Situationist International

I am always struck by the tendency of revolutionaries whether from the left or the right to write their theses in almost unintelligible language. Reading the material produced by the Situationist International is like entering a world where the inhabitants use the same words in the structure of their language as I do but ascribe different meanings through uncommon use or combination. In itself this cannot be said to be wrong as providing there is a consistency of use then meaning can be established in the same way as in any language. It just makes a real understanding of what is being said very difficult if not impossible because you can never be certain that you have managed to find the underlying meaning in the discourse you have just read.

Of course such a criticism can be made against the jargon filled world of most 'specialisms' that are part of our everyday life. It is as though there is a need for the 'in-group' to create a language structure that makes life difficult for new entrants. It is also a very good way to quickly identify the non-group member and thus strengthen the feeling of belonging that is so necessary to ensure cohesion of the group through time. The history of Situationist International is marked by the exclusion of groups who attempted to introduce a different 'language' (explanation or ideology) that in some way challenged the purity of the original thinking even where it would seem to have been a legitimate development. It would seem that the desire to remain true to its beginnings reduced the number of members to the point where it was no longer viable as a group.

The group was the result of the joining of two artistic groups that later became dominated by a group of political theorists and agitators. The artistic group, that had about 6 members, broke away from this politically minded faction and were subsequently excluded. They set up a second Situationist International working with a group (Gruppe Spur) who had also been excluded and were now an independent group and their artistic work is known through their graffiti in Copenhagen and the decapitation of the Little Mermaid statue.

Given that there seems to have been only one or two original members left at the final demise it is difficult to discover what the underlying philosophical force was that drove the group. Guy Debord the author of "The Society of the Spectacle" (which is the subject of the next 'in your blog') published the book in 1967 in the same year that one of his fellow members, Raoul Vaneigem, published "The Revolution of Everyday Life". This book was written to present the SI's theories to a wider audience and   from the few extracts that I have read is easier to read. The different approaches of the two books (Debord the clinical theorist; Vaneigem describing the feelings) is said to have provided those involved in the uprising of 1968 in Paris with both a theoretical base and an understanding of the frustrations they felt at the society they of which they were part but felt alienated from.

We are asked to consider the  possible impact the approach to art of the Situationist International had or has had on  art generally. The Situationist International used the term 'Detournement' (usually translated as 'diversion' in English) to distinguish their form of art although they denied that there was such a thing stating that "there is no Situationist art, only Situationist uses of art." It is always difficult, if not impossible, to judge the impact any one movement has upon anything else although it is probably a reasonable conclusion that such use of art would make others think about the use that art is put to in our society.