'Correspondence' Reveals Portrait

Correspondence is not the way of communication in the 21st century. More and more is said with buzz words and abbreviated slang. It’s getting easier to forget that there was a time when subtle, deliberately constructed letters, ripe with frustration and emotion, were the common form of exchange.

Guy Debord lived in such a time. Born in Paris in 1931, he was a founding member of both the Lettrist International and Situationist International movements, and he wrote letters—a lot of them.

The SI movement attempted to use art for social and political change. Indeed, SI embraced propaganda—what they saw as “arts as a means”—within and without the organization. Unlike other movements before them, this group aspired towards action rather than the formation of a set of doctrines, resisting the term “situationism.” Their ideology—actively creating “situations” around them, refusing to be taken in by the “dead time” of everyday routine—even allegedly helped spark France’s May 1968 Revolution.

“Correspondence” traces Debord’s interactions with other key members of the movement as he worked to create and sustain SI from 1957 to 1960. These letters not only show the behind-the-scenes development of this highly influential organization; they serve as a sort of manifesto, revealing the deliberation required for artistic innovation in this environment.

The collection of letters presented in “Correspondence” does an excellent job of shedding light upon the less glamorous aspects of being an architect of culture. When one things of the avant-garde, there is an image of the creative, carefree bohemian that naturally comes to mind. But as McKenzie Wark points out in the introduction to the letters, Guy Debord was as much a secretary as a theorist or an artist: “Deadlines, delays, and debts... Of all the roles he chose for himself, not to mention those assigned to him by posterity, the one that receives the least attention is that of secretary.”

Debord’s correspondences reveal a leader who is a stickler for details—more politician than artist. Many letters find Debord nagging the various members of SI for projects that have not met their deadlines, and in many others he catalogues how many copies of a certain article need to go to specifically designated places. There are few letters of great philosophical weight to be found. A typical letter from Debord to the members of SI reads: “Following up to what I wrote to you on 5 February, we need to hurry editing the journal, for which texts should be returned to the printer by March 15th.” For Debord, control of procedure is essential.

Debord’s political maneuvering within the organization also becomes clear when his exchanges with various people, addressing the same issue, are viewed side-by-side. While he claims that SI has no need to “fabricate fake disciples,” he is constantly trying to appease and manipulate his colleagues. He often addresses Pinot Gallizio, the elderly, successful painter of the early SI as “Carissimo, Grande e Nobile,” which translates to “dearest, great and noble.” The collection also serves to show his willingness to disown the members when they prove a hindrance to the Situationist movement. Within a month of the latest flattering address to Gallizio, Debord writes to another member that the old painter’s show was “manifestly a reactionary farce.” Through his letters, Debord is presented as unafraid to share with members the issues he is having with others; he comments each time that the addressed member has known all along that the recently expelled member would prove to be trouble.

Insofar as SI was essentially Debord’s brainchild, the movement shares its creator’s calculating nature. SI aimed to shock. As Debord wrote; “the element of surprise is essential and will ensure our success.” The falling out between Debord and Gallizio occurred because the latter had ceased to shock his audience. Debord excitedly writes about the possibility of a scandal whenever a new exhibit is being planned. Indeed, SI is cited as an instigator in the fashionable rise of anarchism of the 70s. This behind-the-scenes view of SI captures the irony of birthing a movement with both artistic and political aspirations—the perceived spontaneity of creative drive is inherently contradictory to the labored machinations of political planning. In this way, “Correspondence” shows the struggle to resolve structure with chaos, Marxism with Surrealism— this is the general project of Situationist International.

While “Correspondence” serves to paint a vivid portrait of an artist of the political bent and the ways he brought his movement to fruition, his practical leadership qualities render much of his correspondence patently dull. Many of the letters are laundry lists of tasks that must be tackled by the addressed; at times they can sound like office work rather than the start of an artistic revolution.

Nonetheless, “Correspondence” presents a friendly introduction to Situationist International, by virtue of the fact that these letters constitute a portrait of the original Situationist. Through his correspondences, Guy Debord delegates and manipulates those closest to him, he is deliberately creating a situation in the name of great social and political change.