PDA

View Full Version : Hitler's Art



HotelBushranger
07-27-2006, 05:54 AM
Just in case you're interested. There has been a lot of criticism he was a bad artist, their main argument being he didn't get into the Vienna Art Uni, however he didn't get in because whilst he was very good at buildings, architecture etc he wasn't very good at capturing humans, especially in proportion to background buildings. Anyway, I came across this gem of a website, enjoy

http://www.hitler.org/art/

And no 'wh0 car3s about his Rt, h1tleR was a f4g!' business.

TgD Thunderbolt56
07-27-2006, 06:08 AM
Dude wasn't a bad artist...but he was still a f4g.


TB

John_Pimlott
07-27-2006, 06:08 AM
I've seen far, far worse masquerading as the work of genius.
Nice find, thank you.
Best wishes.
John.

Breeze147
07-27-2006, 06:08 AM
Interesting.

HotelBushranger
07-27-2006, 06:09 AM
Dude wasn't a bad artist...but he was still a f4g.

Touche' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The topic of the discussion however is not how much everyone hates Hitler. It's about his art, are more interestingly how it influenced him, and how he influenced German affairs with his love of art.

'Perhaps the notion of an artist becoming a politician seems strange in the current era where politics are dominated by professional politicians, it was Hitler's profound artistic vision that translated from his dreams into reality the Autobahn, Volkswagen, Rocket Science, and in the general the groundwork for a prosperous people and flourishing culture before this was lost in World War 2.'

danjama
07-27-2006, 06:14 AM
I find this very interesting, thanks Bushy.

I'll post my reflections later...

joeap
07-27-2006, 06:14 AM
*Right click-save* Got a some new wallpaper, think I'll test my friends, maybe let them see it on my computer or print it out...and see what they think of the art and see if anyone reads the signature. He he. The fact he could paint buildings but not people says a lot to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

John_Pimlott
07-27-2006, 06:18 AM
Who ever turned him away from art school made a big, big mistake. I think he could have been nurtured into a decent architect. Look what happened instead. Who knows the workings of a mind like that? It will forever remain asource of mystery.
Best wishes.
John.

TgD Thunderbolt56
07-27-2006, 06:20 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Dude wasn't a bad artist...but he was still a f4g.

Touche' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


LOL...I just couldn't resist. Actually, I was a bit surprised to see how accomplished he really was. Some of the buildings and the accompanying detail is quite good.

I like joeap's idea. I may do something similar.


TB

HotelBushranger
07-27-2006, 06:20 AM
I like in his dog pictures, how he seems to be able to capture that essence of life in the dogs eyes. The top 2 at least, they're very good, I feel as if I can reach out and pat them.

danjama
07-27-2006, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
The fact he could paint buildings but not people says a lot to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Indeed. It's something to think about....

HotelBushranger
07-27-2006, 06:31 AM
http://www.hitler.org/art/dogs/dog2.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/buildings/building3.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/buildings/building4.jpg

F19_Olli72
07-27-2006, 06:44 AM
Well it helps if you know a bit of art history. Remember that the early 1900s were booming with new "isms" Post-Impressionism, Expressionism, Fauvism etc. One of the students at the Vienna Art Academy around at the time Hitler applied was Egon Schiele for example.

You have to put Hitlers work in perspective of the evolving artscene in Europe at that time. And frankly imo it looks like avarage at best.

But maybe it wouldve been better if he was accepted to the Academy. We'll never know.

HotelBushranger
07-27-2006, 06:46 AM
Fair enough olli. I know about as much about art as a boxer knows about running a small business http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif So your post is appreciated http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WTE_Ibis
07-27-2006, 06:53 AM
Thanks Bushy, that's very interesting m8.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

F19_Olli72
07-27-2006, 06:54 AM
Just to clearify, not putting anyone down. Theres few topics as subjective as art http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Art to some, cr@p to others...

SeaFireLIV
07-27-2006, 07:14 AM
Originally posted by F19_Olli72:
Well it helps if you know a bit of art history. Remember that the early 1900s were booming with new "isms" Post-Impressionism, Expressionism, Fauvism etc. One of the students at the Vienna Art Academy around at the time Hitler applied was Egon Schiele for example.

