Hitler and Art
- Thread starter Ukas
- Start date
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Perhaps he looked too much on one, erm two points... 
Adler
Adler
Rambuchan
The Funky President
Nice to see you waxing lyrical again Adler
Going a bit OT with some art education history....
Insane_Panda is quite right about the rigid, observation based nature of art schooling for much of Europe's history. This was the case right up to the 1910s and 20s. It took folk like Marcel Duchamp (with his ready mades and early cubism) and Ferdinand Léger (introducing constructivism and also cubism) to smash the stuffy stranglehold that the 'tradition of discipline' held over art students. These two men are of course accompanied by many others. But they had the effect of rendering impotent the insane focus that art education had on discipline and the mastery of technicalities, a focus which often ignored the conceptual approach used to employ the mastered skills.
It is worth noting two large social mechanisms that assisted Léger and Duchamp to move away from strict observation, if not observation altogether. Those were:
a) the increasing glorification of industry in the form of modernist / constructivist art movements. These often came hand in hand with similar political ideologies such as were present and continued in Russia throughout the 20th century.
b) increasing influence from foreign art forms, such as African art, which heavily impacted cubist work as Picasso's paintings (and notes) provide abundant evidence toward.
The cubist observation, perception and rendering which Léger introduced saw him bringing altogether new ways of looking and representing. This included using the aforementioned industrial forms but with organic matter, such as human beings, with the obvious implications (see examples). It was still observation, but thrown on its head completely quite often and it was quite removed from the 'new ways of observing' that Monet brought to the European art world a couple of decades previously. And it was certainly far removed from the traditional, classical, realist schools of art.
Fernand Léger: "le Mécanicien" (1918)
"Les constructeurs" (1950) oil on canvas.
Here is some African art influence thrown into the melting pot of Leger's mind. "La Creation du Monde" (stage set and costumes) 1923
Marcel Duchamp on the other hand was less interested in assisting any state interests afaik. He was more of a mocker and a provocateur, who helped to bring down elitist barriers in the art world with some bold and quite humourous strikes. His ready made Urinal (simply signed 'R. Mutt' by him and put on the gallery wall) and Bicycle Wheel (fixed into the seat of a chair, thereby rendering both useless) both shook the art world and conceptual art suddenly became available to artists.
Duchamp, "Fountain" 1917.
This isn't the original, for that has been lost.
Here's the "Bicycle Wheel" 1913.
Finally, it's Goodnight from me and it's good night from him
Going a bit OT with some art education history....
Insane_Panda is quite right about the rigid, observation based nature of art schooling for much of Europe's history. This was the case right up to the 1910s and 20s. It took folk like Marcel Duchamp (with his ready mades and early cubism) and Ferdinand Léger (introducing constructivism and also cubism) to smash the stuffy stranglehold that the 'tradition of discipline' held over art students. These two men are of course accompanied by many others. But they had the effect of rendering impotent the insane focus that art education had on discipline and the mastery of technicalities, a focus which often ignored the conceptual approach used to employ the mastered skills.
It is worth noting two large social mechanisms that assisted Léger and Duchamp to move away from strict observation, if not observation altogether. Those were:
a) the increasing glorification of industry in the form of modernist / constructivist art movements. These often came hand in hand with similar political ideologies such as were present and continued in Russia throughout the 20th century.
b) increasing influence from foreign art forms, such as African art, which heavily impacted cubist work as Picasso's paintings (and notes) provide abundant evidence toward.
The cubist observation, perception and rendering which Léger introduced saw him bringing altogether new ways of looking and representing. This included using the aforementioned industrial forms but with organic matter, such as human beings, with the obvious implications (see examples). It was still observation, but thrown on its head completely quite often and it was quite removed from the 'new ways of observing' that Monet brought to the European art world a couple of decades previously. And it was certainly far removed from the traditional, classical, realist schools of art.
Fernand Léger: "le Mécanicien" (1918)
"Les constructeurs" (1950) oil on canvas.
Here is some African art influence thrown into the melting pot of Leger's mind. "La Creation du Monde" (stage set and costumes) 1923
Marcel Duchamp on the other hand was less interested in assisting any state interests afaik. He was more of a mocker and a provocateur, who helped to bring down elitist barriers in the art world with some bold and quite humourous strikes. His ready made Urinal (simply signed 'R. Mutt' by him and put on the gallery wall) and Bicycle Wheel (fixed into the seat of a chair, thereby rendering both useless) both shook the art world and conceptual art suddenly became available to artists.
Duchamp, "Fountain" 1917.
This isn't the original, for that has been lost.
Here's the "Bicycle Wheel" 1913.
