|
| |
The Fifth SI Conference
in Göteborg
(excerpts)
The 5th Conference of the Situationist International was held in Göteborg, Sweden,
28-30 August 1961, eleven months after the London Conference. The situationists of nine
countries were represented by Ansgar-Elde, Debord, J. de Jong, Kotányi, D. Kunzelmann, S.
Larsson, J.V. Martin, Nash, Prem, G. Stadler, Hardy Strid, H. Sturm, R. Vaneigem, Zimmer.
[...]
Next the Conference hears an orientation report by Vaneigem, who says notably:
“[...] The point is not to elaborate the spectacle of refusal, but to refuse the
spectacle. In order for their elaboration to be artistic in the new and authentic
sense defined by the SI, the elements of the destruction of the spectacle must precisely
cease to be works of art. There is no such thing as situationism, or a
situationist work of art, or a spectacular situationist. Once and for all. [...] Our
position is that of combatants between two worlds — one that we don’t
acknowledge, the other that does not yet exist. [...]”
[...] Kunzelmann expresses a strong skepticism as to the powers the SI can bring
together in order to act on the level envisaged by Vaneigem. Kotányi responds to Nash and
Kunzelmann: “Since the beginning of the movement there has been a problem as to what
to call artistic works by members of the SI. It was understood that none of them was a
situationist production, but what to call them? I propose a very simple rule: to call
them ‘antisituationist.’ We are against the dominant conditions of artistic
inauthenticity. I don’t mean that anyone should stop painting, writing, etc. I
don’t mean that that has no value. I don’t mean that we could continue to exist
without doing that. But at the same time we know that such works will be coopted by the
society and used against us. Our impact lies in the elaboration of certain truths which
have an explosive power whenever people are ready to struggle for them. At the present
stage the movement is only in its infancy regarding the elaboration of these essential
points. [...]
The responses to Kotányi’s proposal are all favorable. It is noted that would-be
avant-garde artists are beginning to appear in various countries who have no connection
with the SI but who refer to themselves as adherents of “situationism” or
describe their works as being more or less situationist. This tendency is obviously going
to increase and it would be hopeless for the SI to try and prevent it. While various
confused artists nostalgic for a positive art call themselves situationist, antisituationist
art will be the mark of the best artists, those of the SI, since genuinely situationist
conditions have as yet not at all been created. Admitting this is the mark of a
situationist.
With one exception, the Conference unanimously decides to adopt this rule of
antisituationist art, binding on all members of the SI. Only Nash objects, his spite and
indignation having become sharper and sharper throughout the whole debate, to the point of
uncontrolled rage. [...]
Prem resumes in more detail the objections of his friends to Kotányi’s
perspectives. He agrees with calling our art antisituationist; and also with organizing a
situationist base. But he does not think the SI’s tactics are good. There is talk of
people’s dissatisfaction and revolt, but in his view, as his tendency already
expressed it at London, “Most people are still primarily interested in comfort and
conveniences.” He believes that the SI systematically neglects its real chances in
culture. It rejects favorable occasions to intervene in existing cultural politics,
whereas, in his view, the SI has no power but its power in culture — a power which
could be very great and which is visibly within our reach. The SI majority sabotages the
chances for effective action on the terrain where it is possible. It castigates artists
who would be able to succeed in doing something; it throws them out the moment they get
the means to do things. [...]
Other German situationists strongly oppose Prem, some of them accusing him of having
expressed positions in their name that they do not share (but it seems, rather, that Prem
simply had the frankness to clearly express the line that dominates in the German
section). Finally the Germans come around to agreeing that none of them conceives of
theory as separate from its practical results. With this the third session is adjourned in
the middle of the night, not without violent agitation and uproar. (From one side there
are shouts of “Your theory is going to fly right back in your faces!” and from
the other, “Cultural pimps!”). [...]
The German situationists who publish the journal Spur [...] stress the
urgency, already made evident by the Conference, for them to unify their positions and
projects with the rest of the SI. [...] On their request, the Conference adds Attila
Kotányi and J. de Jong to the editorial committee of Spur in order to verify
this process of unification. (But in January this decision is flouted by their putting
out, without Kotányi and de Jong’s knowledge, an issue #7 marking a distinct
regression from the preceding ones — which leads to the exclusion of those
responsible.) [...]
It is voted to hold the 6th Conference at Anvers, after the rejection of the
Scandinavian proposal to hold it secretly in Warsaw. The Conference does decide, however,
to send a delegation of three situationists to Poland to develop our contacts there. [...]
SITUATIONIST INTERNATIONAL
1962
Translated by Ken Knabb (slightly modified from the version in the Situationist
International Anthology).
No copyright.
| |
|