[Blake_Stimson,_Gregory_Sholette]_Collectivism_aft(z-lib
Internationaleries 33in which the normative status of geography—one of the easiest to manipulateof all scholarly disciplines—was grotesquely revealed. Additional unitaryurbanist actions were executed the next year in Brussels that consistedof a series of unplanned ludic games and détourned maps of the city.The psychogeographies created in Brussels also produced a driftor dérive that collectively “discovered” and reframed the city, its civic functionsor its lack of them. Brussels, once the site of the Second International,was at this moment in the cold war being transformed into the administrativeand political center of NATO and by extension of the West. In theory,any collective, absurdist activity staged by LI would turn upside-down thistransformed Brussels, recovering whatever remained of its older existence,and offer its citizens a radical mode of action for retrieving their city fromthe grips of techno-bureaucratization. Unitary urbanism was therefore a tacticalrejection of ofWcially imposed forms of urbanism including its covertpolicy of colonization, separation, fragmentation, and social isolation. Simultaneously,it offered the very opposite: a unifying if ephemeral act of seriousfestivity that was highly participatory and collectively realized.One of the main conceptual forces behind unitary urbanism wasa continuing interest in the writings of Henri Lefebvre. Particularly inXuentialwas his critique of the techno-bureaucratic regulation of cities, a processhe termed the modernist “production of space.” 60 In different ways theultimate goal of unitary urbanism was a restoration of a totally human experience.This restoration was not unlike Lefebvre’s concept of the festival asa celebration of the collective ownership of urban space. In this sense thetheory and practice of unitary urbanist action was always conceived of as “atotal critical act,” and not just another “doctrine.” 61 Some of these ideaspercolated through SI writings prior to 1956 including Debord’s 1955 study,Critique of Urban Geography, or Ivan Chtcheglov’s 1953 text, Formulary fora New Urbanism. At the same time the critique of functionalism had alreadyled them to previously denounce the modernist architect Le Corbusier andto détourne his famous phrase that the house is “machine for living” intotheir own interpretation: the “house as the machine for surprises.” 62 In 1957the “Report on the Construction of Situations” sought to make a clear turnaway from an avant-gardism always controlled by the bourgeoisie and towarda more engaged form of direct action. 63 It was later that the group plannedan “agitation and inWltration” 64 of UNESCO headquarters in Paris that wasintended to ridicule its techno-bureaucratization of culture at that time.However the action was never executed. And while the concept of wreakinghavoc on the so-called “international” distribution of “cultural needs”hoped to set in motion a truly global, if decidedly cultural, revolution, theseradical goals remained in the Wnal analysis merely theoretical.
34 Jelena StojanovićAnother signiWcant unitary urbanist event was the 1959 exhibitionentitled “La Caverna Antimateria” (Anti-Material Cave) that took placeat the Galerie Drouin in Paris. In this case two Situationist members from theItalian section, Giors Melanotte and Giuseppe-Pinot Gallizio, collaborativelyextended Gallizio’s concept of “industrial painting” into the environment bycreating a full-blown art gallery installation that addressed several issues simultaneously.By creating an environment made of an indeWnitely reproducible,collectively made abstract painting reminiscent of bomb shelters that werecommonly featured in daily newspapers, they targeted the persistent massmarketingof fear through nuclear annihilation while linking this to functionalistart production. 65 In the same year the group founded Research Bureaufor Unitary Urbanism (Bureau de recherche pour un urbanisme unitaire). Inmany ways it was a continuation of the MIBI Experimental Laboratory inAlba. The Bureau’s Wrst projects were in the form of a labyrinth that renderedeveryday, lived situations events that surpassed art. 66 Much of this ludicplay was itself based on an earlier project in 1956 entitled Mobile Cities andexpressed a utopian belief that the city and its inhabitants should be able tocirculate freely, anarchically, according to their desires. This same grotesquelogic had previously informed another project entitled Temporary Habitations,which was a series of spatial living constructs for the Gypsy population inAlba. The Research Bureau for Unitary Urbanism revived this propositionfor nomadic living as a constantly changing and variable architectural environmentnecessary for creating “collective spontaneity.” 67However in 1962 the Bureau moved to Brussels. Here its tacticsonce again took up a more theoretical direction. This included the productionof a number of texts including Vaneigem’s “Basic Banalities” that directlyattacked contemporary culture, but also the new program written by AttilaKotanyi and Raoul Vaneigem who together pronounced that the SI artiststreated urbanism “as an ideology,” without which the “spectacle is impossible.”68 In this sense the unitary urbanist actions dramatically departed frommost other contemporary art practices including the “de-coll/age” workperformed by Wolf Vostell, or such practices as “Destruction in art,” donein a similar, performative mode. 69 By contrast the SI offered a powerful collectivevision, something that was profoundly lacking from these isolated,individualistic political and aesthetic undertakings. 70 This degree of collectivismwas not seen again until, perhaps, the emergence of Fluxus severalyears later, or in some of the collectivist actions staged by Jean-Jacques Lebel.With the tactic of unitary urbanism artists stopped being theconstructors of useless, artiWcial art forms in order to become the constructorsof an environment for developing new forms of collective ownership.The SI above all believed that architecture and urban planning needed to
