Literary and Cultural Theory, 2013

In the book Decolonizing the Mind, Kenyan writer Ngugi wa Thiong’o describes his own experience in of how English decisively matters during the education of one child in Kenya. The real power of imperialism resided not at all in the cannons of the first morning but in what followed the cannons–new school. As Cheikh Hamidou Kane says, “The cannon forces the body and the school fascinates the soul”. Violence, expropriation, conquest, slavery can definitely take the land over, but English, as a language that represents and carries imperialist’s culture, was the official vehicle and the magic formula to colonial elitedom. This visibly gentle method  of ruling the black continent has planted English as its true weapon and now when really talking about African Literature, people sink into the unending discussion of “what is African Literature” since the language they use is no longer the original, traditional mother-tongue that embedded in their mind. Thus the crisis of definition makes people truly realize how powerful this after-cannon colonialism could. Here, the author has to stress the importance of language: a mean of communication and a carrier of culture. So what the author initiates is the resort to their native language. And this book becomes him farewell to English.

 

Homi K. Bhabha introduces the concepts of ambivalence and hybridity. They are seen as the consequence of “resistance” that colonized people react to the imposition on them of an alien language and culture. This time in a different continent and by a different methodology, the author points out that the Bible, as religious mediation and as a cultural and linguistic medium, was questioned of its presence but more of its signification–a strategic device in a specific colonial engagement and an appurtenance of authority. As a matter of fact, there is no unsigned, undisguised Christian among Indians. But the author failed to mention that Indians have their own religion to faith in. Hinduism is deeply rooted in this nation from generation to generation.  The ideal purpose of imperialist that  proselytize seems impossible to happen. So when Bible books distributed among people, it didn’t erouse such influence that it was presumed to be. Maybe the ruler underestimated what religion means to this nation. But now English is the second official language of India, and Christian is scattered compared to the mass believers of Hinduism. 

 

It is true that when imperialists encounter a land which could bring whatever economic benefits, they crushed for the wealth or the infinite labour power by violence. But it was also the collision of two cultures, two languages and two religions. The consequences produced had never been expected and was impossible to forecast. It’s easy to judge the victory of a war in a battlefield, but in the field of cultures’ collision, which side is the winner is hard to define. Ambivalence,  exists all along.

People of my country, including me, are football’s fan. When our team plays, I mean the Colombian Selection, the country just stops because almost everyone is watching the game. A game, let’s say, against Argentina is an event which compromises our jobs, classes… and if you can not skip a meeting or a class, usually the radio takes places and, as I experienced while I was teaching, students and workers have their earphones connected and listen at the same time they are “taking notes”.

From my perspective, this huge fanaticism has increased last twenty years since a traditional broadcastings developed a particular way of transmit Colombia’s games. When our team plays, the anchors and reporters increase the national symbols, and the semiotics of language changes completely. When they start to talk about the Colombian team they use on purpose the possessive our for identifying themselves and the audience with the team. For instance, several times they omit saying the “Colombian team”, but rather they say “Colombia” and when you hear the name of your country besides the name of a team, something different is perceived.

Probably a decade ago, the fashion of using the Colombian’s team t-shirt the day of important games started. TV promoted, in a subtle way, that if you use the colors of your country, you help the players “to fell that they count on you”. Of course, the majority of TVs anchors, some in the news some others in talk-shows, wear their yellow shirts with the Colombian Football Federation symbol. They also spread this idea since it’s very common to adapt yourself to social norms proposed on TV.

Before the game, the TV news is almost completely absorb by the football information so, from the two hours that usually the news takes, only thirty or forty five minutes are dedicated to the news of the country, and the other part is dedicated to players interviews, reports, images of the last game… and a frequents visits to the stadium, interviewing the public and make seem happy. In that way, the audience is all the time expecting the game starting, and we can not change the channel, of course.

When the game is on, the publicity becomes crazy: a lots of ads appears during the whole game, even the narrators announce products and in the half is almost a fifteen minutes of commercials.  If Colombia’s team scores is like a tsunami of nationalism: “This is my dearest homeland!”, the narrator says, “This is my country, this is the people who give us hope!” (and you should imagine the voice of the narrator almost crying of “happiness”). And then a popular Colombian music resonates to increase the sense we are building a new country because of one goal.

