#detournment

I believe every revolution has its own unique identity. That identity is created by a collective group of artists who can craft the iconography necessary for the ideology to spread. But there always must be the first, the ones who spark the flame of creation that will then grow into a wildfire. In the 1970s, the punk movement was essentially the brainchild of one Malcom McLaren and his creative partner Vivianne Westwood (Havlin, 2015). Their infamous shop in Chelsea London, “SEX” was purposely incendiary and spoke to an underground generation that was revolting against the conformist, clean nature of their parents, a generation that craved something different, something extreme. They were the generation of the pissed off, and what you wore was the easiest way to indicate how you felt about the world you were living in. “I choose to not be subjugated, I choose to tear my clothing, and pierce my skin, and show my body however I please and I don’t give a f**k about what you think” was the general sentiment. What was great about these Vivianne Westwood designs was that they were easily able to be replicated, using everyday items to literally “Detourn” one’s pre-existing clothing and transform it into a wearable piece of resistance. You didn’t have to have thousands of pounds in the bank, you could use whatever supplies you had at home to DIY the look you were trying to achieve. And this was the important part, it was an aesthetic that was accessible to everyone. The revolution is machine-washable.

Malcom McLaren and Vivienne Westwood's SEX shop in Chelsea, London (1974-1976)

“Forget about music and concentrate on creating generation gaps. Call all hippies boring old farts and set light to them. Terrorize, threaten, and insult your own useless generation. Suddenly you've become a novel idea and you've got people wanting to join in. You've gained credibility from nothing, you're the talk of the town.”  - Malcom McLaren, The Great Rock and Roll Swindle

And as much as I wax poetic about this period in history as I resonate with punk music and aesthetics, I can’t help but feel that it has had its jaws muzzled somewhat; this is due to the commodification and capitalisation of the punk aesthetic. I am not I saying it is Westwood’s fault for this occurring, she is not the sole author of punk fashion, but her name is often associated with its origins and her transformation into a high fashion house that only the wealthy can afford seems to go against what her original brand was built on. There is a history there, an idea you are buying into when you purchase a Vivianne Westwood piece, but the message is muddied now, and her products are currently more reminiscent of every day latent-stage capitalist products than the situationist weapons they used to be.

I believe the same can be said of Barbara Kruger’s work. Originally her creations were commentary on the subliminal messaging of advertising agencies and the insidious ways they were influencing consumers to purchase more products. However, in the 21st century, her signature red and white lettering has become the very rampant consumerism she was fighting against.  Shepard Fearey’s “OBEY” is plastered upon sweatshirts, t-shirts, shoes, hats, cups, bags, and literally any other item you can think of. Her message was twisted and gnarled into a beast she could no longer recognise.

Obey shirt selling on Depop

I think what the Situationists did not account for, is that eventually, the revolution can be bought and sold for profit. Freedom, rebellion, absurdity, vulgar, and the avant-garde, is too enticing to be left to the grassroots, it eventually becomes part of the larger forest of hegemony.  Be that as it may, I am nothing if not an optimist, and as long as there is always those who are willing to advance the guard further, change what the rebellion looks like, and create utilitarian form of detourning and civil disobedience that everyone can access, than we can move forward, our new identity in tow.

Bibliography