May 4, 2012
The quaint, amateurish art of Adolph Hitler
From Frederic Spotts’ book Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics…
He had a modicum of talent—at least in sketching buildings—but what technique he learned he picked up on his own. Like most amateurs, he began by painting simple landscapes. With neither innate originality nor professional training, he went on to imitate the watercolors and prints of the south German school and the postcard scenes—everyday urban views—that were popular at the time….
[H]e had to paint the sort of thing that an unknown and untalented amateur might be able to sell, and that was inexpensive reproductions of familiar places.
(via Bytwerk, Snyder’s, Will Zone)
* * * * *
I thought about clicking like on the Facebook button up top.
Not bad art from a bad man.
Nothing wrong with those, I’d be proud to be able to paint like that. Funny how prejudice people can be!
Its funny how one of the worst men in history could paint such pretty scenes! I wonder what the world wouldve been like if hitler had been accepted into art school?
Q. what did john lennon and adolf hitler have in common?
A. they both went to liverpool school of art.
I was wondering why nobody would comment about the happy, little trees…
Humans are so complex…how can he see beauty and pay close attention and also be furious enough to try to exterminate people he didn’t like. The Nazi did save (steal) a lot of art. Maybe it was easier to swallow his craziness when he had ‘sane’ things about him. He loved art, music, Germany BUT…
Hitler painted some beautiful pictures. One thing led to another and he was soon in the process of conquering the world and trying to exterminate the Jews.
It’s funny. None of Hitler’s teachers would have looked at these and called his parents, saying, “We need to talk. I’m very concerned about your son.” Perhaps teachers today should be more concerned about the kids who don’t draw violent pictures.
As a teacher, I find this disrespectful. Maybe parents need to be more concerned about their children and stop placing society’s blame on teachers.
Huh?
pretty sure they weren’t blaming teachers. they were pointing out the irony in teachers complaining to parents about children drawing violent pictures, when Hitler, the most evil man in the world, drew pretty flowers and buildings.
As another teacher, I find your lack of humor scary.
When my boyfriend was in kindergarten, his teacher called his parents to a special conference to discuss his artwork, which was all done in black crayon. She thought he was depressed. My boyfriend’s mom looked at the drawings, which were normal drawings of houses and animals and people and stuff, just in black. She called in my boyfriend and asked, “Why did you just use black crayon and not any other colors to make these drawings?” And he said, “All the other crayons in the box were broken, Mommy.”
Obviously we need to stop funding the arts. (Has anyone created that sarcastic font yet?)
I think Eddie Izzard said it best: “Damn, I can’t get ze trees. I’m going to take over ze vorld!”
Jokes aside, the trees in the courtyard scene with the flautist are quite lovely. As someone has already remarked, it’s strange to think of loveliness and Hitler in the same context! I wouldn’t have gone so far as to say “untalented amateur”, even an accurate representation of still life takes some degree of skill. Or have I just defined the difference between talent and skill?
I like how he misspelled his own name in one of them in the signature.
As for the art, I wish I was that good. I have no artistic talent whatsoever.
he didn’t misspell it lol, he tried getting fancy with the “l”
Ah yes, the dual nature of the Emo kid.
Yes, some of the scenes are nice. I do notice something I’ve heard commented on before–the avoidance of people. Streets and salons are deserted. There are a few small, stick-ey figures, but their faces turn away from the viewer.
Or maybe he just needed formal training to do faces…who can say.
with the time it would have taken to paint the scene, more than likely many people would have come and gone, so he probably left them out because they weren’t just standing there like a model for him to draw into the scene. on the other hand he might have chosen ‘deserted’ locations because of that exact reason.
Good parents dont let their kids do Art, we all know how this Hitler guy turned out.
I love this… It proves that everyone has a kind side that can see the beauty of the world, even if they ended up doing something that made it a bit uglier.
@Angie, I agree, everyone does have a softer side, or at least a more human one, I doubt even Hitler was beyond all feeling. But I wouldn’t say there’s anything particularly kind about drawing. It happens to be one of my passions, but the observation of the world, or even other people don’t sadly necessarily make someone a kinder, nicer person. Observation can be like a Rorschach test in that how each of us interprets the world around us and the human condition can be very different. You can observe without ever really choosing to see, if you prefer.
I also have to disagree with the description of his abilities. It takes more than a ‘modicum’ of talent or skill to come up with something like even the most cliche, servicable paintings. He’s no genius of the art world, nor would I say his skills were exceptional, but they appear perfectly serviceable. It reminds me of the way people assume ‘amateur’ means ‘has little talent or skill’ as opposed to someone who does something for enjoyment and doesn’t make a living off it (which may be due to many things not necessarily lack of finesse).
What we see as genius depends a lot on the context. Plenty of artists we admire (I include in this group many of my faviourites too) never demonstrated much more technical ability than Hitler here – yet their execution, originality or simply being in the right place at the right time for their movement made them unique. Hitler clearly made a calculated move on the subjects he chose, and perhaps had little vision of where else to take his art, but then again, surely the point of art isn’t necessarily to attain a pinnacle but to express oneself?
I dislike everything the man stood for over the course of most of his life, and the legacy he left to the world, but that doesn’t mean I’ll dismiss his works as being almost talentless.
You might say he was an artist with the vision. He painted these buildings and famous landmarks, and in his artistic imagination saw them turning into rubble, building after building, city after city…very talented artist, indeed…
He did better than I ever could.
Just imagine how the course of history might have changed if the art school hadn’t rejected his work so harshly.
I wouldn’t say they “harshly” rejected him. Their admissions people told him they thought he was better suited for architecture school, because he was so good at buildings. But he didn’t have the necessary qualifications for architecture school.