Actually, I think when the TV takes advantage of football for creating a sense of hope, is because t is used as part of creation of the subject-in-ideology, as Fiske explains Althusser’s concept (1270). The reproduction of the ideology is that “this is a great country and we can get better, but we need the team wins because it represents the state”. Even, the current president has visited several times the Colombian’s team trainings and give “his support”, and he calls the football team as part of the state. But most of these players play in Italy, France, Spain, Argentina… they grew up as players in those countries, they had to travel and got other economical support and better teams since Colombia football or economical possibilities were not good for them as players.

When all advertisements and all this symphony of nationalism take place, it is really hard to see what is really happening with the country. The purpose of the TV transmission is not other than to sedate the sensation of inequality or indifference that Colombians feels constantly, and create and stimulate a system of values based on believing in football, and in that way in the state, since is really hard to create confidence with politics or social justice.

Football, used in that form, seems like a strong make-up for covering for some hours what is really happening and construct this “national we”, as Fiske reminds (1272) for not reading what is really happening. In that order of ideas, this is a sad example. In November 6th, 1985, the  M-19 guerrilla took over the Palace of Justice and the most violent military answer occurred causing hundreds of dead and disappears. The radio and TV broadcastings that were transmitted that event, suddenly stop because the Communications Cabinet Minister from that time commanded to intervene the media and. All the the broadcastings, then, started to transmit a football game that was taking place at the same time in other place of the country.

I do not want to finish with this sad episode. Actually, last week Colombian government recognized that the state had a big responsibility on this tragedy and apologized with the victims. This has being a huge step. And also, Colombian team is already qualified for the FIFA World Cup Brazil 2014, so it is great motive for celebrate. That is my team! Thanks for giving me hope!

People of my country, including me, are football’s fan. When our team plays, I mean the Colombian Selection, the country just stops because almost everyone is watching the game. A game, let’s say, against Argentina is an event which compromises our jobs, classes… and if you can not skip a meeting or a class, usually the radio takes places and, as I experienced while I was teaching, students and workers have their earphones connected and listen at the same time they are “taking notes”.

From my perspective, this huge fanaticism has increased last twenty years since a traditional broadcastings developed a particular way of transmit Colombia’s games. When our team plays, the anchors and reporters increase the national symbols, and the semiotics of language changes completely. When they start to talk about the Colombian team they use on purpose the possessive our for identifying themselves and the audience with the team. For instance, several times they omit saying the “Colombian team”, but rather they say “Colombia” and when you hear the name of your country besides the name of a team, something different is perceived.

Probably a decade ago, the fashion of using the Colombian’s team t-shirt the day of important games started. TV promoted, in a subtle way, that if you use the colors of your country, you help the players “to fell that they count on you”. Of course, the majority of TVs anchors, some in the news some others in talk-shows, wear their yellow shirts with the Colombian Football Federation symbol. They also spread this idea since it’s very common to adapt yourself to social norms proposed on TV.

Before the game, the TV news is almost completely absorb by the football information so, from the two hours that usually the news takes, only thirty or forty five minutes are dedicated to the news of the country, and the other part is dedicated to players interviews, reports, images of the last game… and a frequents visits to the stadium, interviewing the public and make seem happy. In that way, the audience is all the time expecting the game starting, and we can not change the channel, of course.

When the game is on, the publicity becomes crazy: a lots of ads appears during the whole game, even the narrators announce products and in the half is almost a fifteen minutes of commercials.  If Colombia’s team scores is like a tsunami of nationalism: “This is my dearest homeland!”, the narrator says, “This is my country, this is the people who give us hope!” (and you should imagine the voice of the narrator almost crying of “happiness”). And then a popular Colombian music resonates to increase the sense we are building a new country because of one goal.

Actually, I think when the TV takes advantage of football for creating a sense of hope, is because t is used as part of creation of the subject-in-ideology, as Fiske explains Althusser’s concept (1270). The reproduction of the ideology is that “this is a great country and we can get better, but we need the team wins because it represents the state”. Even, the current president has visited several times the Colombian’s team trainings and give “his support”, and he calls the football team as part of the state. But most of these players play in Italy, France, Spain, Argentina… they grew up as players in those countries, they had to travel and got other economical support and better teams since Colombia football or economical possibilities were not good for them as players.

