Here’s the link to the artwork:
[Spoiler-boxed; links to explicit content when you click on the artwork —Ellen]
http://postimage.org/gallery/72d9s58/ced53233/
Read the rest of this only after voting in the poll.
The artist is none other than Adolf Hitler. Does that fact that Hitler make it change your view of the artwork itself?
To me some of it, especially the black & white drawings, looked about the level of high school artist and some looked a little better. Not really my favorite subject matter in most.
Somewhat NSFW with the porn chat pop up window and offers of dates at the bottom of the screne. OK, I remove the “somewhat NSFW” as there is actual sexual cartoons at the top of the page.
That didn’t happen to me…
Hmmm. It happened only when I clicked on the individual pictures to see them larger. I’ll check out a different browser and computer to see if it’s my problem.
They’re pleasant, maybe even enough to hang one on my wall. Nothing super-skilled, though, and certainly not museum-quality.
The fact that Hitler did them makes them a bit creepy, but doesn’t make me think less of them artistically.
I see, ugh. 
I put “yes, it’s all right” but could easily have gone for “no, not really.” I feel almost completely neutral about those pictures. The subject matter isn’t very interesting to me, and although the artist represented everything reasonably well, there’s no real flair to it. It’s just some drawings of some landscapes and buildings and stuff. No big deal. Don’t love it, don’t hate it.
The Hitler thing doesn’t change my opinion of the art. Just adds sort of a “Huh. How about that,” to it.
PS: I got borderline-NSFW photos at the bottom of the pages for the larger images, too, although I didn’t see any actual full nudity.
I’ve always thought Hitler was a pretty good painter. Maybe not as great as any really good artists but certainly above what the vast majority of people can do.
I voted “Other” because when I looked at the photos and saw they were all labelled AH*, and I saw that this was some secretive ‘thought experiment’ I put 2 and 2 together and realized they were Hitlers. So I didn’t want to spoil your results. I don’t particularly care for them one way or the other, but I’m not much of an art lover.
Did it to me, too, on my iPad. Only when I clicked on individual pictures. Should mark the site NSFW.
Found the pictures pretty meh and amateurish.
Yea, they are pretty nice.
They’re pleasant to look at, but not much more than that. They’re not terrible.
Who the hell is looking up Hitler’s pictures and thinking that they fancy a hand shandy? The fact that a target audience exists for the pics at the bottom is baffling.
They’re not bad as art, certainly better than I could do.
I voted No, not really. The art is passable, much better than what I could possibly hope to accomplish, but nothing stuck out as interesting or provocative of any emotion whatsoever. So, meh.
So what they are Hitler’s paintings. What’s the thought experiment? That if you like his art, you have to think he was an okay dude? I didn’t like his art, but knowing those were his pieces, I think he was a fair to middling artist. I also think the Volkswagen was a great idea. How does that reflect on how I feel about the man and his horrible beliefs and actions? I don’t see the connection.
I kind of like them, mainly because I’m a sucker for landscapes. Not enough of an art critic to discuss their dynamic symmetry or plastic integrity or any of that, but they’re pretty well done. But then, I’ve always liked Winston Churchill’s paintings also.
If A.H. had stuck with his art and not got sidetracked into trying to rule the world a lot of people would have arguably been better off.
Oh, I like those. I’m far from an art critic, but especially in comparison to Hitler’s work they seem to have a lot of energy.
I’d seen some of Hitler’s work before, so I guessed that was who the artist was. It’s far better than what I can do, but for art it’s honestly kinda boring. They’d make nice greeting cards, but I wouldn’t hang one on the wall unless it was done by a family member or something. There’s no emotion in them.
Likewise with Stalin’s plans to become a priest. Sometimes I wonder if they hadn’t been there whether someone worse might have come along to fill that void.
Nah, not likely. They were pretty damn evil.
It’s funny. I voted (“Yes, it’s alright”) before there were any replies and didn’t notice the white text in the OP. I figured that by “read the rest of this”, Qin Shi Huangdi meant that a further post explaining the art would be forthcoming and, when I didn’t see one yet, I wandered off, figuring I’d come back later. In the mean time, I was wondering what was noteworthy about this collection of reasonable (but not exceptional) art and one of my guesses was actually that they were Hitler’s. This guess was based pretty much entirely on the facts that I’d heard he was pretty decent with landscapes, the architecture looks about right for (at least my conception of) his general location and time period and the fact that Hitler’s art would make a pretty interesting though experiment.
As for my thoughts about the art now that I know by whom it was made, it hasn’t changed that much. The art is still good but not really great, and is a lot better than I (or most people, for that matter) could produce.
I’ve always thought you-know-who was a passable landscape and architectural painter. Churchill was also a painter. Although I would not have recognized his style right away.
Yep. It hits me at about the same level as Thomas Kinkade, which is barely at all. Better than I could do, but it’s pretty passionless.
