reference of "latter"

1. What is the first "latter" referring to in the following text? Does it mean the quotation "something that changes our way of seeing the streets may change our way of seeing paintings"?

2. How about the second "latter"?

It somehow feels like they are both referring to a singular concept considered previously in the book. What is your idea? Because a quick search shows that the writer has used the word "latter" several times in the rest of the book.

Context:

Perhaps I might begin briefly with the situationists (to whom I will doubtless feel compelled to return at intervals). In a document which paved the way towards the formation of the Situationist International in 1957 – and which momentarily brings into play again Bonami’s remarks on painting, cited in the introduction – Guy Debord declared that ‘something that changes our way of seeing the streets is more important than something that changes our way of seeing paintings’ (in Knabb 2006: 42). It is helpful to recognise Debord is not necessarily disavowing here the practice of art (or even painting) per se – though there are those who might beg to differ in this regard1 – but rather making the case for its central implication or activation within the business of everyday urban life, as against its confinement to autonomous art historical or critical functions with their aspirations, amongst other conservative values, to permanence and transcendence. Thus, the situationists’ project of ‘unitary urbanism’, which Debord attempts to explain in the same document, is:

defined first of all as the use of all arts and techniques as means contributing to the composition of a unified milieu. [. . .] It must include both the creation of new forms and the d´etournement of previous forms of architecture, urbanism, poetry and cinema. Integral art, which has been talked about so much, can be realised only at the level of urbanism.

Whilst art can, as such, ‘no longer correspond to any of the traditional aesthetic categories’, one might nevertheless legitimately propose, therefore – with a nod, in fact, to Bonami’s advocacy of experiences that will change the way you look at Picasso – that: ‘something that changes our way of seeing the streets may change our way of seeing paintings’. However, the point of Debord’s polemics related, as Greg Ulmer points out (citing the latter), to the situationists later practising ‘a “realisation” (or “overcoming”) of art [. . .] that extended into performance or action the “insubordination of words [. . .] Our era no longer has to write out poetic directives; it has to carry them out”’.
In other words, the subversive, if delimited, force of art (here evoked through the ‘poetics of words’) should be harnessed so as to be effective in drawing out or producing radical events on the street. Of course the situationists’ project was, above all, provocatively revolutionary in a socio-political sense, which is what marked out the significance of its contribution to an already existing preoccupation within the art world with everyday life and space. As Simon Sadler elucidates in The Situationist City, though, the occurrence of the latter, effected via the ‘constructed situation’ – with its related sychogeographical strategies of d´etournement (diversion) and d´erive (drift)