When all advertisements and all this symphony of nationalism take place, it is really hard to see what is really happening with the country. The purpose of the TV transmission is not other than to sedate the sensation of inequality or indifference that Colombians feels constantly, and create and stimulate a system of values based on believing in football, and in that way in the state, since is really hard to create confidence with politics or social justice.

Football, used in that form, seems like a strong make-up for covering for some hours what is really happening and construct this “national we”, as Fiske reminds (1272) for not reading what is really happening. In that order of ideas, this is a sad example. In November 6th, 1985, the  M-19 guerrilla took over the Palace of Justice and the most violent military answer occurred causing hundreds of dead and disappears. The radio and TV broadcastings that were transmitted that event, suddenly stop because the Communications Cabinet Minister from that time commanded to intervene the media and. All the the broadcastings, then, started to transmit a football game that was taking place at the same time in other place of the country.

I do not want to finish with this sad episode. Actually, last week Colombian government recognized that the state had a big responsibility on this tragedy and apologized with the victims. This has being a huge step. And also, Colombian team is already qualified for the FIFA World Cup Brazil 2014, so it is great motive for celebrate. That is my team! Thanks for giving me hope!

If considering the context in which the School of Frankfurt flourished, one can find solid ground for the radicalism of Adorno and Horkeimer’s arguments. For example, the 1930s was the era of the big major studios (MGM, Paramount, Fox, Warner Bros) who exploited the star system and controlled local and international markets through vertical integration, block booking, among other strategies. The prevalence of images and dreams imported from Hollywood has been a reality in other countries where the local industry still struggles to release endogenous movies, and I even remember how video stores used to classify genres where American movies were considered the norm while national movies were grouped under their own subcategory based on their origin (Colombian films) and not their genre.

Mass production of cultural goods led to assume the homogeneity of dreams and a top-down determination in the hands of ‘evil’ producers for these two authors that supposedly represents the end of the individual. I am always surprised with the fascination exerted by boy bands all over the world and the disposability of these artists every 3 years, if lucky enough to survive that long.

I think the main contribution of this approach was to reveal the high concentration of the media market and standardization of goods or objective nature of products (1244). As critics have pointed in subsequent years (Miege, Garnham and Hesmondhalgh, among others), there are serious flaws in the main arguments of the Cultural Industry school that deserve further discussion. First, the term of Cultural Industry in singular overlooks the different conditions of cultural sectors or that the terms refers to the way of producing culture rather than a specific economic sector, so Miege (1989) prefers to use the term in plural “Cultural industries”. Right now, the term has even changed to Creative industries and Hesmondhalgh (2007) has argued that this distinction is to please the current neoliberal context.

Another serious observation is the assumption that company directors represent a monolithic and coordinated group free of contradictions or struggle of power or that there are other forces acting in the market (state, civil society, new comers, multiple technology alternatives etc.). We all have witnessed how the arrival of video rental/purchase, cable television, video on demand and streaming.

Last but not least is the role of the public as robotic recipients of the cultural content with no sense of consciousness or imagination (1244) when experiencing cultural goods, especially sound films. That’s why I found Certau’s counter-argument of the gap between those products and the use of them (1250) very interesting because it allows to have a sense of play toward the determination of taste.

References:

Hesmondhalgh, David. The cultural industries. Los Angeles: Sage, 2007.

Miege, Bernard. The Capitalization of Cultural Production. New York, N.Y.: International General, 1989.

If considering the context in which the School of Frankfurt flourished, one can find solid ground for the radicalism of Adorno and Horkeimer’s arguments. For example, the 1930s was the era of the big major studios (MGM, Paramount, Fox, Warner Bros) who exploited the star system and controlled local and international markets through vertical integration, block booking, among other strategies. The prevalence of images and dreams imported from Hollywood has been a reality in other countries where the local industry still struggles to release endogenous movies, and I even remember how video stores used to classify genres where American movies were considered the norm while national movies were grouped under their own subcategory based on their origin (Colombian films) and not their genre.

Mass production of cultural goods led to assume the homogeneity of dreams and a top-down determination in the hands of ‘evil’ producers for these two authors that supposedly represents the end of the individual. I am always surprised with the fascination exerted by boy bands all over the world and the disposability of these artists every 3 years, if lucky enough to survive that long.

