Response to a derive blogger..

I was browsing through the blog of another student in VC308, and I came across something that I really needed to comment on. Before I introduce that student's blog to you, I am going to introduce three key terms from the Lettrist Internation and the Situationists. (These definitions have been taken directly from Simon Ford's article "Potlatch, Pshychogeography, Derive, and Detournement").

Potlatch: The enhancement of status through ceremonial gift-giving or festive destruction.

Psychogeography: The study of the specific effects of the geographical environment, consciously organised or not, on the emotions and behaviour of individuals.

Derive: drifting and deliberaterly trying to lose oneself in the city. In derive one or more persons during a certain period drop their usual motives for movement and action, their relations, their work and leisure activities, and let themselves be drawn by the attractions of the terrain and the encounters they find there....From the derive point of view cities have a psychological relief, with constant currents, fixed points and vortexes which strongly discourage entry into or exit from certain zones.

Detournement: a process involving the transformation of both everyday ephemera, such as advertisement slogans and comic strips, and significant cultural products, such as quotations from Marx and old master paintings. These would then be re-presented within a new artisitic context. The integration of present or past artisitic production into a superior construction of a miliey.



The blogger I mentioned earlier is Erin Pereira. The particular postingI am interested in is titled THE SITUATIONIST INTERNATIONAL. Erin writes about the derive in this post. She describes it and goes on to say that the derive is not possible in suburbia.



Erin describes the derive as: "It is a wonderful notion, of giving up your regular desires of movement and freeely going where the landscape takes you." I feel that there is one tiny misconception in Erin's definition that restricts her from derive-ing in suburbia. She believes that the derive makes us "give up our regular desires of movement" to allow the landscape move us. However, I wonder....what exactly are our regular desires of movement? I don't think we have to give up our regular desires, or any desires for that matter, during a derive. The derive is all about letting our desires guide our movement. I think that on a derive, we need to give up our regular restrictions of movement like time constraints, following a paved road, avoiding oncoming traffic, dodging puddles, stopping at traffic lights, a map so we don't get lost, a destination to reach. These are restrictions that we impose on ourselves. Once we give up these restrictions, I believe that we can allow our desires to collaborate with the landscape. And this collaboration, this sense of landscape attached to our sense of free movement and exploration, is what should guide our movement on a derive. Thus, we need to let go of restrictions, not desires. We need the desires to derive.

That being said, I want to point out that Erin believes that we can not derive in suburban environments like Mississauga or Oakville. She feels that the landscape takes us throw rows of sterile, identical houses and leads us to malls and movie complexes. She calls it "safe looking, planned for enclosure and self suffieciency". Living in a rural town myself- bordering on Milton and Mississauga. If you look at the map, you will see that I have one foot in a housing area and one foot in the wilderness. And I daresay that a derive in this suburban area would not only be possible, it would be fun.


If I take care to not wear my fancy shoes, I would probably venture away from the road. I have seen everything the road has to offer- stop signs, grocery stores and the cinemas. But if I walk away from the road, I will see farms, cows, maybe even a nice old lady gardening. She will offer me some lemonade because it's such a hot day outside. When I tell her about my derive, she will invite me to come to the neighbours because they have a beautiful view of the "city" from their porch. I go over and yes, the view is indeed breathtaking. I see that there is a lake a few kilometers away. I take the shortcut through the farms and approach the lake. There, a butterfly catches my eye. I follow it. It takes me into a ravine, where I sit to eat my granola bar (which tastes amazing after the long walk I've had).
I could go on and on imagining this derive. But I won't. We each are entitled to our own derive. And who knows, mine may turn out differently. I may meet the man of my dreams crossing the street. Or I may find a diamond ring somebody had lost decades ago. I may even end up in a ditch, calling 911 to help get me out because I'm afraid of spiders. The point is, a derive should lead ur emotions and curiosities. We should not limit ourselves to the artificial constructions that the city has provided for us. A derive in the country may be more fun and interactive than a derive in the city (specially since people in the country are so much friendlier. I doubt we would find nice old ladies in downtown Toronto who will offer us lemonade in their kitchens).