- Page 2 and 3: ▲COLLECTIVISMAFTERMODERNISM
- Page 4 and 5: COLLECTIVISM▲AFTERMODERNISMThe Ar
- Page 6 and 7: TO LOUISE AND ARIANA
- Page 8 and 9: CONTENTS6. The Mexican Pentagon 165
- Page 10 and 11: AcknowledgmentsThis book would not
- Page 12 and 13: PrefaceThe collectivization of arti
- Page 14 and 15: FIGURE P.1. Promotional poster for
- Page 16 and 17: Prefacexvdirectly opposite individu
- Page 18 and 19: Prefacexviiadmit a desire to see al
- Page 20 and 21: Introduction: Periodizing Collectiv
- Page 22 and 23: Introduction 3to increase their pro
- Page 24 and 25: Introduction 5Modernist artists und
- Page 26 and 27: Introduction 7Those good intentions
- Page 28 and 29: Introduction 9and that helped give
- Page 30 and 31: Introduction 11collectivism brings
- Page 32 and 33: Introduction 13artists on Chicago
- Page 34 and 35: Introduction 15Phase of the Cultura
- Page 36 and 37: 1. Internationaleries: Collectivism
- Page 38 and 39: Internationaleries 19played a “us
- Page 40 and 41: Internationaleries 21Rooskens, Euge
- Page 42 and 43: FIGURE 1.2. Le “Realisme-Socialis
- Page 44 and 45: Internationaleries 25and an active
- Page 46 and 47: Internationaleries 27create a democ
- Page 48 and 49: Internationaleries 29of the fourth
- Page 50 and 51: Internationaleries 31Debord’s 196
- Page 54 and 55: Internationaleries 35be demystiWed
- Page 56 and 57: Internationaleries 37printing a ser
- Page 58 and 59: Internationaleries 39NOTES1. Harold
- Page 60 and 61: Internationaleries 4136. The exhibi
- Page 62 and 63: Internationaleries 4377. Michel de
- Page 64 and 65: 2. After the “Descent to the Ever
- Page 66 and 67: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 68 and 69: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 70 and 71: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 72 and 73: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 74 and 75: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 76 and 77: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 78 and 79: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 80 and 81: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 82 and 83: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 84 and 85: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 86 and 87: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 88 and 89: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 90 and 91: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 92 and 93: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 94 and 95: After the “Descent to the Everyda
- Page 96 and 97: 3. Art & Language and the Instituti
- Page 98 and 99: Art & Language and the Institutiona
- Page 100 and 101: Art & Language and the Institutiona
34 Jelena Stojanović
Another signiWcant unitary urbanist event was the 1959 exhibition
entitled “La Caverna Antimateria” (Anti-Material Cave) that took place
at the Galerie Drouin in Paris. In this case two Situationist members from the
Italian section, Giors Melanotte and Giuseppe-Pinot Gallizio, collaboratively
extended Gallizio’s concept of “industrial painting” into the environment by
creating a full-blown art gallery installation that addressed several issues simultaneously.
By creating an environment made of an indeWnitely reproducible,
collectively made abstract painting reminiscent of bomb shelters that were
commonly featured in daily newspapers, they targeted the persistent massmarketing
of fear through nuclear annihilation while linking this to functionalist
art production. 65 In the same year the group founded Research Bureau
for Unitary Urbanism (Bureau de recherche pour un urbanisme unitaire). In
many ways it was a continuation of the MIBI Experimental Laboratory in
Alba. The Bureau’s Wrst projects were in the form of a labyrinth that rendered
everyday, lived situations events that surpassed art. 66 Much of this ludic
play was itself based on an earlier project in 1956 entitled Mobile Cities and
expressed a utopian belief that the city and its inhabitants should be able to
circulate freely, anarchically, according to their desires. This same grotesque
logic had previously informed another project entitled Temporary Habitations,
which was a series of spatial living constructs for the Gypsy population in
Alba. The Research Bureau for Unitary Urbanism revived this proposition
for nomadic living as a constantly changing and variable architectural environment
necessary for creating “collective spontaneity.” 67
However in 1962 the Bureau moved to Brussels. Here its tactics
once again took up a more theoretical direction. This included the production
of a number of texts including Vaneigem’s “Basic Banalities” that directly
attacked contemporary culture, but also the new program written by Attila
Kotanyi and Raoul Vaneigem who together pronounced that the SI artists
treated urbanism “as an ideology,” without which the “spectacle is impossible.”
68 In this sense the unitary urbanist actions dramatically departed from
most other contemporary art practices including the “de-coll/age” work
performed by Wolf Vostell, or such practices as “Destruction in art,” done
in a similar, performative mode. 69 By contrast the SI offered a powerful collective
vision, something that was profoundly lacking from these isolated,
individualistic political and aesthetic undertakings. 70 This degree of collectivism
was not seen again until, perhaps, the emergence of Fluxus several
years later, or in some of the collectivist actions staged by Jean-Jacques Lebel.
With the tactic of unitary urbanism artists stopped being the
constructors of useless, artiWcial art forms in order to become the constructors
of an environment for developing new forms of collective ownership.
The SI above all believed that architecture and urban planning needed to