Talk:Situationist International/Archive 1

Bob Black describes detournement and recuperation, both very important concepts for radicals and revolutionaries. It'd be a great idea to have articles on the idea, or even just to explain the concepts here since it seems like the Situationists made these concepts an integral part of their philosophy.

-- What is a "syncretic viewpoint of society"? Need explanations here...


 * Does syncretism give something valid enough?

Syncretic is inappropriate here. The Situationists viewed their effort to reconcile opposing views as *dialectical" - Debord was explicit about using Hegal. They syncretic only to the extent that Dialectics could be considered a form of syncretism - yet that is doubtful. The entreat for syncretism primarily cites religion and is about ONLY reconciling opposites rather "realizing and suppressing" tendencies.

- Cours camarade, le vieux monde est derrière toi.

Ne me libère pas, je m'en charge.

La poésie est dans la rue.

«Tant que j'aurai soif de musique, soif de justice, soif de lutte, soif de vie, je ne pourrai pas m'installer dans un bonheur tranquille». Marie-Hélène Le Doze

J'ai quelque chose à dire mais je ne sais pas quoi.

Translates (according to altavista) as "Run comrade, the old world is behind you. Do not release me, I take care some. Poetry is in the street. "As long as I will be thirsty for music, thirst for justice, thirst for fight, thirst for life, I will not be able to settle in a quiet happiness". Marie-Helene Doze I have something to say but I do not know what."... I think I get the gist.. will try to work this into the article..

Dany le rouge...ou vert...

 

''Karl- if you are reading this, rather than getting angst in your pants about whether this 30 year old movement is an 'ism' or an 'ist', perhapos it would be more helpful if you cou8ld fill in some of the historical gaps such as the occupation of the sorbonne, Paris riots 1968 etc??? Cheers quercus robur''

Situationism sounds so Kurt Vonnegut! Sorry it's off topic but I had to say that :)
 * The Situationists hated isms and refused to be called one :) Kingturtle 21:30 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I'm wondering if maybe this article should be retitled Situationist International, since that is primarily what it is about. There are, after all, people who are described - either by themselves or by others - as Situationists who were never members of the SI (eg, Ken Knabb ). R Lowry 22:24 May 5, 2003 (UTC)


 * I think this suggestion is worth pursuing. I am not sure how non-partisan the current account is. It seems very Debordist. I doubt that Debord was the leader till after 1961 with not just the departure of the Nashists, but also of Asger Jorn. There are also of course the Situationist Anti-National, which was far more anarchist than the Debordist faction. This needs more thinking about! Harry Potter


 * If I remember rightly, Debord, after insinuating himself into the Lettrist International, proceeded to undermine the leadership of that group and then take many of its members off with him to form the SI. He was always the main figure behind the latter group, being primarily responsible for its formation and insisting on more or less complete control over its development.


 * My point was that the article deals mainly with the development of the Situationist International, and its intellectual / theoretical underpinning, with a few fragments here and there referring to their influence on similar later movements. There are also points where - to me - it isn't clear who is being referred to by the term 'Situationists' - is it the SI or Situationists in general? It's difficult to tell sometimes. In short, I'd like to give the whole article a good tightening up but don't really have the time at the moment. R Lowry


 * When the SI was set up, only debord and Michelle Bernstein came from the Lettrist International, whereas Asger Jorn, Giuseppe Pinot-Gallizio, Piero Simondo, Walter Olmo and Elena Verrone all came from IMIB with Ralph Rumney founding the London Psychogeographical Association for the purpose of fusion. Indeed it was after contact with IMIB that Debord got involved with Henri Lefebre. Jorn was involved in recruiting the Spur group who were quite anti-thetical to the Debordist faction. While I would agree that Debord's control-freakery was in evidence well before 61, it was only then that he was able to establish full control of the organisation.Harry Potter


 * Actually, the current entry (6-20-03) seems rather "anti-Debordist" - essentially distillations from the ravings of Bob Black and Stewart Home. The latter "political" version of the SI is the only aspect which has actually had world historical impact. Stewart Home pulled the whole "pro-artistic" version of the SI out of the ashcan of history simply in an effort to stir-up publicity - his usual mode of operation. The SI experianced numerous splits and expulsions. None of the expelled groups and individuals from the artistic period had any seperate historical impact. Just as much, any claim of anarchist sympathies within the SI is completely unfounded, the SI certainly influenced anarchists but it wholey rejected what passes for anarchist political theory. Also, the fact that group operated with rigorous political discipline is considered automatically evidence of Debord dictatorial power. Another idiotic assumption. Red Hughs


