What's wrong with the Führer 's Paintings?

[MarxSchmarx]

Famoulsy, Hitler was a failed artist. Why? Let's give some suggestions.

I'll start with this one.http://www.solarnavigator.net/history/explorers_history/Adolf_Hitler_watercolor_painting_artist.jpg
Yuck. First, there is no obvious source of light. For instance, the entire foreground appears to be shaded by the bridge in contrast to the city in the background. This makes no sense, as some elements of the foreground (e.g., the church) are clearly outside the shade of the bridge. The trees have no shadow, so the darkness of the foreground is jarring.

Second, there is no sense of balance. The painting if left-heavy in detail - the wooded shrubs on the right side of the painting are its only distinctive feature - the rest is a rather pedestrian hillscape.

Although the two trees in the center of the painting are perhaps placed to compliment the steeples and the towers, their relatively diffuse and monochromatic rendering make them appear oddly out of place.

The work also fails at perspective. For instance, the slope of the hill in front of the wall appears quite flat. The buildings are of comparable size throughout, as are the hills.

Although it would be tempting to give the artist credit for attention to detail, here again the work falls short. For instance, the architecture of the wall is done a dis-service, as the towers demarcate different segments, rather than allowing for a natural transition. The artist rather clumsily attempts to use roads to demarcate lines in the hills, making them appear quite awkward and unnatural.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm a worse painter than that (I can draw buildings and city areas with perspective, but that's it).

[benhur]

First off, I've seen 'famous' artists with works much, much worse than this. Second, all this intellectual analysis of work of art is baffling, art cannot be understood by logic, it's not supposed to be realistic, it's supposed to give a mystical touch to everything. So trying to get a scientific understanding of art is quite absurd, trying to over analyze it seems ridiculous, it's like analyzing a flower instead of merely enjoying its beauty.

Finally, if someone had said this was made by some other artist (not necessarily a famous one, but any artist), we wouldn't have come up with such analysis to begin with. We might even consider the so-called flaws in the picture as innovations, genius, and so forth. But because it's Hitler's painting, we try to be as negative as possible.

Enough said.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I take the opposite view. If people had been more appreciative of paintings like this one, WWII would've been less devastating (inevitable, but at least provoked by a mere German nationalist instead of a Holo-maniac).

[Karzak]

I too have seen far worse paintings than those by Herr Hitler and curiously I cannot help but wonder whether or not a Jewish chap may have been on the viewing committee and thus directly involved with Hitler being rejected at the Academy of Fine Arts,for surely there had to be something which fired such an intense hatred of Jews in this charismatic madman.

[Plagueround]

He may have had potential, but that bridge is an eyesore.

[Bright Banana Beard]

the center right is ugly, it need more work. and the shadow, it is fucking horrible.

[Rangi]

I've seen worse. I saw some paintings by this guy called Picasso. His paintings of people didn't even look like people for god's sake. At least that church looks like a church.

I don't know much about art but I do know what I like, and I like this painting.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Personally I find that painting to be distinctly "meh". It's not eye-searingly awful, but at the same time it's nothing special either.

I think the main problem is the subject matter - there must be what, millions of paintings like this?

[JimmyJazz]

At least that church looks like a church.

That's a squirrel. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Killfacer]

It's okay. It's not the work of a genius but he does have some talent.

[Dr Mindbender]

The frustrating thing is that hitler genuinely believed that his lack of artistic success and accolade was down to a jewish conspiracy to 'keep him down'.

If only someone who he percieved to be a 'fellow aryan' had the courage and honesty to tell him he was really shit.

[Vahanian]

they kicked him out of art school in Vienna because he couldn't draw people.

edit: MarxSchmarx was right. Hitler was never allowed in. His application was rejeccted. twice

this isn't bad but i have to agree with plagueround the bridge is hideous

[Panda Tse Tung]

they kicked him out of art school in Vienna because he couldn't draw people.

this isn't bad but i have to agree with plagueround the bridge is hideous
That makes sense, cause other paintings I've seen of him weren't that ugly either.

[MarxSchmarx]

Well, most of us sort of look at this painting and yawn.

This is true of the great masters. We've become so accustomed, to, say, the Dutch masters or African masks, it ceases to excite us.

So I don't think it's the subject matter, or the style, that makes an artist mediocre. Landscapes were common before Hitler, but there's something about his paintings that make them mediocre.

Only by taking the art work seriously, and analyzing it closely, can we articulate precisely what was wrong with their artistic vision. True, if this was a painting by somebody less famous we wouldn't give it the light of day. I think the challenge is to explain why.

As a historical note, Hitler was never admitted to art school in the first place. I think by the time he became convinced it was Jews on the admissions committee that told him to get lost, he had already embraced much of his anti-Semitic attitudes.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I'm no artist. It seems fine to me.
Certainly, I'd rather have crappy art on museum walls than a Holocaust.
That, of course, is easy to say in hindsight, but I've still seen much worse.
Whether this is good art, as far as I know, is subjective. I don't think it was bad enough to warrant such a harsh reaction.

