Sunday, 23 June 2013

Can the situationist theory of dérive allow us to better navigate and develop cultural institutions?

This essay focuses primarily on the ways in which key situationist texts such as The Theory of Dérive and The Society of The Spectacle by Guy Debord might allow us to better understand ways of navigating and developing cultural institutions. It is an experimental investigation, a starting point, providing more suggestion, interpretation and speculation than solution, attempting to make the main theoretical works of the situationists relevant within a twenty first century framework, with particular emphasis on galleries and museums.  ‘La dérive’ is French for ‘drift’ or ‘drifting’, and was described as being one of the situationists basic practises, “a technique of rapid passage through varied ambiences.” (Debord, 1958 cited in Knabb, 2006) Situationism is the theory that behaviour is contingent upon surrounding circumstances or immediate situations as opposed to qualities of a personal nature. Debord and other Situationist International members considered the term ‘situationism’ as insignificant and avoided the use of it. “Situationists were philosophically opposed to all ideology, viewing them as repressive delusions, rendering the idea of "situationism" absurd.” (Vaneigem, 1967) The situationists were radical thinkers who attempted to change the world, aesthetically and politically. They were concerned with the devaluation of art, to devaluate it was also to devaluate cultural institutions, the architecture that housed the objects.

They sought out to make such institutions more accessible; they wanted to integrate art with daily life. Debord not only wrote about the theory of dérive but also the culture of spectacle in The Society of The Spectacle. “Only the real negation of culture can inherit culture’s meaning. Such negotiation can no longer remain cultural. It is what remains, in some manner, at the level of culture – but it has a quite different sense” (Debord, 1967) I feel as though the culture of spectacle can be applied to create more engaging spaces through the use of psychogeography, mapping the interior journeys we take within a space as though they were journeys mapped externally, the museum as a city. As a text it allows the reader to really question what it is stopping us from changing institutions which are perhaps not working as well as they should or even could be despite peoples best efforts. If you are to view cities as key sites of artistic display, thought, production and circulation, then so too must the galleries and museums within the city be viewed in the same way. In The Theory of Dérive, it is said that the audience are drawn by the attractions of the terrain, as well as the encounters they might discover there. The attractions of the terrain could be used to describe the architecture or the position of the displayed objects in situ, objects which once within the space, become part of the interior architecture. The encounters formed could relate to the stories that surrounded the work or specific interactive works, intended to produce immersive encounters.

“The lessons drawn from dérives enable us to draw up the first surveys of the psychogeographical articulations of a modern city. Beyond the discovery of unities of ambiance, of their main components and their spatial localization, one comes to perceive their principal axes of passage, their exits and their defences. One arrives at the central hypothesis of the existence of psychogeographical pivotal points. One measures the distances that actually separate two regions of a city, distances that may have little relation with the physical distance between them. With the aid of old maps, aerial photographs and experimental dérives, one can draw up hitherto lacking maps of influences, maps whose inevitable imprecision at this early stage is no worse than that of the first navigational charts. The only difference is that it is no longer a matter of precisely delineating stable continents, but of changing architecture and urbanism. Today the different unities of atmosphere and of dwellings are not precisely marked off, but are surrounded by more or less extended and indistinct bordering regions. The most general change that dérive experience leads to proposing is the constant diminution of these border regions, up to the point of their complete suppression. Within architecture itself, the taste for dériving tends to promote all sorts of new forms of labyrinths made possible by modern techniques of construction.”

(Debord, 1958)

The articulations of a modern city should be echoed throughout the museums that exist within such a city. There should be a possibility to find oneself dériving in and out of museums as though the city is in itself was a museum and the separate museums inside a city are in themselves various gallery spaces within the museum of a city. This allows for longer periods of time to be spent dériving and for more to be taken in, to be contemplated, a combination of both interior and exterior architectural decisions, displayed objects and the more likely potential of possible rendezvous or meetings. “In the “possible rendezvous,” … the element of exploration is minimal in comparison with that of behavioural disorientation.” (Debord, 1958) It would be interesting for galleries and museums to set up possible rendezvous where people are sent on specific dérives, to experience specific parts of the museum or elements of the gallery space but these people would not be able to distinguish each other or themselves from the general public, making them more aware of their surroundings. They might be constantly wondering if anyone else has been sent on the same specific dérive and would be unable to discover this without asking and therefore meeting, or creating a possible rendezvous. Encouraging dialogue with strangers is not something most people do, so by being aware of other possible rendezvous around you, you might be tempted to ask people about their interests in their surroundings. If you were taking part in such a rendezvous it would have to be made clear that there is a possibility you will not meet anyone or there is a possibility someone might approach you rather than the other way around. This freedom from “the bothersome obligations of the ordinary rendezvous” is removed since there is no one to wait for, which also means we are able to dérive either with or without interruption, depending on our own personal prerogative that day. 

