Was Adolf Hitler Really a Bad Artist?

Discussions on all aspects of the NSDAP, the other party organizations and the government. Hosted by Michael Miller & Igor Karpov.
User avatar
I B Piper
Member
Posts: 366
Joined: 27 Nov 2005, 16:49
Location: Albemarle, Virginia

#16

Post by I B Piper » 22 Apr 2006, 12:21

I always thought he was a fairly good artist. Big Orange's observation about Hitler's inability to depict any real humanity seems to me to be more a reflection of Hitler's character than his artistic ability.

Cheers,

I B piper

User avatar
Mimi
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 15 Apr 2006, 07:46
Location: Galveston, Tx USA
Contact:

ERROR ABOUT THE URL

#17

Post by Mimi » 19 Jul 2006, 18:51

hitler's paintings can be seen on this page http://schikelgruber.net/works.html and an appreciation of his works can be found on this one http://schikelgruber.net/hitler5.html you can also find a comment about his artistic drive on this page http://schikelgruber.net/hitler28.html and a full description of the rape of Europe's Art by the Nazis during the war on this page http://schikelgruber.net/hitler30.html
All those URL are not valid any longer. Please now go to :
1- http://schikelgruber.net/worksB.html for his paintings
2- http://schikelgruber.net/artistic.html for his artistic talent
3- http://schikelgruber.net/drive.html for his artistic drive
4- http://schikelgruber.net/rape.html for the rape of Europe's Art
Sorry for the changes, enjoy the reading
Mimi


rvinson
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: 23 Oct 2005, 16:07
Location: USA

#18

Post by rvinson » 27 Jul 2006, 03:50

I find it fascinating that someone who could pencil something even this good could be so evil. If only that art school in Vienna had admitted him he might have had at least a modest career as an artist or architect and millions of people would have been spared torturous deaths.

Image

User avatar
kraft durch freude
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 08 Feb 2005, 06:15
Location: montreal, CA

#19

Post by kraft durch freude » 27 Jul 2006, 16:05

Hitler was an all around genius into whatever he applied himself.
Everything from artist, architect, to statesman rescueing the economy, Fuhrer, warlord, strategist-which can be argued, issuer of war directives and creator of the holocaust. He held no less than 72 ministerial posts all at the same time.
Everyone was amazed by his outstanding intellect, and he was by no means a madman.

User avatar
Mimi
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 15 Apr 2006, 07:46
Location: Galveston, Tx USA
Contact:

Re: i dont like hitler's paintings but...

#20

Post by Mimi » 19 Aug 2006, 01:41

Hitler was not a bad artist, IMHO, he was just not a good one, his works and appreciation of his works can be found in those pages:
1- http://schikelgruber.net/artistic.html
or
2- http://schikelgruber.net/watercolours.html
or
3- http://schikelgruber.net/drive.html
and
4- http://schikelgruber.net/sketches.html
Have fun !

User avatar
Mimi
Member
Posts: 121
Joined: 15 Apr 2006, 07:46
Location: Galveston, Tx USA
Contact:

#21

Post by Mimi » 19 Aug 2006, 01:47

Everyone was amazed by his outstanding intellect, and he was by no means a madman.

You probaly have not read Albert Speer's Memoirs or Ernst Hanfstaengl's Memoirs or Kesselring's Memoirs. They all say what mediocre man Hitler was in all his actions, he could make illusion thanks to his prodigious memory and his capacity of bluff for some time but as soon as 1941 everybody in his entourage, except some sycophantic fanatics like Bormann, knew he was not up to the job. Even Goebbels as soon as 1942 had his doubts and began to plot with Speer but to no avail. You are really ill informed and it is a pity to read such posts on such a remarkable Forum.

Potsdamerplatz
Member
Posts: 2688
Joined: 04 Nov 2005, 06:06
Location: Scotland

Re: i dont like hitler's paintings but...

#22

Post by Potsdamerplatz » 19 Aug 2006, 02:44

Mimi wrote:Hitler was not a bad artist, IMHO, he was just not a good one, his works and appreciation of his works can be found in those pages:
1- http://schikelgruber.net/artistic.html
or
2- http://schikelgruber.net/watercolours.html
or
3- http://schikelgruber.net/drive.html
and
4- http://schikelgruber.net/sketches.html
Have fun !
Agreed :D

After checking the links provided by Mimi, I also think Hitler was a very competent artist. His landscapes and buildings especially deserve praise and it's better than most of the rubbish of today which is described as "modern art"

Best regards,

User avatar
Kim Sung
Member
Posts: 5039
Joined: 28 May 2005, 14:36
Location: The Last Confucian State

#23

Post by Kim Sung » 19 Aug 2006, 04:02

Hitler was interested in the Japanese art, too.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 012#872012

User avatar
Erich-SA
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 07:32
Location: Southern California

#24

Post by Erich-SA » 22 Aug 2006, 07:39

[/quote]
You probaly have not read Albert Speer's Memoirs or Ernst Hanfstaengl's Memoirs or Kesselring's Memoirs. They all say what mediocre man Hitler was in all his actions, he could make illusion thanks to his prodigious memory and his capacity of bluff for some time but as soon as 1941 everybody in his entourage, except some sycophantic fanatics like Bormann, knew he was not up to the job. Even Goebbels as soon as 1942 had his doubts and began to plot with Speer but to no avail. You are really ill informed and it is a pity to read such posts on such a remarkable Forum.[/quote]


IMO Speer's and Hanfstaengl's memoirs truly need to be taken with a grain of salt, since both are extremely subjective and were written, it would appear, with self serving motives. Speer's description of himself and his actions, for example, is at odds with his pre45 persona and activities. Hanfstaengl fled Germany in mortal fear, thinking that he would be killed if he had remained there (a mistaken belief, as it happened). His writings often made him appear somewhat of a vindictive 'crackpot'.