[ComradeOm]

I think the main problem is the subject matter - there must be what, millions of paintings like this?That's the crucial point. Hitler's efforts were not terrible per se but they were distinctly amateur. Now plenty of people paint like this as a hobby or to sell landscapes to tourists but old Adolf wanted to get into one of the oldest and most prestigious art schools in Europe. This is at a time when Vienna was home to a host of innovative artists (such as Egon Schiele (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Schiele) or Gustav Klimt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Klimt)) who were eager to push art in new directions

In fact if you did want good landscapes from that period then look no further than Alois Arnegger (http://images.google.ie/images?q=Alois%20Arnegger&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi). There's no comparison with Hitler stuck with his mediocre landscapes and romantic tendencies. I've seen better artwork on the front of fantasy novels

[Lynx]

A towering masterpiece. AFAIK the auction price separates the schlock from high art. How much $$$ does a genuine Hitler fetch these days?

[gorillafuck]

I think it's pretty good. The problem is the subject matter is very dull.

[Vahanian]

Well, Hitler was a postcard painter in Vienna for a time so... that might explain it

[LOLseph Stalin]

Hmm...definitely 100% better than what I can do. He should have stuck with painting and stayed out of politics.

[scarletghoul]

Yeah, its fine. He had potential.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Yeah, its fine. He had potential.

Definitely. They should have just let him into that damn art school.

[Vahanian]

i quouted this from the one move my dad has on hitler:

Although somewhat competent as a painter of landscapes and architecture, his renderings of humans were considered “lifeless” and “crude” by the standards of the Academy of Fine Arts, and his application was rejected twice

[scarletghoul]

Hmm yeah, thats stupid. But then all acadamization of art is stupid because art shouldnt be academic

Anyway, it makes one wonder what kind of crazy world we'd live in if Picasso went into politics

[LOLseph Stalin]

Just don't get him painting humans then. ;)

[Vahanian]

i guess you gotta be well rounded

but its safe to say Academy of Fine Arts can be blamed for ww2:lol:

[LOLseph Stalin]

but its safe to say Academy of Fine Arts can be blamed for ww2http://www.revleft.com/vb/whats-wrong-fuehrer-p1347656/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Let's burn it down! Finally us commies can burn something down and be blamed for doing it when we actually did. (yes, a lame reference to the Reichstag fire)

[Vahanian]

lame but true.

[LOLseph Stalin]

lame but true.


Yep. We can finally be arsons. Burning things looks fun.

[Vahanian]

Remember, Arsonist get all the girls. (or guys)

[LOLseph Stalin]

Remember, Arsonist get all the girls. (or guys)

In my case it would be guys. ;) I'm a girl.

[Vahanian]

that would be why i added it sparky:thumbup1::lol:

[LOLseph Stalin]

Remember, Arsonist get all the girls. (or guys)

At least there's somebody here who is recognizing the fact i'm female. Politics seems way too male dominated...

[benhur]

In my case it would be guys. ;) I'm a girl.

At your service, Ma'am!;)

[Pogue]

Like the man himself that painting is mundane and pathetic. It looks like something anyone else could do. Although he was obviously evil, contrary to what many people say, especially Stormfront hero worshippers, Hitler was a coward, he was no God, which is demonstrated in this 'art' and in the fact he shot himself in a bunker because his plan failed, he was another pathetic despot, but sadly one who managed to do alot of damage. I'm not understating the consequences of his actions, obviously, but as a person he was pathetic, its just unfortunate that he struck a chord with alot of people, and then systematically took away any oppoistion to himself, giving him a smooth road to carry out the atrocities he did. But then throughout history atrocities of a similar nature have been carried out by weak minded and pathetic individuals, such as Pol Pot and Pinochet, and also Margaret Thatcher. Despite the image of being 'strong' or trascendent that bourgeoisie and fascist leaders like to put across, these individuals were weak, dull and pathetic, much like Hitler's painting here.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I really don't think Hitler had the chops to make it as an artist, but I think that he could have made it as an architect. His demanding nature for control and respect probably could have been put to good use in creating structures, but unfortunately we got the Shoah. I guess that's how history goes some times.

[ZeroNowhere]

Although he was obviously evil
Ehm. No, he wasn't.
Though that was a pretty impressive post. Hell, you should get up on a podium and deliver it as a fiery speech in an awesomely ironic fashion.
As for the painting, I would have no idea how good that is. I really need to check out more art that isn't music sometime soon.

[benhur]

Ehm. No, he wasn't.


Mind clarifying? Wasn't he the definition of evil?

[ZeroNowhere]

Mind clarifying? Wasn't he the definition of evil?
Humans can't be evil. As humans have no free will, blaming them for being 'evil' is nonsensical.

[Pirate Utopian]

Mind clarifying? Wasn't he the definition of evil?
Good and evil are empty terms.

[Comrade Anarchist]

it looks okay but there it seems somewhat bland and has odd parts to it.

[Relnicht]

might i suggest you do not, and i repeat, you DO NOT call the guy with the funny 'stache a 'führer'.
you will call him 'naziscumbag' respectivily.:)

[eisidisirock]

I think it looked Ok. He doesent need to be a bad painter just becouse he's evil.