Hitler's Artwork

I am an artist, and for years I was inspired by some of Adolf Hitler's Artwork, and still is.

sobadsogood.com...

I would just like to ask something. For me, some of his artwork is truly amazing, and I would love to have one of those in my house, but his paintings sell for millions. So here is the question. Is that because other people also think that he had true talent, or is it just because it is artwork by the famous Hitler?

Also, anyone else out there that think he did some amazing work?

a reply to: IndependentAgent

2,4,11,18 and 25 are ok....not inspired but something id buy for £20 to put on my wall.

Some of the others look like what a child would draw

a reply to: IndependentAgent

I see four different "hands" (at least) in those paintings. There's been some speculation that his early work isn't really his, and that some of this later work was also "ghost painted." Also, the signature is different across many of the works.

It's because he's Hitler. The work is basic at best. A talented student could do much better.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: IndependentAgent

I see four different "hands" (at least) in those paintings. There's been some speculation that his early work isn't really his, and that some of this later work was also "ghost painted." Also, the signature is different across many of the works.

i totally agree, there is more than one artists work there.
Hitler's work is the most basic looking stuff, the pencil drawings of soldiers, numbers 8, 9 , 10 and 12.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: IndependentAgent

I see four different "hands" (at least) in those paintings. There's been some speculation that his early work isn't really his, and that some of this later work was also "ghost painted." Also, the signature is different across many of the works.

So is my signiture. It is very easy for my signiture to differ from painting to paint.

Having looked at them, I'd suggest it's definitely because of the name.

I thought they were dull to be honest, I wouldn't purchase any of them for their content, absolutely nothing appealed. But of course, you're buying a bit of twentieth century history, so I can see why they would go for millions.

What I would say is maybe if he spent more time painting and less time plotting to take the whole of Europe, maybe he would have became better? He isn't a natural artist, he has worked quite hard, but not hard enough.

originally posted by: SecretKnowledge

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: IndependentAgent

I see four different "hands" (at least) in those paintings. There's been some speculation that his early work isn't really his, and that some of this later work was also "ghost painted." Also, the signature is different across many of the works.

i totally agree, there is more than one artists work there.
Hitler's work is the most basic looking stuff, the pencil drawings of soldiers

Not to sound rood or anything, but when changing styles, medium and canvus, one person's work can look like the work of many people. That is how my work is.

a reply to: IndependentAgent

He was evil incarnate, but some of his work is impressive. Others are crap.

Maybe this links would help you see what I see.
And yes, I do know that everyone has their own likes and dislikes, likes and dislikes.

www.sciencecaffe.com...

www.germaniainternational.com...

www.world-war-2-diaries.com...

a reply to: IndependentAgent

Not really. The medium may change but the artist work will be obvious. That's true of any artistic medium. Took Stephen King's fans no time to figure out Richard Bachman was him.

It's only collectable or interesting because of the macabre connection to the worlds most notorious evil human being. If these were put out by a no-named person, they would not be looked at twice and they'd be forgotten. IMHO.

Churchill was much more talented:
www.museumsyndicate.com...

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: IndependentAgent

Not really. The medium may change but the artist work will be obvious. That's true of any artistic medium. Took Stephen King's fans no time to figure out Richard Bachman was him.

Not always true. If I work with water colours, my work is sympistic and light. But with oil, my work is super realistic, bright and intense. With normal drawings I would only create outlines.

I wouldn't want any art work done by this man to be hanging in my home. I'm sorry, but it would be just too creepy. Every time I looked at it I would be reminded of him and the evil he did. I don't think he had any particular talent. But everyone has different tastes in art so maybe some might find them worthy of putting out for display.

a reply to: IndependentAgent

I enjoyed reading on the Live Page...

Hitler's Artwork
Members Art

I wouldn't dare call his art amazing. For the average painter he's good but that's about it. Can we not associate Hitler with amazing? Besides, it really kills it's meaning.

George Bush is a better despot... I mean painter...



On a serious note, if Hitler painted any of those... I'm the son of Queen Elizabeth II...

HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF?

Obama Jokes That He 'Should've Been An Artist'...But He Got 'Sidetracked'

As part of his visit to Northern Ireland, President Barack Obama visited Enniskillen Integrated Primary School on Monday with U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron.

While visiting the school, Obama and Cameron helped students paint a mural about the G-8 summit, held this week in Enniskillen.

"I should've been an artist," Obama joked while painting with the schoolchildren. "Instead I got sidetracked and went into politics."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
George Bush is a better despot... I mean painter...



On a serious note, if Hitler painted any of those... I'm the son of Queen Elizabeth II...

Nice to meet you Queen Elizabeth II!!!!!

Reading his book, you can clearly see that he was more interested in Painting and Architecture that one might think. Yes, he did paint, that is how he earned his bread and butter.