I’ve read the
first chapter of The Situationist
International : A User Guide by Simon Ford (2005) . This is the history of
the Situationist International(SI) movement, founded by Guy Debord, and from which
the discipline of psychogeography emerged. This gives some useful background,
summarised below.
The SI was formed
1957 in Paris and was theatrically disbanded in 1972 by Debord, and is considered
an important part of the post-war avant garde (pp9-11). Debord had moved to
Paris in 1951 and drifted around Saint_Germain-des_Pres, with no desire to
work: “Ne travaillez jamais”. He made films and was interested in the idea of
creating situations. Ford quotes Gil Wolman (a member of the Lettristes
International, a precursor group to SI) ‘A science of situations is to be
created, which will borrow elements from psychology, statistics, urbanism and
ethics. These elements have to coincide in an absolutely new goal: the conscious
creation of situations”(p 25). This seems to me to be a kind of early indicator
of psychogeography.
Debord and his associates
spent a lot of time drinking (pp30-34). They had a fascination with urban
living and chance encounter. This necessitated a new way of navigating the
city. They walked or took taxis that they randomly redirected. From this came
the concept of psychogeography, “the study of the specific effects of the
geographical environment, consciously organised or not, on the emotions and behaviour
of individuals” (p34). The chief means of psychogeographical investigation was
the “dérive, which consisted of drifting and deliberately trying to lose
oneself in the city”. This was defined in 1958 as“ a mode of experimental
behaviour linked to the conditions of urban society: a technique of transient
passage through varied ambiences” (p 35)
A further concept
of the SI was “détournement”, which does not have a direct translation but
seems to equate to diversion or subversion. It basically allowed plagiarism of
existing texts, ideas and artworks, which were then altered or collaged to suit
the SI’s ends. (p37). Debord actually saw no worth in art, but this didn’t stop
him meeting and being associated with artists. Debord himself produced an
artwork with maps and arrows called “The Naked City”, with the arrows indicating
“pyschogeographic flows”.” This was an interpretation of a freedom of movement,
challenging the fixity of conventional cartography. (p59)
The definitions
that Ford quotes, of deliberately trying to lose oneself during the dérive, was
not the same as the one I’d used in the paper at the Grim Up North? Symposium. I’d thought of
the psychogeographical walk as having more of a definite purpose. However, I do
like the ideas he introduces of the randomness and chance encounter. This ties
in quite well with my photos taken when a car passenger, for use as source
material. Even though psychogeography is associated with walking, Debord’s use
of taxis to randomly explore the city offers a tenuous link to car-based
psychogeography.
Debord’s artwork,
“The Naked City” is interesting in terms of interface between psychogeography
and art, despite Debord having no time for art. I am also wondering if it ties
in with Lillehammer’s idea of drawing maps, and a recurring theme in what I’m reading
– the power and control exerted by maps (Lillehammer actually mentions this
although I didn’t go into it in my notes on her book chapter). There is also
the paradigm of the boundary, which came up on the Grim Up North? symposium. This,
for me, distils once more into the idea of space and of repurposing … what?
Map, space, daily experience?? I’d recently discussed some of my prints with my
tutor, Sharon, and she had seen some of the resists I’d used as producing a
kind of negative space effect. So… the idea of “space” in my prints. This somehow
intuitively ties in with the concepts Ford presents in this chapter; not sure
how, but definite food for further thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment