PDA

View Full Version : OT -- hitlers artwork



WTE_Galway
11-30-2004, 02:40 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4054767.stm

Chuck_Older
11-30-2004, 04:09 PM
He was a better dancer than Churchill, he was a better painter...I saw him paint an entire apartment in one afternoon! Two coats!

p1ngu666
11-30-2004, 04:55 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif @ chuck
same for family, seeing as its just in storage too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

WTE_Galway
11-30-2004, 05:40 PM
personally it seems to me if a member of the family paid good money for the paintings back in the 30's before the war .. they should be allowed to have them back

its not as if they are being locked up for security reasons .. the US government has sold reproduction rights to the paintings and cashed in on the fact that the paintings were by hitler themselves

WTE_Dukayn
11-30-2004, 06:11 PM
like a US court is going to NOT let the US keep them...

Chuck_Older
11-30-2004, 06:15 PM
Hitler made hack watercolors. I made lots of "masterpieces" when I was three. What's so special about Adolf's crummy paintings? He was a tortured and frustrated artist. Big deal. He probably worked as a waiter, too. Oooooo, I bet he threw some hissy fits when nobody bought his work, fft fft meow

porcupine1
12-01-2004, 02:02 AM
here are some pics.
Beautiful serine Imagery from such a ruthless man.
Not a fan of the man. but as an artist not bad, just not up to Vienna's Academy of Fine Arts standard at the time.
to bad.
what if Vienna's Academy of art admissions board would have accepted him.
Imagine the world where Hitler is just a frustrated artist, instead of a ruthless dictator.
funny how a single moment and a small decision can make a huge diferance with time.
makes you think the effect we have , and dont even know it.
http://www.geocities.com/~worldwar1/hitlerpainting.jpg
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/artist/Cullis/Wien_1912_17x22.jpg
http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/artist/Netherlands/painting_on_wood.jpg
http://www.militaryantiquesofga.com/germanww2/11A1A1AdolfHitlerWatercolor.jpg
http://www.juliaauctions.com/firearms/10-01/highlights/ahpaint.jpg

leadbaloon
12-01-2004, 02:38 AM
I can't agree about Hitler being a decent artist (and it's not just 'cause the guy was a c*nt). His drawing skills aren't too bad, but compositionally his paintings are weak (all out of balance or just lacking any sense of one), he has no discernable style of his own (looks like he's floundering around trying to find one), and his understanding of colour theory is really badly flawed (his use of complimentaries is crude at best).

It's important to understand the differences in the way that art was taught at the turn of the century and beyond (until the explosion of modernism as an institution which really begins with the success of the American Abstract Expressionists in the 1950's). Everybody who went to art school was taught how to draw and paint realism (unlike the modern system where ideas and artisitc philosophy are taught and students are left to try and figure out the practicalities themselves). To be able to put a half decent representation of reality down was commonplace, and by the standards of the day his realism is very weak. And if we were to judge him as part of the rising tide of Modernism that was going on he's so out of touch with it it's laughable. It's obvious that he was attempting classical realism, he just wasn't getting there.

Interesting idea about the difference his acceptance into the Vienna Academy could have made though. Trust me though, that was never going to happen if he turned up with that cack in his portfolio.

SeaFireLIV
12-01-2004, 03:41 AM
Well, it still is artwork, whatever anyone says, even if bad.

Kinda scary to think that an artist could be so frustrated as to become one of the most deadliest men in the world!

WOLFMondo
12-01-2004, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
personally it seems to me if a member of the family paid good money for the paintings back in the 30's before the war .. they should be allowed to have them back

its not as if they are being locked up for security reasons .. the US government has sold reproduction rights to the paintings and cashed in on the fact that the paintings were by hitler themselves <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The guy who bought them was charged with profiting out of the Nazi regime though so its questionable whether or not they should be returned. They should probably be given to a German or Austrian museum IMHO. Its part of there history, not the Americans.

porcupine1
12-01-2004, 08:51 AM
The work he was interested at the time would never hav gained him acceptance into most art schools of the day.
The art world was changeing, it no longer was looking for realism in any form to identify potential.
modernism was setting in, a wave of change was flowing past.
here are some other artist I know he enjoyed, seeing these you can see what style emulating.
John Singer Sargent, and Joseph Turner.
Turner early third of the 1800s
http://www.kings.cam.ac.uk/chapel/images/turner.jpg
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/oxford/Ashmolean/Turner-HighSt.jpg
Sargent early 1900s
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/sargent/art/50.130.81i.L.jpg
http://www.sargentmurals.bpl.org/site/images/01_Preparatory.jpg
http://www.colby.edu/museum/payson/paintings/large/sargent_stgeremia_l.jpg
The view at the time was he was holding on to a sinking ship by clinging to this now OLD STYLE.
I am not saying he was a Great artist, for his time he was probably average, perhaps a tad better than with training.
But it didnt work out that way.

