You’ve brought up some good points. I must admit myself that I find many of the art pieces of the Third Reich stunning, attractive and pleasing to look at, and furthermore, Hitler had some artistic talent. That is once someone overlooks the horror of the Third Reich and 12-million dead. This of course is really not the issue.
Meanwhile, Max2cam in his message stated, “It seems that the Holocaust promoters (I don't know how else to describe them), are waking up to the fact that Nazi aesthetics are more attractive than theirs and that it won't die.” It sounds like there are the same old “holocaust denial” in his statement; then he directly says Nazi artistic “aesthetics are more attractive than theirs.” What ever the last part means I guess is open to interpretation. Is he saying people’s appreciation of Nazi art is more pleasing to look at then the documented Holocaust? I hope he is not denying the Holocaust.
Then he goes on to call the Third Reich itself art and further say, “I would go so far to say that the war, the destruction of cities, the countless deaths, and even the so-called Holocaust was a part of that great and terrible beauty.” This is what some have the robotic quality of Nazi culture staged events, which he then denies is valid. So now the Holocaust was a “great and terrible beauty.” He furthermore goes on to say, “That's not saying it was always "good" or "nice" or "moral" but it was still beautiful. That is almost beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend, but still true...” Therefore, Max2cam is saying the Holocaust is beautiful and he has that supreme intellectual ability to understand this! Nevertheless, he has no need to read “Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics” by Frederic Spotts, because Max2cam says, “It is NOT going to tell me anything new that I already don't know and have known all my life -- and know probably better than the author.” This is both an odd and simultaneously interesting statement!
These peculiar remarks are then followed up by, “I also have to laugh when I hear those who claim that Hitler was going to destroy European culture, when in fact he was totally into it and honestly wanted to be its great protector.” Overlooking all the art ordered destroyed by Hitler and banned he was “totally into it and honestly wanted to be its great protector.” Interesting us of the words “totally” and “honestly.” Does this statement by someone who has no need to read a book about Nazi art make sense to you, Largo?
Finally, Max2cam follows everything up by saying, “You only have to contrast the care in which the Nazis crated up their (stolen) artwork and stored it in salt mines at the end of the war to the criminal neglect in which the USA just allowed the ancient treasures of Mesopotamia to be looted and destroyed to see who the real cultural barbarians are!” This last comment illustrates how little current events and military judgment seem to also enter into his thought process. It’s most interesting how Max2com calls the USA “the real cultural barbarians,” because they did nothing while the Iraqis looted their museums and can claim Hitler was the “total and honest protector” of European art all in one forum message.
I’m sorry guys, although the Art of the Third Reich or the Soviet Union maybe a fascinating subject, the items produced during their respective periods are not great examples of the Finer Arts. Even overlooking the politics behind the images, no one in the academic art history community is going to display the works that were in the House of German Art and call then great finer art works. Part analyzing artistic works is having the ability to understand the period and culture to which they were produced. Therefore, it is easy to take Nazi art pieces and fool someone into saying they are good pieces. One academically cannot divorce the period in which the artwork was produced with the piece itself, before doing an analysis of the work; the two analytical elements go hand-in-hand together. Therefore, when someone says people said they were great pieces of art before discovering they were Nazi produced pieces it just illustrates how little those people themselves understand how art is evaluated. Nevertheless, they may say, these pieces are excellent examples of propaganda for their era, but that is where it will end. Furthermore, although the images are pretty to look one must remember their artistic styles are rehashes of the 19th Century pieces with swastikas and Nordic looking people in fantasy situations; there is nothing original about these works, or for that matter what was being produced in the Soviet Union and Mussolini’s Fascist-Italy. Those who now appear to be trying to promote these works seem to be doing it under the scorn of neo-fascist, holocaust denying and “lets get open minded approach” technique, while they deliberately distort historical facts, twist words and events to make weak intellectual points.
In summation, for some, they’re maybe much to learn from academic books on the subject.