Situationist Project

Here are the two responses I wrote to the readings on the movement. I chose a very obvious point - the fact that the SI eventually vowed to stop creating art. However, I just find this point fascinating. In my own artistic endeavors, I wrestle with similar questions. Sometimes, if the work I create isn't as good as what I envisioned, I justify it to myself by reminding myself how great my thinking process and ideas were. Is this legitimate? Is the creation of art defined by the ideas in our heads, or the execution of those ideas? Furthermore, I was intrigued when someone in class asked if both the positive and negative responses to the same point, which is what I ended up doing. Understanding both sides of an argument is an important skill, and I figured that learning to think that way would be a valuable skill in life. Now, without further ado, my responses:

Situationist Response 1

In 1961, the Situationalist International decided that the creation of art would no longer be a part of the movement. They saw spectacle as something manipulative, and felt that the removal of art creation would help eliminate that.

Certain artistic statements may seem extreme and even silly, but their innovativeness can not be overlooked. In the art world, taking it too far is an important step towards taking it to the right place. Duchamp’s famous/infamous “Fountain” isn’t remembered for being a particularly compelling work of art in its own right, but for jolting the art world, making us question what it means to look at something, and leading to decades of fascinating experimentation in art that gave the world fresh and compelling works. If the envelope is pushed from Point A to Point B, even if Point B is just too far out, artists now have a newfound space to work in, that is, everything that lies between A and B. In the case of the Situationists, the refusal to make art may be ridiculous in some sense, but it gets people thinking. Certain questions are raised. Can spectacle hide hollowness? Do we value form or ideas? Perhaps I misinterpret the intentions of the Situationalist International, but I think the important debate of style vs. substance is addressed here. 

As a film student, I observe style over substance far too often. Many student filmmakers put all their energy into using fancy equipment and flashy shots and editing, while the rest often falls by the wayside, and the films are left with obvious or uninspired stories and clumsy writing and characterization. In response to Hollywood filmmaking, Danish filmmakers Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg created the Dogme 95 movement. They had strict rules, such as only handheld camera, and no special lighting. Even though I find the specific rules to be too limiting and sometimes arbitrary, I love the principles set forward, putting emphasis on characters and performances. Many non-Dogme films since have been influenced  by putting emphasis on these things rather than the technical. That is, they have found a rewarding middle ground between Points A and B. 

The Situationalists eventual refusal to create art shows that they value the thought process, and without form, a lack of ideas can’t be masked. While we shouldn’t quit creating, an example as extreme as this can be a bit of a wakeup call to the importance of ideas.

Situationist Response 2

In 1961, the Situationalist International decided that the creation of art would no longer be a part of the movement. They saw spectacle as something manipulative, and felt that the removal of art creation would help eliminate that.

This is arrogant rubbish. While its an interesting concept, it also comes off as a massive copout. Yes, the Situationalist International raises some compelling points, especially about people’s preference of images for the things they represent. Many of these points I agree with. However, I don’t think that the Situationalist International took the right course of action against art they felt was false. In the film Ratatouille, the character of Anton Ego, who is a food critic, has a moving speech towards the end of the film, which includes the following passage: “We [critics] risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.” 

As were all the other more avant-garde art movements of the 20th century, the Situationalist movement was a response to the art that had preceded it. However, by refusing to make art, they are talking the talk without walking the walk. This would be all well and good if they called themselves critics, but that is not the case. This is an art movement. If they were unhappy with the use of spectacle in art, they should have created works of art that showed a better way of doing things. This show other artists new ways of approaching things, and therefore they would take their art in new directions. There would be growth. However, by being so stubborn and elitist, they are merely irritating others, and instead of growth, there will be stagnation or devolution. Their ideas are compelling, and they should be admired for that, but true artists would find a solution, rather than a simple “fuck you.”