In the essay “Methods of Detournement” by Guy-Ernest Debord as well as the essay “A User’s Guide to Detournement” speaks of minor and deceptive detournements where one deals with images/ideas of more social significance than the other. He brings up the point that detournement does not get old, and it has the potential to raise unique ideas and can act as “a powerful cultural weapon” and is linitless. i really like this quote, regarding cinema and detournement: “Life can never be too disorienting: detournement on this level would really make it beautiful.” Both articles (are they not the same article??)encouraged breaking conventions and emphasized that anything can be used for detournement purposes to make new combinations. Debord claimed that “no matter how far apart their original contexts may be, a relationship is always formed.”
The article, “Proposals for Rationally Improving the City of Paris” seemed to de a detournement of a town meeting and reveals how ridiculous some proposals are. The detournement reflected the future: chaos, anarchy, destruction of the city and ourselves. I appreciated the humor and breakdown of ownership in our culture and control in our government as well as acts as a commentary on the ugliness of the dominance of elitist power in our society.
magropp
March 16th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I really liked the point in the “methods of detournment” article about how the message of detournment should never be the opposite of the original message. This strikes me as very true; I have noticed it time and time again in the real world. When the message is made to be the opposite, the entire project becomes trivial. But I’m not really sure why this happens.
The proposals for improving paris was a joy to read. I enjoy pieces that use sarcasm or hyperbole as effective means of communication. Of course they didn’t actually think that their proposal to raze every church in the city of paris would be taken seriously, but they used that idea to communicate their attitude towards established religion. They used their point of view as non-politicians to make political statements that politicians could never say. This is one of the many functions of artists.
Aya
March 17th, 2008 at 12:23 am
The idea of “Methods of Detournement” by Guy Debord was more understandable to me, and I think is more appropriate to this modern world than the idea of detournement we read on Wikipedia, which was more like ironical or joking purpose. Most of art works are somehow inspired by other art works done by somebody else before and use the other art work as segment of the art work. That kind of art works make its new meaning. However, if they meant “Proposals for Rationally Improving the City of Paris” as derournament, I wonder. Maybe, those plans will have its new meaning, but I wonder if it is really improvement to the city itself. It might be interesting and improving to some people, but to the others it just would cause confusion. I don’t think this apply is nice use of idea of detounemet.
Daphne
March 17th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I liked how this author used historical references. Art has been and will be inspired by other artists. I don’t see anything wrong with that, because isn’t that the way art works? I did like the part on improving Paris.
Jennytam
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
i LOVE the quote “Plagiarism is necessary, progress implies it”. i know that it’s illegal, but if society were to build strictly from nothing (no plans, no culture, no background, etc.), society would be all raving futurists…
not that it would be a bad thing, it just might get old really quickly with nothing to compare it to that is not futurist in nature (like how do you know that color is off white when all you have is blue?)
cassandra Sechler
03-13-08
In the essay “Methods of Detournement” by Guy-Ernest Debord as well as the essay “A User’s Guide to Detournement” speaks of minor and deceptive detournements where one deals with images/ideas of more social significance than the other. He brings up the point that detournement does not get old, and it has the potential to raise unique ideas and can act as “a powerful cultural weapon” and is linitless. i really like this quote, regarding cinema and detournement: “Life can never be too disorienting: detournement on this level would really make it beautiful.” Both articles (are they not the same article??)encouraged breaking conventions and emphasized that anything can be used for detournement purposes to make new combinations. Debord claimed that “no matter how far apart their original contexts may be, a relationship is always formed.”
The article, “Proposals for Rationally Improving the City of Paris” seemed to de a detournement of a town meeting and reveals how ridiculous some proposals are. The detournement reflected the future: chaos, anarchy, destruction of the city and ourselves. I appreciated the humor and breakdown of ownership in our culture and control in our government as well as acts as a commentary on the ugliness of the dominance of elitist power in our society.
I really liked the point in the “methods of detournment” article about how the message of detournment should never be the opposite of the original message. This strikes me as very true; I have noticed it time and time again in the real world. When the message is made to be the opposite, the entire project becomes trivial. But I’m not really sure why this happens.
The proposals for improving paris was a joy to read. I enjoy pieces that use sarcasm or hyperbole as effective means of communication. Of course they didn’t actually think that their proposal to raze every church in the city of paris would be taken seriously, but they used that idea to communicate their attitude towards established religion. They used their point of view as non-politicians to make political statements that politicians could never say. This is one of the many functions of artists.
The idea of “Methods of Detournement” by Guy Debord was more understandable to me, and I think is more appropriate to this modern world than the idea of detournement we read on Wikipedia, which was more like ironical or joking purpose. Most of art works are somehow inspired by other art works done by somebody else before and use the other art work as segment of the art work. That kind of art works make its new meaning. However, if they meant “Proposals for Rationally Improving the City of Paris” as derournament, I wonder. Maybe, those plans will have its new meaning, but I wonder if it is really improvement to the city itself. It might be interesting and improving to some people, but to the others it just would cause confusion. I don’t think this apply is nice use of idea of detounemet.
I liked how this author used historical references. Art has been and will be inspired by other artists. I don’t see anything wrong with that, because isn’t that the way art works? I did like the part on improving Paris.
i LOVE the quote “Plagiarism is necessary, progress implies it”. i know that it’s illegal, but if society were to build strictly from nothing (no plans, no culture, no background, etc.), society would be all raving futurists…
not that it would be a bad thing, it just might get old really quickly with nothing to compare it to that is not futurist in nature (like how do you know that color is off white when all you have is blue?)