Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Situationist City is in good hands

  • Comment

Having heard Simon Sadler deliver a coherent and informed lecture on Archigram in Manchester recently, I was a little surprised to read Murray Fraser's harsh review of Sadler's book The Situationist City (aj 30.4.98). What Fraser says is no doubt true, but does it amount to a reasoned critique of the book? He himself acknowledges the difficulties in producing an academic book on this subject, and then condemns Sadler for addressing the difficulties in a way not to his own tastes. Why does it matter if the introduction is 'apologetic'? More important, why does it matter if Sadler does or does not 'nail his colours to the mast', and why should he declare his support for one school of Situationism as against another?

Fraser seems to attack the book because it does not offer the last word on Situationism, and because there are threads in the wider story which have yet to be weaved in. It is the classic review which criticises what is omitted without properly discussing what is contained.


Saffron Walden

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.