- This topic has 50 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 7 months, 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
This is an untitled painting by Adolf Hitler. What’s your thoughts on it?
-
It looks to have a very stern and gloomy atmosphere, like the man himself. Adolf Hitler was not cool. He was the least cool, most stuffy man in history.
-
Looks like something an emo high school kid, who’s not very talented would come up with.
Just a reminder that these people think pic related was any better
-
It objectively is
>Loose, vibrant linework
>interesting contrasts of color
>dynamic figure pose invites us into the 2-D to imagine what she’s doing
>Get the sense that the artist could crank out an endless number of these in a moleskin artbook, and turn around and make a classical oil painting if he were up for being conventional instead of pushing the boundaries of what he was able to express in the most simple and straightforward manner possiblethe adolf Hitler painting looks like something some gloomy high schooler did for his art class and got a B, it’s not a horrible painting, it’s just very monotone in its use of drab colors, compositional elements, figure modeling, and perspective
-
>>Loose, vibrant linework
Jesus freaking Christ, could you be any more mentally pozzed.Look at that freaking hand.
Look at its "anatomy".
If this were done by Hitler you wouldn’t hesitate to call it out for the trash that it is, but since not occupies the space in opposition to Hitler you feel the compulsion to defend it’s obvious flaws. "Loose and vibrant linework" get the fuck out of here. If your linework is "loose and vibrant" it’s because your hand has an uncontrollable tremor and is jittering across the page. That’s not a good thing.-
It’s abstract expressionism. I liked it before I encountered simple scrotebrains who come rushing to the defense of a mediocre art school reject by attacking things they don’t care enough about to understand in a fit of whataboutism.
-
>whataboutism
To be fair, he did deconstruct your points line item by line item and cut directly through them irrefutably.-
No, he just sperged out about not liking a specific style of art because it doesn’t conform to his idea of what art "should" be. If you want ultra-realism, go look at photography
-
The difference is that these are actually good. You specifically picked the ones that were and ignored that the argument was about the first picture posted, which is undeniably freaking shit.
-
You could nitpick Leonardo Da Vinchi’s drawings if you felt like it, my point is that Schiele was a prolific artist who produced a very large volume of work over his career, being contrasted to a street vendor who mostly copied postcards and sold them to tourists on the side of the road, who considered art school but would have needed to finish high school which he did not want to tod, and in any event was talked into pursuing architecture until his interest in art fizzled out entirely as he started becoming more interested in political matters
-
-
You could nitpick Leonardo Da Vinchi’s drawings if you felt like it, my point is that Schiele was a prolific artist who produced a very large volume of work over his career, being contrasted to a street vendor who mostly copied postcards and sold them to tourists on the side of the road, who considered art school but would have needed to finish high school which he did not want to tod, and in any event was talked into pursuing architecture until his interest in art fizzled out entirely as he started becoming more interested in political matters
It’s abstract expressionism. I liked it before I encountered simple scrotebrains who come rushing to the defense of a mediocre art school reject by attacking things they don’t care enough about to understand in a fit of whataboutism.
[…]
Just a reminder that these people think pic related was any betterHe has a good imagination but the superfluous ness of the curves, especially on the women, are off putting. If those lines were straight it wouldn’t be out of place on Twitter today
-
-
-
-
-
-
It was.
It has expressiveness. It looks like a living, breathing human, unlike those soulless husks Hitler painted.Art is about expressivity. If Hitler wanted to paint boring landscapes and emotionless, distant people, then he can be a hobbyist, maybe even sell the paintings for some extra cash, but he will never be a master. The Academy have no obligation in accepting amateurs with no passion.
-
>It looks like a living, breathing human
Any human that looks as twisted and deformed as that with that skin tone probably won’t be living and breathing for long.
-
-
>Just a reminder that these people think pic related was any better
While I absolutely freaking hate toothbrush moustacheman, yeah this is one of that guys pictures that actually just looks like shit. I’m not going to pretend it’s good just because that Austrian monkey applied to the same school.
-
-
-
Problems with perspective as always
-
it’s spooky how he happened to imagine a feature of bunker slits.
which makes me think it could be an elaborate fake.-
He was a soldier, and pretty obsessed with war due to his experiences and beliefs. Not that weird to think it’d pop up in his art.
-
but it’s supposed to be from before ww1
>The piece is believed to be what Hitler submitted as part of his application to the Vienna Academy of Fine Arts-
Oh, well then nevermind.
-
-
What’s bonked up is that a lot of WW1 vets, many of them disabled in the war, used art as an outlet to express their experiences during their service and work through it. The Nazis labeled their work "degenerate" and had it banned and destroyed wherever possible because the artists dared to depict war as anything less than glorious and necessary.