Copperhead310th
12-01-2004, 09:46 AM
he was quite talanted untill he went mad.
i read the biogrophy on him a few years ago.
He was much better with the arcatectual stuff.

Chuck_Older
12-01-2004, 10:15 AM
I see no artistic interpretation in any of Hitler's works that had not been done so often before, and better, that he may as well have been selling portraits of Elvis Presley on black velvet, from his VW microbus in a parking lot.

There's nothing that makes his art special then, or now, as far as Art goes. Now he's a famous dead guy, but that still means his art was pedestrian

kn00bski
12-01-2004, 10:25 AM
No way he had any talent, he copied pictures from postcards. It´s just **** from a guy with crappy ideas...

p1ngu666
12-01-2004, 01:30 PM
i dont think there that bad, better than i could do, and chances are better than some of us here could do.

/me worries about fustraiting seafire http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif *hides*

did u get picture and crystals m8? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

x6BL_Brando
12-01-2004, 02:05 PM
Jesus! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif
Personally I think that all of the b**tards work should be burnt - in the same way that he & his party had the work of intellectuals burnt back in the Thirties ( often closely followed by the book-writers themselves) - if only to prevent anyone from cashing in on their "celebrity" value!

This man was the architect(!) of a group that plundered real works of art from every country that it brutally overran, and destroyed anyone that stood in its way, and now we're told that his "art" was pretty good and how nice he might have been if that "talent" had been recognised.

B*llsh1t! Pile 'em up in one of those old ovens in Auschwitz (where the poor, unappreciated "artist" had tens of thousands of his victims burned) and I'll bring the matches! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

SeaFireLIV
12-01-2004, 02:15 PM
Hey, x6BL_Brando , we don`t love the man! heaven forbid!

Pingu, I`ll talk to ya on Thursday at HL probably. Cya soon.

Sir.Robin-1337
12-01-2004, 02:20 PM
He had quite a talent for architectural shapes and lines.. however his use of colour, and lack of perspective leave much to be desired.

The work seems unbalanced, and he makes fundamental mistakes.. I guess Hitler didn't have any depth perception.

There is something strange in his work. At first glance, his use of contrasting shades seems clumsy at best... but maybe it could be put down to the artists vision. He views the structures only at face value, but he does not see them as a whole, in the transition from fore to background.

Chuck_Older
12-01-2004, 03:43 PM
Rob-
I actually agree with you

Brando-
I can see how you feel that way. But destruction will not undo any of Hitler's legacy. Anger never dispells fear

WTE_Galway
12-01-2004, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x6BL_Brando:
Jesus! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif
Personally I think that all of the b**tards work should be burnt - in the same way that he & his party had the work of intellectuals burnt back in the Thirties ( often closely followed by the book-writers themselves) - if only to prevent anyone from cashing in on their "celebrity" value!

This man was the architect(!) of a group that plundered real works of art from every country that it brutally overran, and destroyed anyone that stood in its way, and now we're told that his "art" was pretty good and how nice he might have been if that "talent" had been recognised.

B*llsh1t! Pile 'em up in one of those old ovens in Auschwitz (where the poor, unappreciated "artist" had tens of thousands of his victims burned) and I'll bring the matches! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think the point is the US government is not restricting access to this stuff to people doing genuine research (like the vatican does with heretical manuscripts)or destroying it .. its basically selling the rights to reproduce the works for its own financial gain

porcupine1
12-01-2004, 04:42 PM
OK my final thought here.
the man was horrible!!
yes my first instinct is to get rid of them as they are very unsettleing to look at thinking of the man who made them.
but they are just paintings, and as good or bad as we think they are, you have to admit the imagery is not the first thing that comes to mind when you think of the man.
its an interesting look into the mans head. as for dystroying them, no we can not symbolicly dystroy history that way.

also there are many many artists and musicians thats work should be dystroyed as well useing that thought.
Caravaggio comes to mind. as well as musical works of Wagner.
also I never suggested the school made a mistake. I only hypothosized what the world events would have been if he was accepted.
that is all.
the man harmed this world in a way few could, it is shameful. but these paintings never hurt anyone.
this is a hotbutton issue, I am sorry to offend anyone by posting here. i have said my peace, and i will go.