You have to put Hitlers work in perspective of the evolving artscene in Europe at that time. And frankly imo it looks like avarage at best.

But maybe it wouldve been better if he was accepted to the Academy. We'll never know.

I believe he should`ve been accepted. It would almost certainly have stopped his political endeavours (except in pictures, maybe) and possibly prevented all the grief.

The secret rage Hitler must have had is often well know to us artists, even Churchill had his `demon` and art is a great way of releasing the demon without hurting anyone else.

My daughter was shocked to hear that Hitler was a reasonable-ish artist and then didn`t want me to do art anymore! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I put her back on track, a few long speeches at night with marches and book-burning did the trick! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

HotelBushranger
07-27-2006, 07:24 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ah, the delight of power ey? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

KOM.Nausicaa
07-27-2006, 07:26 AM
I am a illustrator and live from my art. Let me tell you, this is bad art, even for it's time.
If you want to see something good, look at James Dietz's work, a fellow member of this community.

I also think this site is a disgusting, pitiful, badly masked pro-Hitler charade. And btw it's full of "legends" that Neo-Nazis like to believe in and that are since long busted by serious historians.

Bobsqueek
07-27-2006, 07:27 AM
I felt uncomfortable looking at the paintings knowing who did them, that someone who did what he did could create something like that which clearly shows a lot of love or passion in it, like the dog drawings.

DuxCorvan
07-27-2006, 07:43 AM
Bah, this just shows what we all know: that Hitler was a human being after all. We tend to 'demonize' him, because it's really scary and disturbing to admit he could be like any of us, or -even worse- any of us could be like him. To imagine an evil supervilain feels better that to realize about a frustrated -maybe oversensitive- painter who goes nuts on hate, racism and megalomania.

It's hard to admit the fact that inhumanity is also a human feature.

Nice pics by 'Anakin' Hitler.

SeaFireLIV
07-27-2006, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by Bobsqueek:
I felt uncomfortable looking at the paintings knowing who did them, that someone who did what he did could create something like that which clearly shows a lot of love or passion in it, like the dog drawings.

I share your discomfort too and realise that I actually skimmed the pictures. Makes you think.

It`s because the pictures force us to see that with all his evil and the torment he split on the world for 6 long years - he was Human.

It`s that comparison, insane Devil - Human with artistic emotions. That makes it hard to take.


oops! Dux Corvan just said it for me anyway, didn`t see it!

HotelBushranger
07-27-2006, 07:56 AM
I also think this site is a disgusting, pitiful, badly masked pro-Hitler charade. And btw it's full of "legends" that Neo-Nazis like to believe in and that are since long busted by serious historians.

I didn't read the print, I'm interested in the art not the politics.

Nice post Dux, that's a point and a half.

HotelBushranger
07-27-2006, 08:02 AM
I think Hitler was not very good in depicting humans since he was perhaps some kind of sociopath who lacked empathy for other people. He was the kind of guy who viewed most Germans and Austrians as expendable drones to be chewed up on the battlefield and many Jews, Slavs and other foreigners as a nebulous mass that should be either enslaved or exterminated.

Post by a bloke on another forum of the same topic, very well put I think.

F19_Olli72
07-27-2006, 08:51 AM
Speaking of art, i wonder how much Hitler had an influence in the nazis banning art & artists Entartete Kunst. Maybe that was (partly) a result also of the frustration of beeing rejected by the academy? Notably much of the art banned by the nazis was modern art: "By 1933, the terms "Jewish," "Degenerate," and "Bolshevik" were in common use to describe almost all modern art."

Many of the artists that were banned are considered to be amongst the masters of modern art. Marc Chagall, Wassily Kandinsky, Max Ernst, Paul Klee, Edvard Munch, Otto Dix and many more.

