Hitlers Artwork - Gifted Artist??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ches-sale.html

According to this article - "Hitler's portfolio is said to show a moderate artistic ability no greater than the average GCSE student"

But from my research, i think they are bloody brilliant. It is quite hard to find a decent gallery with more than two drawings or paintings but do a bit of searching and i think i could honestly say i prefer them, to some of these famous artists of the time. Could anyone explain any obvious 'faults' that reveal that he had very little technical ability because despite this statement being thrown around a lot, i cant help but see all of this critism being thrown in, solely because of the person who painted them.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And this guy lacked technical ability? Piss off...Were art school standards really dam high at the time or did this guy have a legitimate case on his hands?

You notice that most of the pictures are missing something?? From what I've heard the reason he was rejected from the art schools in Vienna (a few years before becoming the worlds most infamous murder) was he had issues drawing people. It kind of creepy actually. Goes on to commit such horrible crimes against humanity & as an artist has a hard time capturing the human essence.

But yeah he was rejected as an artist before he was indirectly responsible for the deaths of 60 million people.

Originally Posted by jsktrogdor

You notice that most of the pictures are missing something?? From what I've heard the reason he was rejected from the art schools in Vienna (a few years before becoming the worlds most infamous murder) was he had issues drawing people. It kind of creepy actually. Goes on to commit such horrible crimes against humanity & as an artist has a hard time capturing the human essence.

But yeah he was rejected as an artist before he was indirectly responsible for the deaths of 60 million people.

one of them has people, but in a very blurry way.

and yes, the point you brought up is still creepy.

Originally Posted by jsktrogdor

You notice that most of the pictures are missing something?? From what I've heard the reason he was rejected from the art schools in Vienna (a few years before becoming the worlds most infamous murder) was he had issues drawing people. It kind of creepy actually. Goes on to commit such horrible crimes against humanity & as an artist has a hard time capturing the human essence.

But yeah he was rejected as an artist before he was indirectly responsible for the deaths of 60 million people.

Well some people prefer drawing landscapes and evidently Hitler was a huge architecture fan too so its not too much of a stretch that he would draw what he liked, just like any other artist would do. Mind you he could be Van Gogh and it wouldnt matter much cause he killed so many people but he did seem to atleast have some artistic ability. Some of paintings are dated 1908 so he was still very young.

Originally Posted by jsktrogdor

You notice that most of the pictures are missing something?? From what I've heard the reason he was rejected from the art schools in Vienna (a few years before becoming the worlds most infamous murder) was he had issues drawing people. It kind of creepy actually. Goes on to commit such horrible crimes against humanity & as an artist has a hard time capturing the human essence.

But yeah he was rejected as an artist before he was indirectly responsible for the deaths of 60 million people.

you know, humans are one of the hardest things to draw "correctly". While nothing is the hardest thing you can draw.

But people in this modern age i feel would have some sort of bias against it because of his name and jump on the bandwagon. -very similar to people that hate the likes of Michael Jackson and bring up the paedophile thing
I've seen several drawings of people done in conte crayon and charcoal i believe and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with them in my opinion..those are the ones featured in the link in my first post. Although i suck at drawing organic forms aswell i suppose and anything that resembles a person is good in my eyes! Can anyone explain faults he made in a particular drawing? Faults which would have prevented him from getting in?

Originally Posted by Voodo chile

But people in this modern age i feel would have some sort of bias against it because of his name and jump on the bandwagon. -very similar to people that hate the likes of Michael Jackson and bring up the paedophile thing
I've seen several drawings of people done in conte crayon and charcoal i believe and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with them in my opinion..those are the ones featured in the link in my first post. Although i suck at drawing organic forms aswell i suppose and anything that resembles a person is good in my eyes! Can anyone explain faults he made in a particular drawing? Faults which would have prevented him from getting in?

His major fault is that its all so decidedly average. Unfortunatly for him (and by extension 60 million people) just being a decent artist wasen't good enough then. There were plenty of people asking to get into the various schools in Vienna, and Adolf had no way of differentiating himself from his peers, thus he was rejected.

He then proceded to throw the biggest "I'll show you" tempertantrum in history, staggering really.

Originally Posted by frozenprince

His major fault is that its all so decidedly average. Unfortunatly for him (and by extension 60 million people) just being a decent artist wasen't good enough then. There were plenty of people asking to get into the various schools in Vienna, and Adolf had no way of differentiating himself from his peers, thus he was rejected.

He then proceded to throw the biggest "I'll show you" tempertantrum in history, staggering really.

Thats a good point... Each of his paintings looks like something you'd pick up at a thrift store for 10 dollars and hang over a toliet somewhere.

Originally Posted by frozenprince

His major fault is that its all so decidedly average. Unfortunatly for him (and by extension 60 million people) just being a decent artist wasen't good enough then. There were plenty of people asking to get into the various schools in Vienna, and Adolf had no way of differentiating himself from his peers, thus he was rejected.

