SI and Architecture

Flicking through my old diary entries I discovered a summary for what I intended to be part of a university undergrad thesis. I figure if at the very least I can post it here, then I can either move on from it - or actually apply myself to it's realisation:

Since the birth of the SI, cultures and expressions within the built environment have changed dramatically. Sub cultures have developed, independantly of the SI, new systems of revolutionary thought that have become (or have the potential to become) more readily accessable to larger communities and cultural groups. Where the SI had trespass and graffiti, there now exists a plethora of other, more palatable vehicles through which the larger public can challenge their built environment's assumptions and oppression.

Activities identified for the purposes of further investigation include:
Parkour
Skateboarding
Technological Age Graffiti
Guerilla Gardening
Draininge/Vadding

It is proposed that these activities all share some foundational attitudes and methods which enable their effective implementation. All of these groups adopt a peer based, web enhanced network through groups such as facebook and online forums. The Web element relies on contribution by all members of the community to encourage and inspire each other. It is organic and often a pure meritocracy in organisational structure. Spontaneous and self-directed engagement is expected, placing the power of development and change directly in the hands of each individual participating.

as Constant wrote in the exhibition catalogue published by the Haags Gemeetenmuseum, The Hague, 1974;
"The culture ...does not result from isolated activities, from exceptional situations, but from the global activity of the whole world population, every human being being engaged in a dynamic relation with his surroundings. There are no a priori links between anyone. The frequency of each man's movements and the distances he will cover depend on decisions he will make spontaneously, and which he will be able to renounce just as simultaneously. Under these conditions social mobility suggests the image of a kaleidoscopic whole, accentuating sudden unexpected changes -- an image that no longer bears any similarity to the structures of a community life ruled by the principle of utility, whose models of behavior are always the same. In our case, the urban must respond to social mobility, which implies, in relation to the stable town, a more rigorous organization on the macro level, and at the same time a greater flexibility at the micro level, which is that of an infinite complexity. Freedom of creation demands in any case that we depend as little as possible on material contingency. It presupposes, then, a vast network of collective services, more necessary to the population in movement than to the stable population of functional towns."
(from: http://www.notbored.org/new-babylon.html. Accessed 5 April 2009)

An analysis of the contexts surround the developments of these groups would be benificial, beginning to understand the socio/media petri dish which each has developed from, and the communications systems used for community.

It is also important to consider threats to these new methods of free thought and movement, both perceived and real. Certainly a battle of ideals exists between the poles of community freedom and security based authoritarian fear mongering. Certainly in this current security culture the presence of a free spirit is like a breath of fresh air.

Lastly, In contrast to New Babylon's (Constant Nieuwenhuis) unbridled accomodation of hyper-desire and forced revolutionary thought, how can we make fertile the current built environment for new expressions of freedom, whilst exhibiting some sense of social responsibility and reason?


POSTCRIPT
Having said all this... I discovered a quote from Chtcheglov (on wikipedia of all places) which I believe gives some grounding to the despondancy I have felt lately as a result of my derive'(s)

"The dérive is certainly a technique, almost a therapeutic one. But just as analysis unaccompanied with anything else is almost always contraindicated, so continual dériving is dangerous to the extent that the individual, having gone too far (not without bases, but...) without defenses, is threatened with explosion, dissolution, dissociation, disintegration. And thence the relapse into what is termed ‘ordinary life,’ that is to say, in reality, into ‘petrified life.’ In this regard I now repudiate my Formulary’s propaganda for a continuous dérive. It could be continuous like the poker game in Las Vegas, but only for a certain period, limited to a weekend for some people, to a week as a good average; a month is really pushing it. In 1953-1954 we dérived for three or four months straight. That’s the extreme limit. It’s a miracle it didn’t kill us” (Ivan Chtcheglov, excerpt from a 1963 letter to Michèle Bernstein and Guy Debord, reprinted in Internationale Situationniste #9, p. 38)."

Food for thought.

Peace.