Finally, it's Goodnight from me and it's good night from him
Rambuchan
The Funky President
By the way, the point of that post was:
a) People were already depicting humans in many different ways by the time Hitler got rejected for being crap at drawing humans.
b) The Austrian School was clearly still a stuffy load of old arse.
c) There are many (much better) ways of conveying ideas, emotions and information that just strict observation drawing.
a) People were already depicting humans in many different ways by the time Hitler got rejected for being crap at drawing humans.
b) The Austrian School was clearly still a stuffy load of old arse.
c) There are many (much better) ways of conveying ideas, emotions and information that just strict observation drawing.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
OT: I personally have problems in recognizing such an urinal as art. IMO these people making that, like Beuyss, well, have some problems or want to see in how far there are stupid to pay for that. But that leads to a discussion of the definition of art. And I did not find any which is hitting the point. Even the German juristical definitions (yes, there are at least five...) are missing the point as some can define everything as art.
IMO the work of Hitler is art, while such an Urinal or the famous "Fettecke" is not. However this is my opinion.
OT End.
Adler
IMO the work of Hitler is art, while such an Urinal or the famous "Fettecke" is not. However this is my opinion.
OT End.
Adler
Rambuchan
The Funky President
Fair enough Adler, point c) in my post above yours indicates why I think otherwise. 
Ukas
Pthooey of Tomainia
Tank_Guy#3 said:
This is the obvious, but we don't have much info how the test in the art school went, mostly just Hitler's version in Mein Kampf, few records and letters and such. There are few possibilities why he wasn't successful in Vienna Art Academy.
1. Hitler's behaviour was arrogant and strange when he was young. There's no telling what kind of outbursts he may have had there or how oddly he behaved. One way to ruin your chances would be to repeat, how gifted you are and how you will be a great artist. In many art schools only working is relevant, but in some teachers will look for people, who will get along with others. It's always wise to tone down your character, but we don't know if Hitler really did this.
2. We have not seen his works he did in the test. Hitler brought some his architectural works with him, as the applicants were supposed to bring their own works. These were undoubtedly good. But if he didn't manage in other areas at all, the professors may just fail him and advice to study architecture.
3. Most applicants who get in an art school, have failed at least once. Often the students which will make the school proud, have failed many times. Many reasons, including pressure, tension and just a bad hair day. Hitler tried twice, but we know almost nothing about latter.
4. As said it's very possible, that those 28 of 113 applicants who got in were just better than Hitler. Hitler belonged to the majority of 85 who were rejected.
These in addition to all valid points made by Rambuchan.
Rambuchan said:
I believe also that Vienna Academy was "a stuffy load of old arse".
Though I think Hitler, "a devoted naturalist" would have been rejected even if the school had been on of those cutting edge avant-gardist schools.
Rambuchan
The Funky President
Aye, he'd have been rejected either way you look at it, for all the reasons we've harvested between us all.
Conclusion:
Europe would have been doomed either way too and you can well go away believing in predestination after all this.
Conclusion:
Europe would have been doomed either way too and you can well go away believing in predestination after all this.
Tank_Guy#3
Lion of Lehistan
Europe would have been doomed if Hitler the artist wielded his terrible paint brush and splashed paint on their trousers?
I think that the man had artistic talent. Definitely moreso than I.
I think that the man had artistic talent. Definitely moreso than I.
Ukas
Pthooey of Tomainia
Insane_Panda said:
That's true. These two portray young Geli Raubal, Hitler's niece and most likely the love of his life who committed suicide in 1931. There is some doubt, however if there are actual Hitler nude drawings left (it may be that only place he did nudes was the admission test in Vienna Art Academy) and that if he did draw nudes of Geli in the first place - so it could be that these are not real Hitlers.
http://www.hitler.org/art/nudes/nude3.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/nudes/nude4.jpg
Here's a photo of Geli:
And another one:
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Ramb, what I meant is, that I prefer "normal" art. So until the early Picasso or van Gogh. The cubism is interesting but not more. But that and other things are still art.
However IMO there is no sense or expression of feelings if you have a closet with a stick in it, or the famous "Fettecke". I can´t see there any expression of the artist. Just rubbish. I don´t see that as art. However this is my personal point of view. If someone likes it, okay. But not me.
Adler
However IMO there is no sense or expression of feelings if you have a closet with a stick in it, or the famous "Fettecke". I can´t see there any expression of the artist. Just rubbish. I don´t see that as art. However this is my personal point of view. If someone likes it, okay. But not me.
Adler
Ukas
Pthooey of Tomainia
Duchamp's work, like introducing everyday object like a latrine as an art object started sort of intertextual discussion about what is art and what is not and what different purposes art has. It has no eye-pleasing value but instead offers many statements and questions. Most often quoted is "is an object immediately art when it is introduced as an art object by an artist". One could also be, that does Hitler's painting contain anything more or is it just an object to pin on the wall.