A museum will often make available maps of the city as well as maps showing various displays within their individual interior spaces but there is always the possibility that one can create a map of one’s own, through experimental dérives, one could draw over the existing maps to pin point new routes or patterns within routes not previously mapped out. Combining maps and floor plans from varying museums and including the spaces in between to enhance the visual understanding of the city as museum would perhaps create better networks between museums; one could attach the dérives or journeys to the map with string or by drawing. Another way of doing this could be to use digital media, by creating and developing some kind of specific Global Positioning System app which automatically maps and documents the dérive of an individual or small group through the city, inside cultural institutions and beyond. If all museums were seen as individual but belonging to each other in their aims and objectives, there might be achievable equality amongst institutions rather than one museum taking precedence over another in the same city. The app could provide museums and cities with better ideas of how to advertise on the streets more often travelled by those dériving to get to other institutions, it could provide them with a better understanding of the current of the streets, the paths that drag people down them and those that people avoid. Perhaps the avoided areas or alleyways could be turned into gardens, creating new spaces out of old ones, useful spaces or even spaces for the use of display or site specific artworks. Neglected parts of the city turned into vibrant change encounters displaying unexpected artworks. This could even progress to dérives using Google street view, where one begins in an exterior space, enters and interior, moves out again into exterior and so on, taking in all which surrounds them, every shape, every form, every detail usually unnoticed, the subtleties of the city, dérives where you cross the boundaries of one city and enter another without breaking the dérive, connecting two cities as one museum, one landscape, one terrain, strengthening the connection between the museums of neighbouring cities. Chance is more of an inferior determinant in a dérive than one might initially think as “from a dérive point of view cities has psychogeographical contours, with constant currents, fixed points and vortexes which strongly discourage entry or exit from certain zones.” (Debord, 1958) The museum contains its own routes, its own structured narratives. Concerning a lack of chance encounters, everything is predetermined with regards to the displays, there are certain walls within a space which will always accommodate specific works of art, such as large paintings as one cannot attempt to hang a large painting on a small wall without somehow changing the painting.
 
There will always be obstacles which prevent us from seeing works from certain angles. Both entry and exit points tend to remain the same, even when alternating exhibitions and collection changes in the same space. It is rare that we would be able to change entry and exit points without first altering the interior architecture of the space. Ways in which this changing of entrance and exit could be temporarily achieved using false walls to create additional rooms within a space. Although one is able to dérive alone, “several small groups of two or three people who have reached the same level of awareness” (Debord, 1958) is recommended. This awareness and equality amongst those choosing to dérive through the museum or gallery space is of the utmost importance in order for consistent discussions to be achieved in relation to what is being viewed. “It is impossible for there to be more than ten or twelve people without the dérive fragmenting into several simultaneous dérives.” (Debord, 1958) If we consider the impossibilities of large groups being unable to dérive as a whole, it could potentially enable us to better structure gallery tours. Smaller groups are more likely to gain more from the experience than a larger group. Simultaneous dérives are simply dérives which occur simultaneously, occurring at the same time as one another. Using a group of university students as an example, the entire group inevitably does not wander around the space collectively but instead spilt off into friendship or similar interest groups. Creating groups with similar levels of awareness based on the journey they take and what they experience through what they’ve seen. “Today, it is commonplace to regard museums as the most appropriate places in which to view and keep works of art. ... These commonplaces however, rest on relatively new ideas and practices. The European practice of placing objects in settings designed for contemplation emerged as part of a new and, historically speaking, relatively modern way of thinking.” (Duncan, 1995) Despite the fact that the majority of people would consider a museum to be the most congruous place to display objects, cities are full of displays, full of objects. For example we might experience looking into a shop window in the same way we experience peering into a collection of artefacts laid out in a vitrine. Both have been organised for the purpose of viewing. There is a pane of glass separating us from the objects in both instances. We are interested in what we see, not so much mesmerised but captivated, fascinated, we want to learn about it, we want to gain something from it. It is possible to window shop in a museum and it is also possible to view a shop as a museum, the point in which you stand in front of the tins may in a hundred years’ time be in a conventional museum, a curator of the future might even choose to display objects the way shop assistants did (and still do), stacked up, all together, with signs depicting their importance, the art supermarket museum of the future, objects for all tastes and pockets, the commodity as spectacle. Supermarkets may even develop into what we consider museum displays today, minimal, isolated products or objects standing as sculptures, on plinths which replace themselves when one has been removed? Labelled underneath in a manner we’re more accustomed to seeing in a gallery, or not labelled at all, available only to those who know what it is they want. How could one distinguish the expensive soup from the cheap version if there were no labels in the gallery supermarket? How could one distinguish the important painting from the lesser painting if there was too much choice in the supermarket museum, plagued by images? The experience of viewing something unusual in a usual situation or something ordinary in an extraordinary manner is one which during a dérive is sure to be inevitable. One cannot physically enter a vitrine full of displayed works but one is able to enter the shop, therefore as part of a dérive it is important that one does not get distracted and enter a space with another purpose, such as to purchase.

