Look at L. S. Lowrys paintings of people, now they are crap and I mean C-R-A-P
His buildings and landscapes are filled with a kind of Teutonic grandiosity. It’s obvious he was pretty proud of the homeland. On the whole though, these pictures wouldn’t merit a second glance if they had not been done by hitler.
One thing occurred to me is that his early work would have been done during the Art Nouveau period (I LOVE Art Nouveau), and later probably during the Art Deco. Neither reflects these styles-I wonder if he did so deliberately.
Art Nouveau was very fluid, fanciful, colorful, with lots of swirls and soft curves. Hitler goes away from this.
Probably. Hitler hated modern art…with a passion. He thought it was decadent, Jewish-Communist, and really really bad.
Captain Amazing: I avoided typing it out in full because it’s very catchy – the kind of thing that will get in your head if you know it and reminded of it.
There’s actually an SD column about this, and a Wikipedia entry. They both seem to arrive at the unsurprising conclusion that the song was incorrect.
Hitler’s art doesn’t really have a style – it’s not good enough for that. It lacks any real creativity and is devoid of originality; it’s mediocre commercial art at best. Like I said, the kind of thing you might see in a living room. I don’t even think anything can be said of themes of Teutonic grandiosity or German superiority – Hitler didn’t seem to be able to express these through his art.
If Hitler – the wounded and disillusioned Austrian corporal, without the ideology – had been a real artist, I think he may have become a dadaist. Dada was highly nihilistic art, and reflected the sentiment in Europe of a world in upheaval, senselessly shattered basically at the whim of a few imperial and royal families. As it turned out, he despised the movement, and some dadaists were displayed at the infamous exhibition of “Degenerate Art” in 1937.
I personally think it’s rather hard to “read” too much into Hitler’s art.
I’ve taken countless art classes, and Life Drawing classes. I’ve noticed how students and fledgling artists progress. I know how I’ve progressed.
I don’t see anything really startlingly “telling” about Hitler’s work. His work seems pretty typically ordinary/uninspired. While it’s true that his personality is reflected in his art, I don’t think that much of him is really showing. I think he’s showing his technical ineptitude and artistic insecurity for the most part.
Eh. Then I and a whole lot of other artists are psycopaths and obscene. It’s a weird little drawing, but nothing that disturbing. I’ve done a lot of goofy doodles that are far weirder than that. Go over to some of graphic arts boards–you’ll see artists post all sorts of weird shit. They just have vivid imaginations.
Eh. Maybe. Possibly. Or it could be just a goofy doodle. I draw goofy doodles all the time, and I’m not anti-Semitic or anything else (that I know of).
Very typical for someone who is not a very good artist and cannot get the faces right. I have seen the scariest, most warped and innaccuate drawings from newbie artists. This is very, very common. People (especially faces) are the last thing that many artists get right. There’s no “wiggle room” and they cannot fudge on the proportions without it being embarrassingly obvious that they aren’t getting it right.
This is very, very, very typical for male artists to do. In Life Drawing classes, I’ll see the less capable male artists will draw all the females “chunky” and “clunky.” This is, (I believe) because we are essentially drawing ourselves. We have trouble drawing the opposite sex. I know as a child I only drew girls; that came naturally to me. It took effort to learn how to draw males. In my first Life Drawing classes, I had no trouble drawing females, but all my drawings of males had large hips and slightly narrow shoulders. It took a while to get over that.
:shrug: I have seen artwork like Hitler’s in too many beginning Life Drawing classes, and I just don’t see anything unique or remarkable about it. It’s typical newbie work.
It is a weird one. That is a little more telling. But not that weird. I’ve seen other artists (and done myself) drawings with that level of “weird” expression and it didn’t have much hidden “meaning” to it. But yeah, it’s a weird expression on that girl’s face.
He isn’t any better than the students in my beginning drawing class. But like Yosemitebabe, I don’t really read anything into his art.
My art teacher in high school said the same thing-it’s very hard often to learn to draw the opposite sex. Any time I tried to draw men, they came out looking extremely feminine.
And I always liked drawing girls with long hair and pretty clothes. shrug
I don’t think I’m GOOD at drawing people, but I do like designing clothing. And I’m good at that. That’s why I like my cartoon dolls. I have fun with them.
I don’t think Hitler can be analyzed by his art-but I will say that his art looks pretty damn boring. I don’t think he had any fun with it.
I can’t find a cite.
I read it in a biography of Hitler - not Shirer’s, but I can’t remember which one.
No offense, Aro, but the entrance requirements for architectural schools in Germany eighty years ago may have been different from what they are today.
I don’t insist that I am right, but it is something I remember reading. Hitler basically failed at everything until WWI, where he was a genuine war hero (Iron Cross first and second class - he was a messenger, during a period when the life expectancy for that position was a few months), and wounded twice. He was blind and in a hospital when the armistice was announced.