Duchamp is more important to artists and theorists than to large audience. It's like an author writes a very deep and detailed book about writing to other writers and such. Everyone can read it, most of us will not understand or like it and it still has great value to the people in the profession.
Duchamp is more important to artists and theorists than to large audience. It's like an author writes a very deep and detailed book about writing to other writers and such. Everyone can read it, most of us will not understand or like it and it still has great value to the people in the profession.
jonatas
tropicalista
Rambuchan,
Nice post on Cubism. It deserves its own thread. Too bad you don't have anything from the Braques/Picasso phase though, that's my favourite.
Nice post on Cubism. It deserves its own thread. Too bad you don't have anything from the Braques/Picasso phase though, that's my favourite.
Interesting nudes, although (a) not very good at all, especially compared to the paintings on the first page, and (b) I find it hard to believe that Hitler was sitting around producing nude sketches as late as 1929. Wasn't he busy with other things by that point?
By the way, I'm not entirely sure about the site featuring those pictures - www.hitler.org - despite its claims to utter objectivity on the front page, I notice that all the materials it provides seem to be to Hitler's credit, it praises (for example) his engineering plans, harps on about how he was right to oppose modern art, and says of Mein Kampf only that it is "exceeded in popularity by only the Bible"!
By the way, I'm not entirely sure about the site featuring those pictures - www.hitler.org - despite its claims to utter objectivity on the front page, I notice that all the materials it provides seem to be to Hitler's credit, it praises (for example) his engineering plans, harps on about how he was right to oppose modern art, and says of Mein Kampf only that it is "exceeded in popularity by only the Bible"!
What i personally find interesting about Hitler is that he seems to have created a fascination in the west far more than other political figures. Perhaps in Russia the fascination with stalin exceeds it, however there the actual collective result of the old people's recollections, the stalinistic regime, the communist legacy, along with the ability of a russian to consider his country to be something of an antagnost and not that much an actual part of, Europe, would be accounting for the probable overshadowing of Hitler by Stalin.
If Hitler had just become an artist, there could be individual fascinations about him, as with every other artist, for various reasons. But the type of an artist who is combined with political power is rare. Infact it probably is even more rare than the ideal of the philosopher-politician (or philosopher-king). Now that i think of it, the only other artist-king that i can remember, is Nero
Then again most artists are introverted, although i am not claiming that one has to be introverted to be an artist.
If Hitler had just become an artist, there could be individual fascinations about him, as with every other artist, for various reasons. But the type of an artist who is combined with political power is rare. Infact it probably is even more rare than the ideal of the philosopher-politician (or philosopher-king). Now that i think of it, the only other artist-king that i can remember, is Nero
Then again most artists are introverted, although i am not claiming that one has to be introverted to be an artist.
Ukas
Pthooey of Tomainia
In those days there were many "talented" ones doing something else. Leaders like Winston Churchill and Francisco Franco were amateur painters, Goebbels wanted to be a poet and writer before joining the Nazi party, I think he even published something before that.
Plotinus:
Yes, I know - hitler.org isn't my favorite place in the net.
I'm not sure how to determine the authenticity of the drawings, but those "Geli" drawings have been exhibited also in some galleries and displays as works of Hitler.
Hitler had time in 1929 though, as he spent a lot of his free time with Geli and sometimes rested in Obersalzberg too.
Plotinus:
Yes, I know - hitler.org isn't my favorite place in the net.
I'm not sure how to determine the authenticity of the drawings, but those "Geli" drawings have been exhibited also in some galleries and displays as works of Hitler.
Hitler had time in 1929 though, as he spent a lot of his free time with Geli and sometimes rested in Obersalzberg too.
Rambuchan
The Funky President
This is a bump, so apologies there, but it's a news update on some Hitler Art.
Poor old Aaron Barschak. He had a minute of fame when he gatecrashed Prince William's birthday party, and has clearly been unable to think of anything else to do since. He's always described as a "comedian", but as far as I can tell he's about as funny as ebola.
Anyway, the art sale is interesting. Clearly there are quite a few Hitlers knocking around...
Anyway, the art sale is interesting. Clearly there are quite a few Hitlers knocking around...
Rambuchan
The Funky President
Barschak may not have been prominent of late but that doesn't mean he isn't funny or insightful. I think the offering of "six million because the painting was a Mussolini" is both. Seems no one else was interested in pointing out the unease in this auction. I'm glad Barschak did.
As for ebola:
(just kidding)
As for ebola:
(just kidding)
Similar threads
