In "Situationalist Space," Thomas McDonough discusses the differences between The Naked City and the Plan de Paris. McDonough argues that the Plan de Paris uses the discourse of "description" meaning that the map represents the city by mapping out the whole city with all the streets and places whereas The Naked City takes a completely different shape using "spatializing actions" also known as "derives." The Naked City is not your conventional map. The map is fragmented; it has a different "unity of atmosphere" for each segment. There is no spatial orientation; everything is discombobulated which is reminiscent of Frederic Jameson's discussion on modern versus postmodern in which he describes postmodern art as fragmented and lacking meaning. Instead of looking at space as context, the Naked City skillfully uses space as an element of social practice, which means that instead of just being a description or a whole map, it breaks down the map into not just spaces but spaces that people inhabit. For me this takes post modern art to another level of meaning making me believe that unlike Jameson's claims, postmodern art too can produce a deeper meaning. This element of encompassing social groups into the map brings in the idea  of derives.  Although i am still not positive what a derive is. It seems that the derive is the people, and they are attempting to analyze the totality of life. The Naked City is a much more abstract way of looking at a map, which is why it is a lot harder for me to follow and understand this piece. With the derive, does this now mean that the people are the art? Or are we looking at the people in relationship within the city? And how are the flaneur and the derive different because to me they seem like they are very similar?