-
>The Nazis labeled their work "degenerate" and had it banned and destroyed wherever possible
Except that’s not even remotely true. Many more were heralded for their depictions of glory and humane remorse.-
It’s absolutely true. Otto Dix’s art was deemed degenerate explicitly due to his nature of portraying war as hellish, horrific and generally miserable. It was literally presented this way by the Nazis in their degenerate art exhibits.
-
I’m not saying cowardly or grotesque art wasn’t banned, but you made flagrant blanket statement about veterans in general that just isn’t true.
-
>you made flagrant blanket statement about veterans in general
No I didn’t you illiterate rube. I mentioned the veterans who made art depicting war as anything less than glorious or necessary. Otto Dix is perhaps the most famous example but he was far from the only one. The Nazis were warmongering scrotebrains who got legitimately assmad about veterans correctly characterizing trench warfare as freaking awful because they didn’t want Germans being anti-war.-
What was the point of focusing on the "veteran" aspect unless you were stating that veterans were specifically targeted? They weren’t. Some of them were incidentally veterans, but the deprecation of their own peoples efforts and twisted self destructive mentality is not something that anyone can view as healthy. The fact you like it is no different than a Ku Klux member saying they like seeing images of a black lashed man. That’s what you sound like.
-
>What was the point of focusing on the "veteran" aspect unless you were stating that veterans were specifically targeted?
Because the post I responded to was specifically discussing former soldiers. Try and keep up.-
>Because the post I responded to was specifically discussing former soldiers
That’s exactly the problem bud. You still haven’t explained yourself adequately- or at all. -
I gave you an example with sources that speaks of other cases of this happening and the Nazis’ rationale behind it, if that’s not good enough for you that’s your problem.
-
You didn’t mention the part where Dix insisted on doing portraiture of communists, ideological enemies of the German state during that entire time. You just jumped straight from Hitler being a patriotic soldier to "well aykshually he hated soldiers" just because.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I can see why he got rejected from art school.
-
Meh
-
degenerate modern trash
-
Looks like something an emo high school kid, who’s not very talented would come up with.
-
he wasn’t good at anything, was he?
-
It’s pathetic the way people feel a reflexive need to shit on Hitler’s art. Is it the art of a master?
No.
Does it deserve to be relentlessly mocked in a world where Liefeld and CalArts exists?
No.Hitler was literally some bum from Vienna . Pardon him for not having access to the modern internet’s infinite art tutorials.
-
Nobody would be trashing his art if there wasn’t people relentlessly pushing the narrative that he was a great painter and he should have been accepted.
There are both sides to this: naziscrotes who try to endorse their idol in any aspect and ignorant people who think "oh, how evil the Academy is, if they accepted Hitler he wouldn’t be an evil dictator, and his art is not even that bad".
It is bad. That’s the point. Stop trying to push a revisionist perspective that he had any talent, because he had not.
-
>It is bad.
No, it isn’t, and our culture celebrates worse artists today. -
His painting in OP is shitty, but in general his paintings are adequate. Bland, forgettable, but not offensive. They’d be acceptable one-off illustrations in Highlights magazine. However, Hitler was right about the garden gnomes.
-
-
-
Not good, but I can’t say it’s much worse than a lot of crap that gets displayed in contemporary art museums today some of which is utter trash.
-
Very much a “Strange-loop” style of art. Thoughtful and provoking, there is no end or beginning.
-
Do corridors like that even exist anywhere? What was he intending to paint? A courthouse? The entrance to Hell?
-
It possesses a sense of gravitas long lost in the western psyche.
-
The dutiful clerk and the standing attendant, almost resembling a priest. In only one of the mirrors, keeping watch over it as it were— administering it in fact, and for each subsequent world, no such oversight, no such custodial vision to the order of things.
-
And these identical worlds—rudderless, empty, devoid.
Which world do we live in? Which would we prefer? Which will we build?
-
The faces look terrible. Literal trash.
The whole thing makes me wonder if he’d been in the backrooms at some point. -
>National Socialists destroyed evil iconography
Incredibly hope inducing -
The sitting man, a clerk, a dutiful father, resolute, Aloise Hitler. His son, standing— and still yet moving, a world apart, eager, a man of potential but unsure— Hitler, the priest. He is lost in thought, looks to his father, he must save us but how? The father looks to us. The answer is in the mirror, you.
-
>TFW you are so much of a neo-Nazi you have to defend Hitler’s paintings
-
Pretty cool and creepy ngl
-
Better than Picasso tbh
-
I like it but it’s nothing unique. I want something more profound from Hitler. I’ve yet to feel anything from him because it seems so familiar and so cliche. The quality from this painting is so imprisoning even despite the contrast of the multitude of moments that break away in this painting. It’s the kind of shit i sketch now days because i can’t yet break away from my world view. (like literally last week i was trying to frame the perspective of the door frames so that the entire painting feels closely solitary) Surely there’s something more profound in his collection in his later years? He has an ocean of life experiences compared to me.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.