Some artists like Otto Dix were lucky;

"Otto Dix was another expressionist painter whose work was influenced by the experience of World War I. He was appointed professor at the Dresden State Academy, but was dismissed in 1933 when the Nazis came to power. Two hundred sixty of Dix's paintings were removed from German museums in 1937. Many of these were burnt on Goebbels's order. Dix survived on a remote farm until 1945 when he was drafted by the Nazis and then captured by the French and made a prisoner of war. After the war, Dix returned to teaching. "

http://fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/arts/artDegen.htm

Others were not so lucky and were sent to and killed in concentration camps, Julius (Julo) Levin was arrested and died in Auschwitz.

carguy_
07-27-2006, 10:24 AM
Yeehaw they got nudes there! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Jettexas
07-27-2006, 11:18 AM
Im a graphic artist/designer by trade.
Appreciation of art is indeed subjective-we like what we like....
Education in art -is not subjective.
like it or not... there are design priciples which underpin all graphic art. Just as there are underlying compositional rules that underpin all(western) music.
Even a completely non representational abstract expressionalist piece ie. Jackson Pollock, which to some appears as complete ****, adheres to long established compositional rules.

It is these basic priciples which AH's work lack.
In fact the majority of his work is bad, his very best only average.
This is what the academy saw-the subject matter and technique are irrelevant-.

In any artistic endeavor you are must first posess a modicum of talent either by gift of instinct or less commonly by study...
you then learn all the rules, only later you are encouraged to forget them, and seek your own style.
Google the famously abstract Picasso, compare his early student work to his later...dude could draw.

Still, it does make one think what a different path this century may have taken had the academy jury accepted him.

Great OT thread.

MrMojok
07-27-2006, 11:35 AM
What sort of compositional rules did he fail to follow? I know next to nothing about these things.

RCAF_Irish_403
07-27-2006, 11:53 AM
Perportion seems off

SeaFireLIV
07-27-2006, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
What sort of compositional rules did he fail to follow? I know next to nothing about these things.

If you know nothing about these things, then there`s not much point in really explaining the details. Unless you want to start art classes (I always fancied myself as an art techer!)

triad773
07-27-2006, 12:08 PM
Yes I agree with Jettexas in that being able to make images doesn't make an artist. I have been doing graphics for years also, and have a relative who is "an artist," but that's what they choose to call themselves. Her images are representational but they have no spark; no feeling; no inspiration. It's like you figuratively sqwat over the paper and say "Gee, look what I made!" It may be your creation, but the goal is to involve the viewer: not to alienate them: the clumsy figures in his drawings in his renderings illustrate (to me anyway) elements of social phobia and feelings of insecurity; perhaps instilled in him by his mum(?) There seems to be some emotional quality in his portrait of the dog, but perhaps too much so. Bottom line is he didn't have what it takes to be a professional artist, and the people at the institute saw that. If he were doing that today, he'd be working for an insurance firm and selling his wares at weekend art fairs.

RCAF_Irish_403
07-27-2006, 12:57 PM
this all reminds me of a girl i used to date-a self described "artist"....she couldn't take any form of criticism.....needless to say, her art was awfull

Viper2005_
07-27-2006, 01:00 PM
Art is so subjective that it almost defies reasonable analysis. In general it would seem that if your PR is good enough, there's probably somebody out there who will buy it, almost irrespective of what "it" is.

It would perhaps have been better for the world if Hitler had been allowed to become an artist, though given the political fallout from WWI, it is quite likely that WWII would have happened anyway, one way or another.

Two questions spring to mind:

i) Who was responsible for the iconography of the 3rd Reich? Did Hitler paint any of his own posters for example?

ii) Did any other contemporary world leaders produce art?

raaaid
07-27-2006, 01:02 PM
Bah, this just shows what we all know: that Hitler was a human being after all. We tend to 'demonize' him, because it's really scary and disturbing to admit he could be like any of us, or -even worse- any of us could be like him. To imagine an evil supervilain feels better that to realize about a frustrated -maybe oversensitive- painter who goes nuts on hate, racism and megalomania.

It's hard to admit the fact that inhumanity is also a human feature


you are totally right dux we should all think that hitler was once a loving child to his mother

raaaid
07-27-2006, 01:05 PM
we use to blame hitler on everithing wrong

but destiny is affected for the flight of a butterfly

the guy who turned hitler away didnt realize to what extent his little negativity would amplify

he must have paid for it later

LStarosta
07-27-2006, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by raaaid:
we use to blame hitler on everithing wrong

but destiny is affected for the flight of a butterfly

the guy who turned hitler away didnt realize to what extent his little negativity would amplify

he must have paid for it later

You'd make a great lawyer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

F19_Ob
07-27-2006, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
What sort of compositional rules did he fail to follow? I know next to nothing about these things.

