situationist space

ITS MY BIRTHDAY TODAY....WOOOOOH (dont grade this too hard...its my birthday)

The concept of situationist art and the mission of what their architecture should do with urban space is confusing and sometimes contradictory. The article starts by saying that situationist architecture should "revolutionize everyday life and release the ordinary citizen into a world of experiment, anarchy, and play." Now, when thinking of Debord's naked city one can see how the object of the derive and psychogeographical mapping leads to a playful experiment based on individual movements throughout the city. However, later in the article the idea of aesthetics arises and what situationist art should look like. My problem is that if the art is meant to disorient people in a sense so that they are forced to experiment there can be no particular or certain form of the art. In the article, it says that the art should look sublime and cause awe or melancholy but at the same time it should emphasize ugly attributes of the picturesque. It seems like a lot of the objectives of situationists is contradictory to each other, and maybe that's the point after all since it causes experiment, play, and anarchy.

The other thing that i think is problematic for the situationists is that they are trying to transform the ordinary citizen, except an ordinary citizen probably could not understand the jargon used by the artists. It seems that only a certain class of people would have the oppotunity to learn and read teh situationist peices, and so it oculd not actually revolutionize lower classes. In fact, it seems that it should be for lower classes and the people being oppressed, but they probably do not get their hands on the situationist information. It is almost like preaching to the choir i feel.