He was assigned to investigate the NSDAP as part of his army duties post-WWI, got interested, and joined up. And the rest is history.
Regards,
Shodan
Oh, and FriarTed - Norman Spinrad lectured to a literature class of mine in college on The Iron Dream, and he signed my copy. He is an interesting guy. The only author I ever met who looked exactly as I expected he would.
Regards,
Shodan
FriarTed wrote:
whatever could you be waiting for?
ohhhh, maybe…this?
BAND NAME!!! :::gulping bait and trying to dislodge hook from mouth:::
I realise the situation may well have been very different back in Germany in Hitler’s day. But the principals of learning remain the same – you don’t expect students to be completely proficient in their chosen fields until they have undergone suitable training.
Requiring a potential architectural student to design a complete building, including all integrated services, to the Nth degree prior to being allowed to join an architectural course and then begin actual training, is akin to requiring a potential medical student to successfully perform open heart surgery before being allowed to begin study at a medical college.
Of course, it may well have been the case that that was the reason for his failure, but to me it seems incredulous at best.
My ‘sceptic hat’ is still firmly on.
Sorry for the hi-jack.
Yeah, you have the right to trash others.
Oils, you can keep working on until you get it right; watercolors, you have ONE shot at.
j66 is 100% right.
Watercolors are tough. I know a lot of “little old ladies” who do Sunday Painting, few do watercolors. Too difficult. No room for accidents or mistakes with watercolor. (Patting myself on the back here, I am very proud that I can do a half-ass decent job at watercolors. Not as good as some awesome watercolorists I’ve seen, but I’m OK.)
And Spavined Gelding thinks less of this medium? Bah!
I basically concur with Yosemitebabe’s hesitation to read too much into Hitler’s art style–or anybody’s. We have so many reasons to “see” someone’s work through the lens of our own knowledge of who they became, that such highly-intuited responses are almost bound to mislead us. It’s like someone reading an astrologer’s portrait of someone he knows, and thinking “Jeez, that fits him to a T!”
So subtract about 95% of that reaction, and then try again to form a judgment.
In my unqualified view, Hitler’s art is just ordinary beginner’s work, more-or-less competent but little more than that. It does kinda look like motel-room art at that!
“…The reason why some autistic children produce apparently precocious drawings is that they draw “literally” - they draw exactly what they see, without filtering it through the conceptual system. So, normally developing children will draw very schematic figures or objects, ideas of objects, and gradually refine them as they grow older. Autistic children often lack these basic concepts and simply draw what their eyes perceive…”
The notion that Hitler may have been, not full-fledged autistic, but rather a sufferer from Asperger’s Syndrome (which some regard as a kind of borderline autism) strikes me as an interesting avenue to explore. Though obviously “high functioning” in his sad, sick way, AH seemed to find it difficult to “be a part” of the society around him. Perhaps he picked the Jews to scapegoat out of some much larger alienation from the human race. From what I’ve read, Asperger’s is all about not having a clue as to emotional cues and sensitivities, as often having to try to fake one’s way through them. Wild, undisciplined, overblown romanticism and hero-worship can be seen as a desperate response, and a kind of attempt to contruct one’s own world in which to live.
This hardly excuses the viciousness and evil of Nazism. Perhaps it just brings forth the tragic fact that some individuals are not, ever, going to fit-in, and really can only be “handled” by some kind of judicious separation from the rest of the world. I have to think of those two kids who shot up the school in Colorado. Most people who get bullied and picked-on don’t go down in murderous suicide.
Bah, yourself. Some watercolorists take their medium way too seriously.
Of course watercolor is a difficult and demanding medium. A skilled watercolorist is a skilled painter indeed. There are, however, many more watercolorists than there are skilled watercolorists. The great bulk of those unskilled watercolorist are either middle aged to elderly ladies who do washed out renditions of potted plants or potential Germanic dictators. The ladies outnumber the dictators.
Spavined, I don’t know if you keep up with current trends in mediocre art. 
I see far more “smudged graphite” (oh, how I hate this—I think it is an abomonation) than I do bad watercolors these days. Of course there are bad watercolorists out there, but I think that a lot of them are frustrated with the medium and go on to oils or acrylics, since these mediums are far more “forgiving.” (Or, quite often, they go for “smudged graphite” look.)
I also think there are a whole new crop of mediocre artists out there—younger mediocre artists are using watercolors and colored pencils for their wretched anime work, or for their loving portraits of Britney and Orlando Bloom. (But smudged graphite still remains a favorite for the Britney and Bloom portraits.) So bad watercolors are for any age group. Not just the old ladies.
I am, Madam, the very image of mediocre art. I specialize in local color watercolors of potted plants, smudged charcoals of dead luminaries, and over worked oils. I do saggy pots, too. And lumpy sculptures without any pretense to grace or emotion. The mail order art supply trade would go bankrupt if it were not for the likes of me.
PS: Who on earth is Orlando Bloom?
AKA Legolas Greenleaf.