Was Adolf Hitler Really a Bad Artist?
ERROR ABOUT THE URL
All those URL are not valid any longer. Please now go to :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
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
- kraft durch freude
- Member
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 08 Feb 2005, 06:15
- Location: montreal, CA
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.
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.
Re: i dont like hitler's paintings but...
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 !
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 !
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.Everyone was amazed by his outstanding intellect, and he was by no means a madman.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2688
- Joined: 04 Nov 2005, 06:06
- Location: Scotland
Re: i dont like hitler's paintings but...
AgreedMimi 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 !
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,
Hitler was interested in the Japanese art, too.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 012#872012
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 012#872012
[/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'.
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'.
- Serbian boy
- Member
- Posts: 547
- Joined: 14 Jun 2004, 21:31
- Location: Serbia
Speer and Hanfstaengl
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 conductIMO Speer's and Hanfstaengl's memoirs truly need to be taken with a grain of salt,
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 ?
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
Erich
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!
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!
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
Erich
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.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".
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.