“The vitrine is the primary museum display device which, from the standpoint of artists, suggests a number of significant practical, formal and conceptual possibilities. The most remarkable feature of the vitrine is its ability to transport its carefully ordered and labelled contents beyond the triviality and ephemerality of the everyday. … The act of placing an object in a vitrine immediately focuses attention on it and suggests that it might also be both precious and vulnerable. The vitrine reinforces the notion of the unique, untouchable and unattainable. ”

(Putnam, 2009)

The vitrine possesses the power of seduction; the objects placed in it become part of the museum, giving them value. It causes us to question why these objects in particular are of such importance that they were placed inside it, how long they have been there and how long will they stay before they’re replace? Whilst taking part in a dérive it is possible to create a vitrine like space around yourself, a place in which you are vulnerable, exposed to all that exists on your path, your journey. By placing yourself on a dérive, you are immediately focussing all your attention on drifting and only drifting, reinforcing other people’s inability to distract or remove you from your dérive as you transport yourself beyond the triviality and ephemerality of the everyday, allowing the dérive to become part of your everyday, allowing art to become intertwined with daily life. The way a vitrine creates a physical distance between audience and object, so too does a dérive, it seems to allow the one taking part in the dérive to take the place of the object, more concerned with their situation than where they are being viewed from by an audience. When incorporating the theory of dérive within a museum, one must of course take into consideration the practicality of the initial location and the time limits of such an institution. Most galleries and museums are open to the public from ten until five or six in the evening with the exception of specific events such as private views and lectures. According to Debord (1958), “the average duration of a dérive is one day, considered as the time between two periods of sleep” or “within a deliberately limited period of a few hours”. This time period is considered to be a statistical one although within The Theory of the Dérive it is recommended not to attempt a dérive late at night or in the early hours of the morning, I feel this implies that standard museum hours work perfectly with the hours suggested by Debord. If one was to attempt to navigate a space after hours, in the dark, the inability to view the displays, the objects, the space, the interior surroundings would ultimately remove the entire purpose of a dérive. In keeping with Debord (1967) it is inevitable that the spectacle “should elevate the human sense of sight to the special place once occupied by trust” which I feel means that although one should not dérive in the dark, if one has no other choice, i.e. an individual with sight issues, then perhaps they can be guided by the idea of the spectacle. We are more sensitive to what we see when we are unable to relate what we see with something we have seen in the past. If one has never seen an object because of sight loss, it works in the same way as a person without sight is more sensitive to an object when they are unable to relate it to an object they’ve never heard about in the past. It stimulates our imagination and powers our curiosity; we begin to question, to consider the endless possibilities of the object. If the spectacle is said to be the opposite of dialogue then how are we to communicate or experience such an idea, without conversation, without sound. How could this idea be transferred to an interior space within an institution, does it already exist, without us implementing such a concept? When we intentionally visit a gallery or museum we have often chosen a deliberate amount of hours to spend wandering, or drifting through the space. Why would one choose to enter a museum? What purpose is there for drifting through such a space, contemplating and attempting to understand and interpret all that we see? Why are works of art brought together within a space for such encounters to take place? How does what we experience on our journey convince us to take more journeys, within other, similar spaces or museums?