He then proceded to throw the biggest "I'll show you" tempertantrum in history, staggering really.

Yeah...Imagine if he had been accepted...


Though, I have a feeling the feelings of resentment in Germany still would have persisted and something could still have happened...

Originally Posted by Voodo chile

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ches-sale.html

According to this article - "Hitler's portfolio is said to show a moderate artistic ability no greater than the average GCSE student"

But from my research, i think they are bloody brilliant. It is quite hard to find a decent gallery with more than two drawings or paintings but do a bit of searching and i think i could honestly say i prefer them, to some of these famous artists of the time. Could anyone explain any obvious 'faults' that reveal that he had very little technical ability because despite this statement being thrown around a lot, i cant help but see all of this critism being thrown in, solely because of the person who painted them.

And this guy lacked technical ability? Piss off...Were art school standards really dam high at the time or did this guy have a legitimate case on his hands?

The drawings look quite good imo, much better than anything I ever did, and also better than many drwaings I saw. But they are nothing special either... nothing that grips my attention - look like plain vanilla stuff.

Hitler was a dangerous mental nutcase and responsible for at least 7million killed people, 6million Jews, in the KZs. And he, mainly, caused a war that caused an amount of people killed, far beyond the 10millions (I don't name the numbers as I don't know the exact number right now).

That said, anyone that says his pics show the 'evil' that already was within Adolf Hitler is a 'after-what-he-did-i-always-knew-what-was-going-on-from-the-every-beginning-or-can-tell-from-his-paintings' kind of dork. Many buildings in nowaday Germany are of facist origin:

As the Federal Minitry of Fincane, the former Nazi Ministry of Aviation

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I personally can't find much wrong with that building as such, but it was designed and constructed by Nazis. Though does that look like facism and killing millions of Jews, Sinti, Roma, Communists, Gays and Oppositionists? Perhaps?! - well, as you now that it's a Nazi building designed by Ernst Sagebiel.. yes - of course...

But what about the China GP Circuit?:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Is that more or less facist? It's gigantic and want's to impress people...

Or the Pentagon?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Is it that much more human or democratic that the NS Aviation Ministry?

Really Adolf Hitler was what we know he was. His paintings weren't bad but not good, so what? Any mass murderer can paint, without anyone noticing he's a mass murderer or worse. People how claim they can see that Adolf Hilter became what he was, due to his paintings, are probably trying to sell a book and want to make some cash!

PS: Give me an Adolf Hitler painting, and I can tell you (now/afterwards) that that painting was done by a sociopath and mass-murder-planner. Wow!! - Hey, I'm good!

Just because he was evil doesn't mean he wasn't talented.

Originally Posted by EireEmerald

Just because he was evil doesn't mean he wasn't talented.

I prefer Charlie Manson's folk music. Apparently Neil Young liked it before the murders


Creeepy.

Naah, he wasn't THAT gifted. Too bad he didn't took up art for real, though.
Lots of lives might not have been lost.

I'd damn well squash Adolfs heart if I could, and that of quite a few other facists (the impossibility of timetravel aside).

But his paintings, being simply medicore to quite-good-looking works, I'd spare... so we can see, that they are nothing special.

They're very mechanical pictures. He knew how to paint and draw, he had technical ability, but he never learned why he should paint or draw.
He completely lacked originality, the works we know he did (he did thousands by the way) were all copies of water-colour and print masters from southern germany. His aesthetic passion was in architecture, he was a reactionary (just the same as what we have today) those who claim all modernist art is degenrate.

Originally Posted by Himster

those who claim all modernist art is degenrate.

Sorry.... "claim"?????

Originally Posted by jsktrogdor

Sorry.... "claim"?????

Interestingly enough, that white canvas revealed a smudge on my monitor that I had not noticed before. It looks like a fingerprint. I don't know exactly how it got there. Made me curious though, not sure if that was the intention, but does it matter? It certainly had an effect on me, even if it was by chance. In the gallery, there is dust that will settle on the canvas. Someone might touch the piece, by intention or by mistake, and leave their mark. Because it is displayed as art, your mind won't filter out all the small details like it usually does, and you'll discover something new.

I've also been rejected by those aloof art school degenerates. I'm also German

I'm watching you.

Originally Posted by Enemy of the State

Interestingly enough, that white canvas revealed a smudge on my monitor that I had not noticed before. It looks like a fingerprint. I don't know exactly how it got there. Made me curious though, not sure if that was the intention, but does it matter? It certainly had an effect on me, even if it was by chance. In the gallery, there is dust that will settle on the canvas. Someone might touch the piece, by intention or by mistake, and leave their mark. Because it is displayed as art, your mind won't filter out all the small details like it usually does, and you'll discover something new.

My problem with this is that you're making a very good point, but in that, you're doing the job for the "artist". I don't mean that art should be obvious for the beholder, but some sort of meaning or clue is always nice, tbh.

All his paintings are empty, was that how he envisioned the world? free of people?

I can see it now...