I'm not so sure breaking compositional rules only got him rejected. Infact his compositions were not so bad, but he perhaps did not (speculating here) indulge himself enough in the daring rulebreaking as many of the famous modern artist did, aswell as musichians, scientists, politicians and so on.
The 1900-40 had an element of decadence In everything, also art. Perhaps Hitler wasn't decadent enough for the academy? Mad raving lunatic, yes but that wasn't what they sought. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
His involvement with the military seems like non-artist-like. Perhaps too many rules and strictness for the free artists likings.



In my opinion good art is in the eye, and knowledge, of the beholder.
Without knowledge a beholder may dismiss a modern nonfigurative masterpiece as rubbish, aswell as praise the "naivistic" masterpiece that infact was made by an artist 5year-old kid (as a joke).

'Good art' is hard to detect sometimes.
Van Gogh could not live on his art. He sold one or a couple of works, perhaps mainly because his brother was an artdealer.
On some occasions when he was without cash he tried to pay for things with art, wich didn't work out.
Today he is considered one of the greatest masters in his era and his pieces are in the million dollar class.

Picasso said once in an interview that he was surprized and happy when people wanted to pay a lot for a couple of wavy lines. It made his work so much easier and he could produce more.


Just excercising my poor brain a little. Don't take me too seriously http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Bo_Nidle
07-27-2006, 02:04 PM
"The Fuhrer was better dancer than Churchill,he told better jokes than Churchill and he was a better painter than Chuchill...Oh the Fuhrer was a great painter, he could paint an entire apartment,TWO COATS, ONE AFTERNOON!!!"

Franz Liebkind ("The Producers")
http://www.movieactors.com/characters/freezes3/Producers196.jpeg

Swivet
07-28-2006, 12:48 AM
Just think where he'd be today if he would of stuck with art,instead he chose the art of killing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

JG52Karaya-X
07-28-2006, 01:02 AM
Originally posted by HotelBushranger:
http://www.hitler.org/art/buildings/building4.jpg

This picture shows the "Staatsoper" (National Opera) on the "Ringstra├če", here in Vienna - looks very lifelike! IIRC there are still some streetcars of the type shown in the picture in service - of course very few but I think you can hire them for a nostalgic ride through Vienna.

Friendly_flyer
07-28-2006, 02:30 AM
Originally posted by KOM.Nausicaa:
I am a illustrator and live from my art. Let me tell you, this is bad art, even for it's time.


I'm an illustrator myself, but I would perhaps not go as far as saying it was bad, but it wasn't remarkable. Hitler appears to have had a decent eye for architecture, but is pictures of people aren't much. Perhaps he would have done reasonably well as an architect.

alert_1
07-28-2006, 05:14 AM
Ok, very nice and where can I find Stalin's Art Collection?

zero85ZEN
07-28-2006, 07:08 AM
Anyone interested in this topic should read Frederic Spotts' "Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics". An EXCELLENT and extremely well written book. Here is the link to it at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585675075/sr=8-1/qid=...8795-9833612?ie=UTF8 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585675075/sr=8-1/qid=1154091701/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-7438795-9833612?ie=UTF8)

I think Hitler could have been a good artist if he had been able to "loosen" up and let his artistic mind "run" rather than his tendencies for authortitarianism and dominination/power/control, etc, etc. When he loosened up his drawings showed potential: Look at the doodles on that website...they show real talent...and his drawings of dogs as well. However, his drawings of nudes and women are horrible.

orkan_3d
07-28-2006, 07:59 AM
Drawing skill do`nt neseserily mean that someone is an artist.
zero85ZEN is right when he say that hitlers loosend drawings show talent. On the other hand, "artistic mind" very often is "tendencies for authortitarianism and dominination/power/control", examples of can you find in stories about many famous artists, eather about their relations with other people (and artists) eather in esence of their poetics. Too bad there are no info on when all those works were executed, his nudes are probably made long before those freely made drawings.
And about hitler not beeing accepted on art academy: Art schools are`nt nececerily good places to become an artist, becouse often schools tend to limit posible ways of thinking, viewing and expresing. Places like Bauhaus are very hard to find. And question is was hitler ready for academy, maybe he would be accepted next year, but after remebering what he is famous for, he probably got mad after he was rejected (well, he was very probably mad before sa well).