If we think of the idea of a journey in relation to our movements within a cultural institution, it is a journey where knowledge is gained through visual stimulation. The way one gains knowledge of a city while site seeing, one gains knowledge of cultural institutions by frequently exposing oneself to cultural institutions, the more displayed objects we encounter on our journey, the more we learn about a museum or gallery. If the objects on display tend to appear as works of contemporary art, we are probably in a gallery, if the majority of objects on display seem to come from ancient civilisations, if they seem to be on display more for their historical or cultural interest rather than an aesthetic one, then we are probably inside a conventional museum. By conventional, I mean traditional, having emerged in the nineteenth century, a modernist museum; such museums are often laid out in accordance with or based on what is generally considered acceptable or the done way that has been deemed appropriate. When one enters such a museum, anywhere in the world, one knows what to expect, museums all over the world are traditionally similar, perhaps not in terms of exterior and interior architecture but in terms of a familiarity.

It is often said that museums are akin to cathedrals and that the experience of wandering through the space is ritualistic. “Museums are normally set apart from other structures by their monumental architecture and clearly defined precincts.” (Duncan, 1995) As too are religious buildings, with equally monumental architecture etc. and although I agree to some extent that museums are in many ways similar to religious sites and that perhaps some may consider the experience to be that of a spiritual journey, I feel such comparisons should be avoided and that ultimately a museum is and should remain a secular space. By removing any religious associations we are creating a welcoming space for people of all cultures. Religion divides communities and cultures, so if a museum comes across to the general public the way a religious building might, hierarchical and cold, then they are less likely to enter. The situationists wanted to art to be accessible to all but if an individual doesn’t feel accepted enough by the connotations given to the building housing the art, then they will not enter and art will not become part of their everyday life. The appreciation of our experiences within the space are better suited to that of a library than a religious space, a house of knowledge rather than a house of God, with no religious or spiritual connotations attached with exception of displayed objects which may adhere to such themes. The dérive cannot be achieved in a religious space, although holy relics and religious objects may be on display, one tends not to be able to go anywhere, one may drift in and drift out, drift in a circle, between the pews, the dominance of interior architecture a constant distraction. Although some may worship the objects on display in a religious space, one does not worship museum objects, even those which may have been worshiped at some point from another culture. We are there to learn, to experience, to discover, it is a completely selfish journey we take in order to be selfless if we at some point impart the knowledge we gain onto others, the audience or spectator acting as disciple or follower of the museum, spreading the word about art.

 “The only reason for bringing together works of art in a public place is that … they produce in us a kind of exalted happiness. For a moment there is a clearing in the jungle: we pass on refreshed, with our capacity for life increased and with some memory of the sky.”

(Clark, 1954)

Although a feeling of pure elation, of exalted happiness is not necessary when viewing works of art, any feeling that differs from or encourages us to leave our state of normality, the feeling of just being ‘alright’, is something hoped to achieve through viewing displayed objects during a dérive. In the above rather poetic quote by Clark we can establish the moment an object causes an encounter in our minds, this is the moment we acquire knowledge through an understanding of what we see, or experience and how that makes us feel. The use of the word jungle is interesting as it seems to imply a cluttered mind, a busy mind, filled with modern day issues, twenty first century problems. Yet art, or objects, are able to quieten this noise inside our heads, allowing us to drift into another world, a hyper reality, free from the spectacle but still very much a part of it, contradictory calmness of our inner selves. “So long as the realm of necessity remains a social dream, dreaming will remain a social necessity. The spectacle is the bad dream of modern society in chains, expressing nothing more than its wish for sleep. The spectacle is the guardian of that sleep.” (Debord, 1967) During a dérive we are awake but we drift through space as though we are asleep, drifting from consciousness into a sort of unconsciousness, with the moment in between acting as heightened awareness in your subconscious state, experiencing all that may have otherwise only occurred to us in dreams. Consider the moment before one falls asleep and ideas are formed, almost instantly, inspiring eureka moments that occur as you’re about to call it a night and if not written down they are often forgot but when this happens during the day, during a dérive it is an incredible moment. It means you have managed to allow your surroundings to give you the answers where you may have over looked them had you been rushing rather than dériving, running rather than drifting. What would we consider to be a necessity within a gallery setting, art, objects, labels, guides, visitor assistants? Is the spectacle a continuous social dream – a social necessity, kept or continuing to exist due to the spectacle? Is the spectacle the theory which prevents progression, as social speculation, as though to turn against the spectacle would be to turn against the normalities of society? There may even be specific objects or collections we have set out to encounter on our journey, our dérive; dérives of interiors, internally processed through a series of exterior movements. Sufficiently intense dérives may occur for several days and the goal may be to emotionally disorientate oneself, something I feel could be connected to the staff within a cultural institution who perhaps perform the same drift say after day, within the same space, past the same objects. The intentional, emotional disorientation caused by repeating or experiencing drifts for long periods of time over laps with the idea that another goal within a dérive is to simply study the terrain, which seems to mirror the job of a curator, to study the interior terrain of the space as though they were a geographer surveying a landscape.  Emotional disorientation is often the case with certain kinds of objects, For example, the scale and intensity of a Rothko might induce a sort of escapism, causing you to momentarily ‘lose yourself’ every time you drift past it and if this is done often say through a repetitive journey, one might be more easily affected by other objects, it may cause a heightened sensitivity. Often repetition in modern society is something that cannot be avoided, presented in the form of endless routines. This brings me to the degradation of human life and how modern society may have impacted on our cultural institutions in ways we would never have expected.

