My mom sent me an email with some purportedly Hitler paintings attached. Yeah, so what?
I googled around and found this.
Was Hitler really that competent of a painter, or am I being whooshed? 'Cause some of these are pretty good.
I thought he was pretty good. I read he narrowly missed out getting into a very good art school. But people don’t like it if you say something about him that isn’t bad.
He probably could have made a living at it, but he had other interests.
It wasn’t that he was bad at it, but he wasn’t great either. Europe was filled to overflowing with mediocre artists, so there wasn’t a lot of demand for them.
Decide for yourself
Tris
He may have been good enough for art school, but had an off-putting personality that barred him.
Son of a bitch.
I had no idea.
Am I the only one to have missed this hidden talent for the last 60 years? I mean obviously we had other things to focus on, but I had no idea that this was one of Adolf’s hidden talents. It’s like finding out Osama bin Laden had a viable rap career.
I’d raise your mediocre to good, but your point still stands, he wasn’t a great artist.
No, it would be like Osama Bin Laden almost missing out becoming a mujihadein commander because of his rap ability.
Hrm. Are these good?
I don’t know art history, so I just know what looks good to me, which may not mean much but—
Look at the windows and stairs in that first picture in the link given by the OP. They look awfully flat and cartoony. And the fountain–I strongly suspect it’s not lined up right (though it’s hard to say without a photo to compare it to…)
I mean… it’s better than I could do I guess… 
I mean, it’s better than I could do, but it’s not as good as my grandfather’s drawings and paintings–and my grandfather only did this as a personal hobby in his spare time.
It’s pretty “meh”. I’d say he’s on the Thomas Kinkade level of art, although at least it’s not covered in glitter. Actually, if anything, Kinkade is more talented, even if his subjects suck.
I think his big mistake was that, rather than adopt the Surrealist style, then peaking under the influence of Ernst, Miró, Dali and Magritte, he invaded Poland.
As I understand it, he was mediocre at best. Just hit Wikipedia to double-check, and sure enough,
He was rejected twice by the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna (1907–1908), because of his "unfitness for painting", and was recommended to study architecture.
Only he hadn’t done well enough in school to get into an architecture school, either.
I saw an article on his paintings in Newsweek years ago. There was a photo of one of his paintings accompanying the article. I thought it was pretty good, but the article said the perspective was slightly off. I studied the photo again, and damn if it wasn’t.
Actually it’s a standard part of his biography, but often very cursorily dismissed as other events (e.g. participation in WW1) tend to overtake the narrative of his late-teens/early-adult life.
As to the OP, yes, but merely “competent” at this level would not be enough for applying to a major fine-arts academy (then or now). As mentioned, after being rejected twice, it was suggested to him to instead apply to study architecture or draftsmanship – that is, they felt he may become proficient at technical art if he applied himself, but he was not ready for the big leagues as a fine artist and they didn’t think he had what it took to get to that level. (He then drifted on for a while as just one more of a whole bunch of schilling-a-dozen street artists.)
…Now I have had this thought come to me before, Guinastasia, that only thanks to the American art consumer, is it we have saved the world from Thomas Kinkade ascending to supreme dictatorship and launching a campaign of world conquest and extermination…
His animations were apparently quite superb. “Whistle while you work” will never really feel the same to me. :dubious:
There’s a 2002 John Cusack movie, Max, about how Hitler’s budding art career might have gone astray: Max - Wikipedia
Oh study architecture. He heard destroy. That German gets tricky sometimes.
His angles and his perspectives are almost universally terrible. His drawings are very rigid, and I imagine he learned to draw as well as he did through sheer force of will, adjusting and re-adjusting the angles of the buildings in his drawings until he could do no better.
The pictures linked in this thread are no different from the tens of thousands of pictures pumped out annually by beginning artists practicing their perspectives. And that’s the problem: He was never able to make the leap from drawing buildings in perspective to constructing actual pieces of art. If he had had a mentor to guide him through the process, or had been a little more creative with his art, he probably could have made it into one of the academies. But as it stands, he was never able to progress beyond lines, lines going against the horizon, away from it, toward the viewer, etc. The lines in his pictures always draw attention to themselves. It’s no doubt one of the reasons why it was recommended that he consider studying architecture.