I think the main contribution of this approach was to reveal the high concentration of the media market and standardization of goods or objective nature of products (1244). As critics have pointed in subsequent years (Miege, Garnham and Hesmondhalgh, among others), there are serious flaws in the main arguments of the Cultural Industry school that deserve further discussion. First, the term of Cultural Industry in singular overlooks the different conditions of cultural sectors or that the terms refers to the way of producing culture rather than a specific economic sector, so Miege (1989) prefers to use the term in plural “Cultural industries”. Right now, the term has even changed to Creative industries and Hesmondhalgh (2007) has argued that this distinction is to please the current neoliberal context.

Another serious observation is the assumption that company directors represent a monolithic and coordinated group free of contradictions or struggle of power or that there are other forces acting in the market (state, civil society, new comers, multiple technology alternatives etc.). We all have witnessed how the arrival of video rental/purchase, cable television, video on demand and streaming.

Last but not least is the role of the public as robotic recipients of the cultural content with no sense of consciousness or imagination (1244) when experiencing cultural goods, especially sound films. That’s why I found Certau’s counter-argument of the gap between those products and the use of them (1250) very interesting because it allows to have a sense of play toward the determination of taste.

References:

Hesmondhalgh, David. The cultural industries. Los Angeles: Sage, 2007.

Miege, Bernard. The Capitalization of Cultural Production. New York, N.Y.: International General, 1989.

 

It was really interesting to consider the weight behind the term “culture” as I went through the readings this week. I think today, when someone employs the term in casual conversation, listeners definitely relate it to, as Rivkin and Ryan explain, “art, literature and […] music” (1233). However, I agree that a more profound and accurate definition definitely does include language and the arts, but also “the regularities, procedures, and rituals of human life in communities” (1233). To think of culture in this way, especially as we employ the term in speech, is more than to invoke associations with art; it really includes a lot more about the ways in which our societies are organized and structured. I also think it is very relevant to our studies to continue to keep in mind what we read and discussed last week in regards to language; language inherently carries a culture with it.

The excerpt that I found myself reflecting the most on this week was Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”. I find this work very fascinating both because of how it jam-packs so many interesting concepts in a very succinct fashion, and also because of the historical context of this text is fascinating. I know that we are supposed to read text for text and not consider the historical context necessarily, but I think that in the case of Benjamin we simply cannot ignore what was happening in Europe at the time (of course, we should not let the historical context overshadow the text itself; I think it’s always just about maintaining a balance. Can we simply ignore the rise of fascism in Europe or the fact that Benjamin committed suicide in Portbou at the French-Spanish border, as he was being pursued by Nazi forces? I do think that we should take into account the context of the rise of fascism in Europe because there simply is no way that such an environment wouldn’t have an effect on society and on culture).

As I was reading the excerpt of Benjamin’s essay, I found myself thinking of different examples that I am familiar with and it really illuminated his arguments for me. For example, when he puts forth that “even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownerships” (1235), I couldn’t help but think of Picasso’s Guernica and its journey from Paris to New York (MoMA) to Spain (its now permanent home is in its purpose-built gallery at the Museo Reina Sofia (Queen Sofia Museum) in Madrid). I think it is worth it to follow Benjamin’s train of thought as expressed in the above quotation and try to apply it to this specific case. Any reproduction of the Guernica will lack this unique existence of its changes in locality. (I’d love to be able to put up a photographic reproduction that I took myself when I was in Madrid this past summer, but you are not allowed to take photos of the Guernica, so I hope that an image off the Internet and my photos outside of the museum will have to do).

  

This is especially important taking into account Picasso’s insistence that the paining was not to be delivered to Spain (he painted it in Paris) until liberty and democracy would be established in the country. Today at the Museo Reina Sofia, you can buy anything and everything with the image of the Guernica on it (see some examples in the images below) , though I imagine one of the most well-known reproductions is the replica that is at the UN headquarters in New York.

           

Created by Picasso after the indiscriminate bombing of the Basque village of Guernika in Spain by the German Luftwaffe, this painting depicts the horrors of that bombing. Today it is largely seen on a broader scale as a painting depicting the horrors of war in general, which is why it is significant that the image was covered when Colin Powell had to make his declaration of war…otherwise he’d have delivered a speech on war with the image of the Guernica in the background. All of these changes in physical location of the painting are crucial to what it has come to stand for, and only the original work itself carries this aura, as Benjamin would term it.

