Honestly, I find the ideas of the Situationist International fundamentally paradoxical. They promote creating situations, : "Our central idea is the construction of situations, that is to say, the concrete construction of momentary ambiances of life..." and yet, as Raunig points out, there is limited evidence that these 'situations' ever really manifested. He writes, "There is only a vague association of what could specifically be meant by the construction of the situation beyond the theoretical conception." He continues, "There is little to be found in the extensive texts of the bulletin of the Situationist International (S.I., founded in 1957) about the way in which the construction of situations and the constructed situation itself may have actually occurred."
The S.I. were all about the life and space of the 'everyday', turning passivity into activity (becoming 'livers' or 'viveurs'), yet were purposely isolated from society. In this way, Raunig labels the S.I. as double-sided: "their practice of exclusion on the one hand and the Situationist process of opening up toward the movement..." Still I don't really understand how they 'opened up'.
Apparently all the disruptive student action at the Sorbonne in the late 1960s, particular comics, advertising and graffiti were done in the name of Situationist theories. But how are these specifically Situationist and not just a form of protest against oppression? As Raunig writes, "The history of the S.I. is that of a development from an avant-gardist art collective to a political agitation troop." So, I am left to question (perhaps in ignorance) what exactly is it....?
I suppose this whole paradoxical 'situation' can be summed up in Debord's words: "truth is a moment of falsehood."
this is not really a paradox, i think you mean a contradiction?
ReplyDelete