In The Society of the Spectacle Debord (1967) states “all that once was directly lived has become mere representation”. Representational art of the past shows what we in today’s society can produce with a photograph; it represents what was there, in the flesh, in ‘real life’, something directly lived. Perhaps this is something we take for granted, particularly in the digital age, museums are now trying to allow audiences to indirectly experience museums virtually but how successful is vicariously living out encounters through a screen when one is still able to visit the museum in real life, a museum which directly lives. Our reality is made up of an immense accumulation of spectacles, by this I am referring to all forms of mass media, the internet is made up of an abundance of spectacles which inevitably fuel our current reality and although human beings are able to cope without spectacles such as those found both online and offline, one would struggle to feel integrated in our society without them. The advancement of humanity, aided by the spectacle is fundamentally reliant on creative innovation, so too are museums, without creative innovation, there may not be any museums providing our over stimulated society with what is required. “So far from realising philosophy, the spectacle philosophises reality, and turns the material life of everyone into a universe of speculation”. (Debord, 1967) This uncertainty is often visible within a gallery or museum setting, when museums cannot agree on what it is they want to achieve, what they believe in and what the message they’re trying to send out is, the public are left feeling equally as uncertain. In a gallery, there will always be speculation as to whether or not an object is art. In a museum it may come down to whether or not an object is old enough to be an artefact, this is something that will never change unless a museum makes a point of encouraging such discussions, if a museum really lets the public know that there is no right or wrong answer, all art is subjective and most history surrounding artefacts is speculative unless met with specific provenance. The spectacle seems to prevent us from simply accepting our own personal philosophies. The extinction of museums is something we must prevent by coming up with advanced methods of moving on in ways relevant to the technological advances that exist in our world. However, it could be that such development is inevitable, due to the spectacle, if the spectacle is beyond our control. If the spectacle is not perceptible to the human eye, does this mean the spectacle or the idea of the spectacle is similar to that of the sublime in that it may exist as sensation, as an awareness one cannot describe? Is it part of reality that cannot be changed, or are we able to do something about it? Debord (1967) states that “the decline of being into having, and having into merely appearing” and refers to reality “solely as an object of contemplation”. Are museums reluctant to change due to this; are they simply keeping up appearances? Are we living in individual museums of life, with our own realities the objects of contemplation, to be contemplated by not only ourselves but those around us, our personal participants, drifting in and out of our lives as though we’re each involved in chance encounters, possible rendezvous? Could it be that life is simply a dérive and within in that we can chose separate journeys to dérive, sometimes including others, sometimes solo? Every human being an audience members, experiencing their journeys within the gallery space of life, entering with intention through our decisions, our choices, occasionally stopping to look at a displayed object, moving onto the next and continuing to do so until we eventually find the exit. Metaphors aside, the mass dissemination of images and the technology that allows this to happen, is something that has already begun to strengthen and develop cultural institutions, the audience for art is wider than it has ever been, the ability for something to ‘go viral’ really did not exist when the Situationist International began, the media of their day is no match to ours when compare it, we still have the old media, television, printed publications, radio etc. through the use of the internet and social media, we are so much closer to merging or amalgamating art and society in a way which we never could in the past.