Another example that came to my mind as I was reading this part of Benjamin’s article is the recent discovery (announced on November 5^th of this year!) in Munich of more than 1 400 pieces of art (including works by such artists as Otto Dix, Henri Matisse and Max Liebermann) that were confiscated by the Nazi for being “degenerate”. This history of disappearance for such a long time is now part of “the history to which [a work of art] was subject throughout the time of its existence”, as Benjamin explains it – and undoubtedly, the “various changes in its ownerships” is a story that is still unfolding as millions of claims are starting to pour in. As art professor Meike Hoffmann explained, this is an “emotional discovery” as many of the individuals who are putting forth claims are of an advanced age, some are very ill in their old age, and the German government is being criticized for not having revealed this discovery as soon as they made it last year – some of the rightful owners might have died in the time that the discovery was made public (and not by the government’s choice, but rather by being leaked in a German newspaper. When officials went to an art collector’s apartment to investigate some charges of tax fraud, they reportedly found the more than 1 400 pieces of art, and the German government now has to answer as to why it took them so long to make this discovery public so that the rightful possession process could have been started earlier. Please see this BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24818541 for more information).

I also think Benjamin’s concept of “situation of politics which Fascism is rendering aesthetic”, which he terms the “aestheticization of politics” is also very important. I think Benjamin was describing, at the time, what later historians’ studies have identified as one key ingredient of the Nazi regime in Germany – the way that art was employed in the mass rallies in order to create heightened frenzy; one of many examples would be the lighting techniques used at the rallies that really gave the impression of larger crowds than were actually in attendance. Similar in a way to Benjamin’s concept of the aura, I think that this is impossible to fully comprehend today, but I do think that Ottawa’s War Museum has the closet possible reproduction (in Benjamin’s terms) that I’ve come across in Canada. As Benjamin would highlight, this is impossible to reproduce in my blog post, but alas, I shall attempt it anyway. What the War Museum has is this one room that has nothing – and this is the important part – in it but a replica of one of Hitler’s cars of the era (Mercedes Benz limousine) in a solitary room; that is the only actual object in the room. What it does rather have on the walls is pictures of mass audiences at a Nazi rally and lights – the room is very dim and as you walk into the dark room and see the car, the manipulation of the lights really creates a feeling in the museum visitor of really being in the middle of a Nazi rally…really effectively demonstrating the way that, as Benjamin explains in his article, the regime aestheticized politics for their purposes.

Standing in that room creates one of the most eerie feelings that I’ve ever experienced in my life – my first instinct was to get out and do it right away, because I did not want to feel like an accomplice in that staged rally, as it can be conceptualized in one way – and I think that uncanny feeling is exactly what the exhibit wanted to create. It really powerfully demonstrates the aestheticization of politics that Benjamin talks about, and should you ever have a chance to visit the Museum of War in Ottawa, I definitely recommend it.

    

 

It was really interesting to consider the weight behind the term “culture” as I went through the readings this week. I think today, when someone employs the term in casual conversation, listeners definitely relate it to, as Rivkin and Ryan explain, “art, literature and […] music” (1233). However, I agree that a more profound and accurate definition definitely does include language and the arts, but also “the regularities, procedures, and rituals of human life in communities” (1233). To think of culture in this way, especially as we employ the term in speech, is more than to invoke associations with art; it really includes a lot more about the ways in which our societies are organized and structured. I also think it is very relevant to our studies to continue to keep in mind what we read and discussed last week in regards to language; language inherently carries a culture with it.

The excerpt that I found myself reflecting the most on this week was Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”. I find this work very fascinating both because of how it jam-packs so many interesting concepts in a very succinct fashion, and also because of the historical context of this text is fascinating. I know that we are supposed to read text for text and not consider the historical context necessarily, but I think that in the case of Benjamin we simply cannot ignore what was happening in Europe at the time (of course, we should not let the historical context overshadow the text itself; I think it’s always just about maintaining a balance. Can we simply ignore the rise of fascism in Europe or the fact that Benjamin committed suicide in Portbou at the French-Spanish border, as he was being pursued by Nazi forces? I do think that we should take into account the context of the rise of fascism in Europe because there simply is no way that such an environment wouldn’t have an effect on society and on culture).

