Talk:Détournement

Untitled

Announcing the creation of WikiProject Arts, an effort to create a collaboration between all arts projects and artistically-minded Wikipedians in order to improve arts coverage.

Jargon

I have attempted to replace the impenetrable postmodernist jargon that was here before (and also appears in Situationist International) with more transparent English. I'm not entirely confident in the meaning I have extracted. Help from those closer to the subject is, of course, welcome. Aaron D. Ball 18:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My God - you mean it used to be WORSE???? FlaviaR (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it is your stance that the language used by the people who invented the term is not as specific as your ignorant interpretation of the term into "transparent English?

It is my stance that the prevailing PoMo mumbo jumbo leading the examples sections is in fact devoid of meaning and should be removed in its entirety.

I assume this article itself is a détournement, with its non-English jargon and its references to empty cultural icons ironically mocking the idea of an encyclopedia as a source of helpful information? --Hors-la-loi 13:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Ready-Mades

Perhaps we should include a link to found art as it does somewhat link? User:mercruz 19:35, 14 January 2008 (PST)

Comic Strip Switcheroo: questionable relevance

An april fools prank conducted by commercial, mainstream comic strip artists with the consent of a newspaper for the consumption of mainstream consumers in mainstream publications, without any kind of subversive content--that's detournement? If nobody objects I'll remove that link--it'll confuse people who don't understand the Situationist concept. - --Nargmage 23:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change the name

Could anyone change the title in "Détournement" in stead of "Detournement"? Thanks. 130.89.197.14 22:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bacon's Study after Velázquez is NOT détournement

There is a huge difference between what Francis Bacon was doing and what the SI described. I suggest removing this image and claim (unless you can cite it, which I am sure you cannot) as it presents utterly wrong information on the top Google result for détournement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.49.189 (talk • contribs) (23:55, 25 January 2011)

Agreed. There is no evidence that I have been able to find (and more importantly- none in the article) which would connect Bacon's painting to this technique. As it stands now, the page describes detournement as an artistic technique where their is not only a general relationship between an original and a subsequent work, but where there is a particular intent (to undermine or subvert an ideological message) with regard to the original. It is certainly conceivable that Bacon may have had an intent along those lines, but I don't know of any reason to think that he did; moreover, to infer that that was his intent would be at odds with information about Bacon which is available. Unless the contention is that detournement need not have the intent which is presently specified, or unless evidence is found for this intent on Bacon's part, the inclusion of 'Study' here is at best merely speculative and at worst irresponsible. Therefore, I have removed the images. OckRaz (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should these examples be included as examples of detournement

[[1]] Shows examples where Ladybird books illustrations were changed over about 10 years, between the 1960s and 1970s to reflect feminist etc. cultural modifications. They would seem to be most effective examples of detournement, since they are, to anybody born within the last 20 years or so, entirely subliminal. 80.189.193.188 (talk) 01:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons category

Please help populate the category and make parent/child categories. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]