The Situationist Urban Design; Rules and Principles

Subject Areas : Space Ontology International Journal

Shirin Izadpanah ¹ (Faculty of fine Arts, University of Tehran,Tehran, Iran)

Received: 2019-03-02 Accepted : 2020-02-19 Published : 2019-12-01

Keywords: SituationistInternational, UnitaryUrbanism, spectacle, EverydayLife, psycho-geography,

Abstract :

From a general perspective, urbanism can be assumed as a bipolar world. On one hand, large-scale plans formulated by official organizations are shaping urban environment and the entirety of our cities; on the other hand, social activists and artists, active in the field of cities, are making an effort to give it a human character. According to De Certo (1984), the first approach to city, adopted by power structures, is composed of strategy, and the second approach, which is taking small-scale actions by ordinary citizens, artists and activists is made of tactic. One of the movement attempting to theorize these tactical actions is Situationist International. In spite of the philosophical and artistic essence, they were deeply interested in subjects related to the city and the everyday life of citizens. This paper aims to analyze the theories of this group and advancing their theory to the practice and supply practical instructions, utilizable in urban design discipline. For this purpose, it was necessary to use a qualitative method in which after spending a lot of time on studying their intellectual and philosophical products, we would be able to analyze and develop them to a theoretical framework utilizable in urban design field, both in scientific and professional approach. At the end of article, principles and indicators for the Situationist urban design will be provided and listed in ten categories.

References:

1. Agamben, G. (2000). Means without end: notes on polotics. Minnesota university press, 78-9.


2. Albright, D. (2003). Tale of the City: Applying Situationist Social Practice to the Analysis of the Urban Drama. Critisism 45.1, 89-108.


3. Bahrainy, S. H. (2009). Analysis of Contemporary Urban Design Theories. Tehran: University of Tehran.


4. Baibarac, C. E. (2016). Co-Producing Tools for Participation and Action in Urban Environments. In s. Konomi, & G. Roussos, Enriching Urban Spaces with Ambient Computing, the Internet of Things, and Smart City Design (pp. 128-141). IGI Global.


5. Barnard, A. (2004). The Legacy of the Situationist International: The Production of Situations of Creative Resistance. Capital & Class, 28.3, 103-124.


6. Bassett, K. (2004). Walking as an Aesthetic Practice and a Critical Tool: Some Psychogeographic Experiments. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 28(3), 397-410.


7. Bridger, A. (2010). Walking as a ‘Radicalized’Critical Psychological Method? A Review of Academic, Artistic and Activist Contributions to the Study of Social Environments. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(2), 131-139.


8. Burriaud, N. (2002). Relational Aesthetics. (S. Pleasance, & Fronza Woods, Trans.) Les Presses Du Réel.


9. Constand, Jorn, A., Sturm, H., & Wyckaert, M. (1959, December). Unitary Urbanism at the End of the 1950. Internationale Situationniste, 3. Retrieved from http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/unitary.html


10. De Certo, m. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. (S. Randall, Trans.) University of California Press.


11. Debord, G. (1955). Introduction to a Critique of Urban Geography. Les Lèvres Nues, N6.


12. Debord, G. (1957). Report on the Construction of Situations. Situationist International Anthology, 1-17.


13. Debord, G. (1957). Report on the Construction of Situations. Situationist International Anthology,, 1-17.


14. Debord, G. (1961). Perspectives for Conscious Changes in Everyday Life. Situationist Internatioal, 6. Retrieved from http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/everyday.html


15. Debord, G. (1970). The society of the spectacle. Kalamazoo: Black & Red.


16. Debord, G., & Wolman, G. J. (1956). A User's Guide to Détournement. Les Lèvres Nues, 8. Retrieved from http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/presitu/usersguide.html


17. Doherty, C., Buren, D., Bourriaud, N., & Domela, P. (2004). Contemporary Art: From Studio to Situation. London: Black Dog Publishing.


18. Elliott, B. (2009). Debord, Constant, and the Politics of Situationist Urbanism. Philosophy Faculty Publications and Presentations, 1-37. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjT9qjzrubYAhUEUlAKHU84BfUQFggnMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpdxscholar.library.pdx.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1018%26context%3Dphl_fac&usg=AOvVaw2I9DWJUbVJO54ugf


19. Gary, H. (2011). Urban Flux. In T. Banerjee, & A. L. Sideris, Companion to Urban Design (pp. 446-462). New York: Rotledge.


20. Goonewardena, K. (2011). Critical Urbanism: Space, Design, Revolution. In T. Banerjee, & A. Loukaitou-Sideris, Companion to Urban Design (pp. 97-108). New york: Routledge.


21. Hancox, S. (2012). Hancox, Simone. "Contemporary Walking Practices and the Situationist International: The Politics of Perambulating the Boundaries Between Art and Life. Contemporary Theatre Review, 22.2, 237-250.


22. Highmore, B. (2002). Everyday life and cultural theory: An introduction. Routledge.


23. Hou, J. (2011). Citizen design; Participation and beyond . In T. Banerjee, & A. L. Sideris, Companion to Urban Design (pp. 329-340). New York: Routledge.


24. Kotányi, a., & Vaneigem, R. (1961, August). Basic Program of the Bureau of Unitary Urbanism. Situationist Iternational, 6.


25. Margaret, K. (2011). Political Theory and Urban Design. In T. Banerjee, & A. L. Sideris, Companion to Urban Design (pp. 186-197). New York: Routledge.


26. McGarrigle, C. (2009). The Construction of Locative Situations: Locative Media and the Situationist International,. Digital Arts and Culture, 21.1, 56-62. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/90m1k8tb


27. Nichols, J. (2004). Nomadic Urbanities: Constant's New Babylon and the Contemporary City. Jurnal of Asia-Pacific Studies, 29-52.


28. Nieuwenhuys, C., & Debord, G. (1958). The Amsterdam Declaration. Internationale Situationniste, 2. Retrieved from http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/amsterdam.html


29. Nieuwenhuys, C., Jorn, A., Sturm, H., & Wyckae, M. (1959, December). Détournement as Negation and Prelude. Internationale Situationniste. Retrieved from http://www.cddc.vt.edu/sionline/si/is3.html


30. Riza, D. (2017). Walkability as a Culture Practice. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 5(2), 61-64.


31. Sadler, S. (1998). Situationist City. London: The MIT Press.


32. Schrijver, L. (2011). Utopia and/or Spectacle? Rethinking Urban Interventions Throu the Legacy of Modernism and the Situationist City. Architectural Theory Review 16, 245-258.


33. Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace: Journeys to Los Angeles and Other Real-and-Imagined Places. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Basil Blackwell: Oxford.


34. Southworth, M., & Ruggeri, D. (2011). Beyond Placeness; Place Identity and the Global City. In T. Banerjee, & A. L. Sideris, Companion to Urban Design (pp. 495-509). New York: Routledge.


35. Swyngedouw, E. (2002). The Strange Respectability of the Situationist City in the Society of the Spectacle. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 153-165.


36. Whybrow, N. (2010). Art and the City. London: IB Tauris.