 * I think the problem here is that Red Hughs knowledge is not quite as expansive as his confidence. e.g. Asger Jorn certainly had a well established international art impact, likewise Alexander Trocchi - - though of course neither was expelled. The remarks about Stewart Home should perhaps be better placed on that page. I also think the idea that the S.I. exercised "rigorous political discipline" is hard to support, given the facts. I think it was always more a rhetorical stance. I'm not sure how much Red Hughs's contribution helps to find a way forward on this page rather than express certain partisan views in an almost rude fashion. In many ways I see anti-debordism as perhaps the worst product of debordism.Harry Potter 21:13 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Obviously, my comments here in the talk section aren't meant to be put into the Situationist entry. If they were, I would have put them there. Certainly, while a certain amount of rudeness is in keeping with the traditions with the SI itself, I aim only to break down the situation as I see it. It's quite funny that you claim I have a lack of knowledge yet only marshall facts which are consistant with one claim you attempt to refute - that the excluded "artistic" early members of the SI haven't had a significant independent historical impact and were essentially forgotten until Stewart Home resuscitated them. Just as much, if you have facts refuting the generally rigorous approach of the Situationists, you might post them rather than a vague to "the facts". The most obvious evidence of the Situationist rigor is the remaining works of the Situationist, the second bit of evidence is their behavior in the various conflicts which they were involved (especially the Strass Bourg and the uprising of May 1968 in Paris). In anycase, my suggestion for the main entry is essentially the removal of extraneous material - the gratuitous statements about Debord and the clearly false connection with anarchism being the most obvious (the fact the SI heavily influenced anarchist might included). Relatively speaking, something distilling any of the reasonably well-done academic studies of the SI would be at least minimally acceptable. Also, there's no more reason to link to Bob Black, Stewart Home or "Culture Jams" than to link to Ken Knabb, Gilles Dauve, myself or the zillions of other SI offshoots. Given that one can't link to everything, most such links should be removed, except perhaps a couple post-Situationist surveys. Red Hughs

As regards the facts, here's one I think it might be useful to look atThe World as Labyrinth (I.S. no. 4) and Jorn's response, The Anti-Situation of Amsterdam. In response to Debord's argument that textual revision was only acceptable unless done by the SI in concert, Jorn wonders how, if The World as Labyrinth was a product if the SI in concert whether is still part of the ensemble, as he was not involved in that text. Another example would be the SI's dealings in America with Black Mask and indeed it is worth checking out Having Little, Being Much by Fredy Perlman. Also the continued role of Jeppesen Victor Martin both within the S.I. and with despised Nashists can perhaps be cited as evidence that this rigour was more rhetorical than real. I am glad you appreciated the humour in my previous posting, as often this goes unnoticed. I feel that we have to be careful that we do not reinforce the cultural marginalisation of those outside the principal europen cultures and languages (English, French, German) by dismissing out of hand Scandinavians and Hungarians simply because their work has not been "internationalised". This is an issue to which we can return. You speak dismissively of my vague appeal to unstated facts, yet you yourself mention "reasonably well-done academic studies of the SI" with out specifying to what you are refering. It would be interesting to know what candidates you have for such a wonderful literary genre. I agree with your remarks about anarchism having little place in a discussion on the Situationists, notwithstanding the comments made by Timothy Clarke in the October 79 situationist special. As for links on, I would rather be inclusive rather than exclusive.Harry Potter 17:06 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmm, Thinking about it, getting involved in a more elaborate argument around the question the question of rigor or lack-there-of is fairly useless. To me, the SI's dismissal of Black Mask seems like a ideal example of rigor but I suspect we'd disagree about a lot. I'll boil the general argument down to the point that the intended mission of wikipedia is producing a neuteral summary of generally agreed facts about historically significant actors, in this case the SI. The question of Debord's dictatorial control is clearly a partisan position, therefore it should hardly be presented prominently (though it's certainly a fact the many have claimed this). The split with the Nashists was *A* significant event during period of development of the Situationists. But to call it *THE* significant event is to make earlier development of group more important than the latter development. Debord and Sanguinetti's book "The Real Split In The International" could just as well be called the "fundamental split" if you took later Situationist developments as more important. Naturally, a neuteral account would take neither position - it could still mention one or both.
 * Your claims that my lack of interest in the Nashists represent anti-Scandinavians racism might perhaps be considered another instance of your humor, perhaps? In anycase, the studies of the SI that come to mind are Sadie Plant or Len Bracken. Even Greil Marcus has some useful stuff. Indeed, in the clearly partisan Bob Black essay the introductory paragraphs still winds-up with a somewhat more balanced view of the group than the current entry here (though clearly there's still a "revive the honor of forgotten Second Situationist International" thing going on).
 * In anycase, I reviewed the history of text and it seem that the first or two paragraphs are essentially tacked-on afterwards. This explains the disjointed quality of the text as a whole - it clearly needs rewriting.
 * As far as links go, certainly inclusive links are another option - it is simply that the entry would have to be vastly MORE inclusive than the present entry if you wanted to include all links to comments and critiques on the Situationists. Red Hughs