As I was reading the excerpt of Benjamin’s essay, I found myself thinking of different examples that I am familiar with and it really illuminated his arguments for me. For example, when he puts forth that “even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownerships” (1235), I couldn’t help but think of Picasso’s Guernica and its journey from Paris to New York (MoMA) to Spain (its now permanent home is in its purpose-built gallery at the Museo Reina Sofia (Queen Sofia Museum) in Madrid). I think it is worth it to follow Benjamin’s train of thought as expressed in the above quotation and try to apply it to this specific case. Any reproduction of the Guernica will lack this unique existence of its changes in locality. (I’d love to be able to put up a photographic reproduction that I took myself when I was in Madrid this past summer, but you are not allowed to take photos of the Guernica, so I hope that an image off the Internet and my photos outside of the museum will have to do).

  

This is especially important taking into account Picasso’s insistence that the paining was not to be delivered to Spain (he painted it in Paris) until liberty and democracy would be established in the country. Today at the Museo Reina Sofia, you can buy anything and everything with the image of the Guernica on it (see some examples in the images below) , though I imagine one of the most well-known reproductions is the replica that is at the UN headquarters in New York.

           

Created by Picasso after the indiscriminate bombing of the Basque village of Guernika in Spain by the German Luftwaffe, this painting depicts the horrors of that bombing. Today it is largely seen on a broader scale as a painting depicting the horrors of war in general, which is why it is significant that the image was covered when Colin Powell had to make his declaration of war…otherwise he’d have delivered a speech on war with the image of the Guernica in the background. All of these changes in physical location of the painting are crucial to what it has come to stand for, and only the original work itself carries this aura, as Benjamin would term it.

Another example that came to my mind as I was reading this part of Benjamin’s article is the recent discovery (announced on November 5^th of this year!) in Munich of more than 1 400 pieces of art (including works by such artists as Otto Dix, Henri Matisse and Max Liebermann) that were confiscated by the Nazi for being “degenerate”. This history of disappearance for such a long time is now part of “the history to which [a work of art] was subject throughout the time of its existence”, as Benjamin explains it – and undoubtedly, the “various changes in its ownerships” is a story that is still unfolding as millions of claims are starting to pour in. As art professor Meike Hoffmann explained, this is an “emotional discovery” as many of the individuals who are putting forth claims are of an advanced age, some are very ill in their old age, and the German government is being criticized for not having revealed this discovery as soon as they made it last year – some of the rightful owners might have died in the time that the discovery was made public (and not by the government’s choice, but rather by being leaked in a German newspaper. When officials went to an art collector’s apartment to investigate some charges of tax fraud, they reportedly found the more than 1 400 pieces of art, and the German government now has to answer as to why it took them so long to make this discovery public so that the rightful possession process could have been started earlier. Please see this BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24818541 for more information).

I also think Benjamin’s concept of “situation of politics which Fascism is rendering aesthetic”, which he terms the “aestheticization of politics” is also very important. I think Benjamin was describing, at the time, what later historians’ studies have identified as one key ingredient of the Nazi regime in Germany – the way that art was employed in the mass rallies in order to create heightened frenzy; one of many examples would be the lighting techniques used at the rallies that really gave the impression of larger crowds than were actually in attendance. Similar in a way to Benjamin’s concept of the aura, I think that this is impossible to fully comprehend today, but I do think that Ottawa’s War Museum has the closet possible reproduction (in Benjamin’s terms) that I’ve come across in Canada. As Benjamin would highlight, this is impossible to reproduce in my blog post, but alas, I shall attempt it anyway. What the War Museum has is this one room that has nothing – and this is the important part – in it but a replica of one of Hitler’s cars of the era (Mercedes Benz limousine) in a solitary room; that is the only actual object in the room. What it does rather have on the walls is pictures of mass audiences at a Nazi rally and lights – the room is very dim and as you walk into the dark room and see the car, the manipulation of the lights really creates a feeling in the museum visitor of really being in the middle of a Nazi rally…really effectively demonstrating the way that, as Benjamin explains in his article, the regime aestheticized politics for their purposes.

Standing in that room creates one of the most eerie feelings that I’ve ever experienced in my life – my first instinct was to get out and do it right away, because I did not want to feel like an accomplice in that staged rally, as it can be conceptualized in one way – and I think that uncanny feeling is exactly what the exhibit wanted to create. It really powerfully demonstrates the aestheticization of politics that Benjamin talks about, and should you ever have a chance to visit the Museum of War in Ottawa, I definitely recommend it.