Due to the mass dissemination of images, the world is a much more creative place than it has ever been before and although some images may be useless or inappropriate, we have a choice as to what it is we want to view and we can use that to our advantage. We form connections with people all over the world, from other cultures, other societies, all users connected as one culturally aware society through the use of the internet. The walls of prejudice are being removed with every generation becoming more accustomed to what is out there in the world. We are more accepting and this acceptance is something which has in some ways yet to enter our museum system, our displays, etc. It isn’t just about adding disabled ramps and putting up signs if art videos might be considered unsuitable for younger audiences, it is about much more than that. There should be more diversity amongst collections, museums are going to have to pay attention and try much harder to please the public as the years move on due to the speed in which technological changes are taking place. The digital dérive as we drift in and out of browser tabs, closing windows, opening windows, climbing over comments, under comments, reading, writing, mapping our experiences through saved histories. Unless a person is particularly interested in art, the digital dérive will not include art or creative investigation, which is perhaps something that may be addressed by galleries and museums, a sort of chance encounter whilst browsing, not popup windows but something more intricate, something tightly woven into the world wide web, an ability or option to convert every webpage into a creative or participatory task. Though unbeknownst to the users of social networking sites, they are exposed to a new kind of participatory work of art, where we are the artists, the facilitators and the audience. Take Twitter for example, we are only allowed one hundred and forty characters to update our status and there is nothing to say we have to update it at all, yet we do. We do it as it is a good way of expanding our knowledge to others. We are all attempting to impart some form of knowledge, be it about ourselves or something we’re interested in onto others when we take part in such activities online. Facebook is another example of a website that could be considered a work of art, as it is a website which holds some of the most detailed, personal self-portraits imaginable. I believe the situationists would agree that the twenty first century is on the right track by disseminating culture the way we do and although the internet is really still in its infancy, there is so much more that can be achieved, especially when it comes to museums.

The collaborative significance of dialogues between display and viewer and between viewer and art is noted by Debord (1967) as being a relationship between people, on a social level, a society mediated by images where the spectacle is “not a collection of images”. The opinions of Debord regarding the idea of the spectacle were developed in an extreme manner by the philosopher Jean Baudrillard, who said that in fact we are no longer in the society of the spectacle. “The ‘culture of spectacle’ is identified as a crucial issue by artists and critics concerned about the future of modern art on the grounds that, in turning art into merely another cultural commodity for leisure-time consumption, it necessarily compromises the potential for art as a form of critical practice. In the ‘spectacle’, the challenge of the avant-garde is restaged (so the argument runs) as a form of theatre, a case in point being the Turner Prize … which, with its short-list of rival artists, positively invites controversy.” (Baker, ed. 1999) The ‘culture of spectacle’ is often avoided by cultural institutions as the lack of consistency and or controversy amongst collection displays or exhibitions could be seen as an attempt to distract the viewer. Instead, most museums and galleries will choose to display objects in a harmonious manner, objects that usually relate to one another either historically, aesthetically or thematically. By jeopardising the critical analysis of the objects themselves, the culture of spectacle causes us to look past aesthetics and to question more than what we see. It causes us to question everything we think we know about art. The culture of spectacle exists to prevent art from becoming what Hegel referred to as the ‘end of art’, art that exists simply for the enjoyment or the entertainment of the audience. Idle entertainment is something commonly associated with the French word détournement used by situationists but for them it doesn’t quite translate correctly so instead it means to “deflection, diversion, rerouting, misuse, misappropriation, hijacking, or otherwise turning something aside from its normal course or purpose. It has sometimes been translated as “diversion.”” (Knabb, 2006) To divert or deflect is something one does automatically whilst participating in a dérive. Détournement should be encouraged within museums, to completely rethink what a museum is, by misusing or hijacking the conventional museum, we may save the future of museums, creating new spaces and experiences within those spaces.

Bibliography and References

Baker, E. (1999) Contemporary Cultures of Display UK: The Open University
Clark, K. (1954) ‘The Ideal Museum’ ArtNews January, Vol. 52, pp. 29.
Debord G. trans. Nicholson-Smith, D. (1967) The Society of the Spectacle New York: Zone Books.
Debord, G. trans. Knabb, K. (1958) ‘Internationale Situationniste #2’, Theory of the Dérive Paris. [Online] Available from: https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/download/attachments/18022830/DebordDerive.pdf (Accessed: 20th May 2013)
Duncan, C. (1995) Civilizing Rituals: Inside Public Art Museums (Re Visions: Critical Studies in the History & Theory of Art) UK: Routledge.
Knabb, K. (2006) Situationist International Anthology US: Bureau of Public Secrets.
Putnam, J. (2009) Art and Artefact: The Museum as Medium UK: Thames and Hudson Ltd.
Vaneigem, R. (1967) Traité du savoir-vivre à l’usage des jeunes generations Paris: Gallimard.