User avatar
Serbian boy
Member
Posts: 547
Joined: 14 Jun 2004, 21:31
Location: Serbia

#25

Post by Serbian boy » 27 Aug 2006, 05:48

I like his paintings.
Attachments
AHCastleOANFLarge.jpg
AHCastleOANFLarge.jpg (43.25 KiB) Viewed 1364 times

User avatar
Bomar
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 14 Mar 2003, 15:35
Location: Galveston, Tx.
Contact:

Speer and Hanfstaengl

#26

Post by Bomar » 27 Aug 2006, 23:46

IMO Speer's and Hanfstaengl's memoirs truly need to be taken with a grain of salt,
Every Memoirs mut be taken with a gain of salt, this is not the point. If you read their Memoirs, you see how Hitler was uneducated, primary and superficial, how is reactions were those of a selfish autodidact and how pretentious and out of touch with every sound judment he was. As one of his Marshals said "he lacked the disciplined approach and the definitive individual judgment which was necessary for a successful conduct
of the war in particular and politics in general."
Speer Memoirs were published in 1976, and he had nothing to prove or justify anymore. Same thing for Hanfstaengl who published his in the late 50s and did not care about what he would look like in his Memoirs. Both were very intelligent men, higly cultivated and educated, and if Hanfstaengl was a crackpot, what sort of "idiot" was Hitler ?

User avatar
Erich-SA
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 07:32
Location: Southern California

#27

Post by Erich-SA » 28 Aug 2006, 07:37

I have to disagree. Speer felt he did have something to prove, or he would not have strived to change his image. There have been several books, both in english and german, that pick apart Speer's memoirs point by point and show them to be, if not fictional, than certainly a self serving fantasy. Hanfstaengl had apparently 'lost it' by the time he wrote his bio. Even FDR and his staff indicated they considered Hanfstaengl a crackpot. I heard him being interviewed in the late 60s or early 70s when he stated that Hitler was syphilitic and a sexual pervert among other below the belt inaccurate comments, which probably related more to his own psychological problems than to AH.
Erich

User avatar
kahlo
Member
Posts: 163
Joined: 26 Aug 2006, 18:22
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

#28

Post by kahlo » 28 Aug 2006, 15:50

I cannot believe the amount of praise lavished on his work by a few people here. It is impossible to give a good evaluation of his work as Peter Adams puts it "all must be viewed through the lens of the holocaust". While I do think that his architectural drawings and several still lifes show he is competent, I think he is only just above mediocre. The argument about his lack of interest in human figures can not only be seen in his architectural drawings, but in his figure studies (go and see the terrible female nudes on hitler.org)

Also the counter argument of "why was he rejected for his lack of competency whilst Picasso was not" is incredibly moronic to say the least if you do not understand the contexts or aims of the artist.

if we where to strip away all assosciations, Hitler would be nothing more than an average artist, forgotten in history due to his amateurish style.
Sorry, a few people here have annoyed me greatly.

Oh yes, and I am an art historian!

User avatar
Erich-SA
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: 13 Mar 2002, 07:32
Location: Southern California

#29

Post by Erich-SA » 28 Aug 2006, 18:17

Very true. IMO the young Adolf was a competent but unremarkable artist. I find his furniture designs show more talent and some imagination than the paintings, although again there was little new ground broken. I don't think he had the eye or the talent to become a great, or even very good painter, but I do feel that he was more suited to the industrial design area, and he could have been successful at that.
Erich

User avatar
Grimgerde
Member
Posts: 33
Joined: 07 Sep 2006, 06:29
Location: United States

#30

Post by Grimgerde » 09 Oct 2006, 06:36

I cannot believe the amount of praise lavished on his work by a few people here. It is impossible to give a good evaluation of his work as Peter Adams puts it "all must be viewed through the lens of the holocaust".
Ridiculous. The Holocaust isn't a universal definition of anything, and to believe it is a requirment to view Hitler's artwork within the context of the Holocaust is a pretentious and, frankly, ludicrous attitude.

Personally, I don't have much of an opinion of Hitler's work. It's well done and I'm sure it stands up with the work of most other artists. However, if someone genuinely believed Hitler to be the greatest artist to have ever lived, I don't see why that is any more unbelievable than all of the people who adore the likes of Picasso or Pollock.

Perhaps the problem is that a lot of self-proclaimed 'authorities' (for example, 'art historians') of art like to pass off their OPINIONS as facts.

Post Reply

Return to “NSDAP, other party organizations & Government”