Psychogeography

I first encountered psy­cho­geo­graphy while reading about Iain Sinclair (I think an essay in Lights Out for the Ter­ritory, or some­thing else by Sinclair, had prompted some further research). My most pro­longed exposure to the idea came while reading London Orbital, Sinclair’s book about his explor­a­tion of the route described by the M25, the orbital road sur­rounding London. Sinclair walked around the cir­cum­fer­ence, seeing and recording what he saw; most import­antly, though, he thought about what he had seen, extra­pol­ating from the physical ter­ritory a reading of the psy­cho­logy, the social and polit­ical psy­cho­logy, or the space — writing a psy­cho­geo­graphy. A short review I wrote about five years ago can be found here.

More recently I have been reading Sinclair’s Lights Out for the Ter­ritory, another book about walking and seeing and inter­pret­ting. The idea never com­pletely left me, after London Orbital, but being exposed to it, to psy­cho­geo­graphy, again — re-​exposed — has started me thinking about the applic­ab­ility — or perhaps simply rel­ev­ance — of the idea to my pho­to­graphy (and also, perhaps, to my life, gen­er­ally). And then a day or so ago I rewatched, with Hugo Teixeira, a doc­u­mentary about William Eggle­ston, and suddenly psy­cho­geo­graph­ical thinking seemed to become even more pertinent.

The concept of psy­cho­geo­graphy first appeared in the 1950s. According to the Wiki­pedia entry, Guy Debord defined psy­cho­geo­graphy “the study of the precise laws and specific effects of the geo­graph­ical envir­on­ment, con­sciously organ­ized or not, on the emotions and behavior of indi­viduals.” That is a defin­i­tion of psy­cho­geo­graphy that covers Sinclair’s intel­lec­tual process, but which falls short of being defin­itive by failing to touch on the meth­od­o­logy of the studying — the actual walking. Walking is very important to Sinclair, and to others (myself included), and to under­stand that, the rela­tion­ship of walking to psy­cho­geo­graphy, we need to under­stand the Dérive. It is this side that interests me most: the inter­sec­tion of the physical process, the feet on the ground, moving from point to point, with the idea, the inter­pret­a­tion. And for psy­cho­geo­graphers the walking is not simply a prac­tic­ality, a way to get to what they want to see; to the contrary, the walking , the con­nec­tion with — the constant connecting with — the place, is integral to, is the key to, revealing the buried inform­a­tion about the place.

The passage below is from ‘Drifting with The Situ­ationist Inter­na­tional’, an article — author unknown — pub­lished in Smile #5

The dérive is the first step toward an urban praxis. It is a stroll through the city by several people who are out to under­stand the “psy­cho­geo­graph­ical artic­u­la­tion of the modern city”. The strollers attempt an inter­pretive reading of the city, an archi­tec­tural under­standing. They look at the city as a special instance of repressed desires. At the same time, they engage in “playful recon­structive behavior”. Together they turn the city around. They see in the city unifying and empowering pos­sib­il­ities in place of the present frag­ment­a­tion and pacification.

There is a little more inform­a­tion on dérive, and on how it relates to psy­cho­geo­graphy, on the site where I found that passage. And the wiki­pedia articles on both dérive and psy­cho­geo­graphy provide good background.

I’m thinking about these things a lot at the moment: the ideas tie into the Ter­ritory pho­to­graphs I’m gradu­ally putting up onto Flickr, and also into my plans for the next project; so, I imagine there will be more to write, later. First, though, I need to find some maps.