Why Adolf Hitler's Art is important art

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
Just curious, what's wrong with posting his art? Is there some psychological affect we might be exposed to, copyright issues or fear it might glorify Hitler?

Honestly, I'd like to know.

Millions of veterans of WWII spin in their grave.

As an aside, in the 80s there were lots of big gun shows, some vendors displayed German war trophies: daggers, helmets, flags, all captured and brought back , then stored in closets for a few decades, winding up for sale at gun shows as memorabilia. Nobody was buying much of it back then, the memories of Nazidom still ran deep.

Nowadays a single item I used to see boatloads of back when is worth a mint.

People value art for different reasons. Technical ability is one I would think. I don't appreciate art based on some art movement, it seems to be more about copying style. While that could be considered to be inspired, it isn't that creative IMO.

Art that is used to convey some meaning, like political or social commentary, is not really art in my eyes. Personally I think great art is something that invokes an aesthetic response, something that contains universal beauty. Art that has a negative response could be powerful, but if it repulses a viewer, it's just plan ugly regardless of the emotion it was meant to evoke.

Hitler's art may be uninspiring, but it has value from a historical perspective I'd imagine. Perhaps it contains some insight into his emotions or state of mind. I wouldn't dismiss it because it doesn't compare with the masters though out the ages. If that were a factor then folk art, among others, would be valueless as an art.

a reply to: [post=23294357]MichiganSwampBuck[/postag

His art isn’t anything special. At all. Is it worth giving a genocidal, murderous, methed out evil dictator any kind of credit or lasting legacy over his mediocre paintings?
I’d say yes if he painted the starry night or Lincoln in dali vision or an effing can of soup for Mohammed sake, but not this stuff. Minor tangent: I went to the sf moma last week. There was a 5x8 canvas painted completely in blue. One solid color. Blue. Hanging there with confidence, with it’s own viewing bench, occupied by people who said “like” way too much. Wtf? Modern artists are lazy. But it’s still art to some. Can’t tell someone what they like.

a reply to: Revolution9

Only rich Ghoul's would want them - and of course right wing lunatic's whom worship him.
For the rest of us each stroke is by a man touched not only be madness but by utter evil and vileness and personally I would burn the not of them - like he and his party burned the book's and GENUINE art masterpieces of many TRUE painters.
I would also burn down any house he painted for the same reason.

Is Hitler's art important? Not from an artistic perspective, no. As others have noted he is a competent draftsman but not quite an artist. It is important to remember he was just a man, not the devil incarnate - he would have some tough competition for that spot between Stalin and Mao. All the evils in the world are done by men (and women, not going to be sexist here) and not by demi-gods or whatever special category Attila and Adolph and co. get lumped in. All of us have the potential to be the next Hitler so yes, let's remember he was just a man who did things just like the rest of us do - like paint.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Only rich Ghoul's would want them - and of course right wing lunatic's whom worship him.

I respectfully disagree.

Thinking about collage, imagine a multi-triptychon of sorts with all (!) of his works combined to a landscape. I'd add a few pieces myself for context, Stukas and tank convoys for example. Maybe the Nazi Bell and quite possibly some black triangles as well.

It would be a feast with a glorious exhibition in an old Nazi bunker. Who's buying?