colonial structures. However, alternative visualization strategies—such as speculative, interactive, or participatory visualizations—could open pathways for decolonial engagement with the data.
(3) Challenging Western Cartographic and Taxonomic Models: Drucker’s argument that visualization is inherently interpretative suggests that non-traditional, non-linear, and culturally situated visualization methods might challenge dominant ways of seeing. For instance, visualizing orchid growth in a manner inspired by Indigenous ecological knowledge rather than Western taxonomic hierarchies could serve as an act of decolonial resistance.
 

3. Conclusion: Towards a Decolonial Visual Epistemology

Drucker’s Graphesis provides a theoretical foundation for interrogating the epistemological assumptions behind the visualization of orchid growth data. By recognizing that visualization is an act of meaning-making rather than a neutral representation, my research can explore alternative visual strategies that disrupt colonial legacies in botanical science. This involves critically assessing how data is framed, questioning the authority of traditional visual models, and experimenting with new forms of representing orchid life that engage local histories, ecological narratives, and decolonial perspectives.

In summary, Graphesis challenges the neutrality of data visualization and prompts a rethinking of how knowledge is constructed through visual forms. By applying Drucker’s insights to the study of orchid data visualization in Taiwan, my research seeks to uncover whether these visualizations reinforce colonial frameworks or open up new possibilities for decolonial storytelling and ecological awareness.