 * What I was refering to was not your lack of interest in the Nashists, but the layers of privilege within European culture. (After all you are equally dismissive of Black Mask and Fredy Perlman.) My view is that whilst Debord was the best writer, I feel that Kotanyi's first hand experience of the Hungarian Uprising might have more relevance to the development of the SI theory - even though Kotanyi's ability to write French at that time was limited. Yet this is rarely mentioned by these resplendent academics who share Debord's reverence for the text. Certainly the conference on COBRA accompanying the recent exhibition in Newcastle.
 * As for increasing the number of links I am happy to let them grow, and then perhaps put them in more coherent fashion at some later date. At present I am working through COBRA artists and then I intend to sort out Lettrism which I fear i have made a fearful mess of - through my inexperience.
 * I am glad we have found common ground on the need to rewrite the situationist page. I feel that it might be best to have a separate page for Second Situationist International, however meagre that entry may be and it can hardly be more meagre than entry for Charles Wreford Brown.Harry Potter 19:54 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * OK, I just posted my complete rewrite of the first section. I don't think I savage any particular viewpoint here. I have removed references to "anarchist sympathies" as well as other misleading rhetoric (such as calling Vanegeim a "Social theorist"). I also provided a single narative to what had become an unfortunate collection of bits and pieces. I still wouldn't expect that everyone would be happy but I honestly wrote this with intention of regaining the neuteral tone which the wikipedia aims for. Red Hughs 25 June 2003

Any thoughts on the possible name change I suggested a while ago, to Situationist International? The recent changes to the article seem to emphasise further what I said before (see further up the page), that the SI is primarily what this article is about. R Lowry 19:45 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I agree. We can then append a page with a list of members of the SI, have a second page for the Second Situtaionist International and another page dealing with what other people have said about Situations. Certainly Raoul Hausman was writing about them in the early sixties, and, so I have been told, was jean Paul Satre - but I have never seen the texts.Harry Potter 05:32 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Defining Asger Jorn as a vandal (I reverted this) might be some kind of statement of something, but does not make sense to most people. If you want to call him that, give your reasons for this. I did see Asger Jorn holding a lecture on art only recently, and he didn't smash anything, I promise. Harvester 17:58 20 May 2003 (UTC)


 * I hope you like the compromise I have put up. If it does not make sense to people perhaps it would be better to improve the article on vandalism rather than simply reverting to a previous less developed version of the page. Some of my reasons for this is can be found in 'Comparative Vandalism Asger Jorn and the Artistic Attitude to Life' by Peter Shield. Others by gazing at his modified paintings. I would like to hear more about Jorn's recent lecture even if he is not the Jimi Hendrix of abstract expressionism. Harry Potter


 * Ah OK, no problems... The thing is that the articles have to be understandable and for avoiding confusion I opt for creating an entry like vandal (art) which explain the Jorn et al position. I saw Asger Jorn on VHS recently, the lecture was not recent by the way, sort of strange slip there, felt like a time warp. :-) Harvester 20:42 22 May 2003 (UTC)