Chris

My Take on "Theory of the Derive"
Christopher DeBose

First off, he encourages that derive a way of lessening boundaries determined by geographical factors or "tags" place on area. Derive is drifting through areas, preferably, not none by the individual, where that person can explore and observe these unknown surroundings. This process is not thought out, but rather spontaneous in it approach. Maybe characteristics or a theme is created about the area that is being drifted. I assumed that this will offer a different fe emotion or way of thinking, that will show up in the photographs being taken.

Debord mentions how individuals set up their own boundaries. For example, the girl in Paris whose activites were recorded, and formed a triangular outline of her daily routines. He consider this as a personal boundary, because of the lack of differentiation in where she went. Even though there is more around her, she doesn't go beyond her usual routine. People being unwilling to allow themselves, Pierre Vendryes used the term "antiderterminist liberation" is part of the reason people are unable to experience a true derive. He relates this to probability experiments. What I took from that is that the chances of anyone experiencing a derive are low if people are influenced by their natural habitual actions. If this is removed, then the chance of a true derive happening is better. I don't think we can strip ourselves of what we know, but we could consciously block it out.

Next, Debord talks about derives being done in groups, with people of the "same level of awareness." Also, some guidelines to doing a derive. Like how long a derive can last. For example, it could last for a few hours to a few months and this can influence change in the derive the person might not be aware of. The mention of how weather greatly affects a derive. As well, how the goal of studying a terrain or becoming "emotionally disoriented" will influence how a derive is done. Lastly, he discusses how doing a derive in your residence is O.K. if it's interesting and not based on not knowing about the city (taking tourist pictures of common attractions).

The idea of derives is to go against what you would behaviorally do. Basically avoiding your usual routine. He talks about how limiting someone to a area they have no familiarity is a good way. He labeled it a "possible rendezvous" where you make a meeting and never show up or force that person to interact with people. This should encourage constant opportunities to experience a derive, but I think this would become annoying if the person has no clue of what is going on. He also compares various activities of expression that are generally the same as derive, but don't encourage independency, and a feeling of distress or observance. Not completely sure about my interpretation of that.

Finally, how derives enable "psychogeographical articulation." This he says go beyond "their main components and their spatial localization." I think he saying that it is not just brick, mortar, and buildings with addresses or a combination of businesses that establish boundaries. Derive should determine boundaries and distance and how an area is viewed.

I really don't have a complete opinion since I have never experience a derive before. If I had to related this to Art, I guess this would influence how someone approach doing Art, or how they see Art. Not sure really.