Hitler and Art

Ukas

Pthooey of Tomainia
Joined
Mar 31, 2002
Messages
1,439
Location
Oulu, Finland
Decided to translate part of my study about the National Socialist art. This is the part about Hitler, somewhat shortened.


As the leader of the German Reich, Adolf Hitler took high control on many fields. So was the case in art. Although theoreticians, artists, curators and art dealers led by such central figures as Joseph Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg, had an continuous discussion about art, Hitler was the authority, who ultimately decided what is art and what is not. And he felt himself entitled for the job; after all he was an artist too.

As a young boy, Hitler loved to spend his time drawing pictures of characters in historical paintings and also of houses and buildings in the small towns he lived in. He had a remarkable skill; he could look at a building for a minute and then later on draw a detailed sketch of it. As he was noticed by this, he started to dream about a career as a painter. However his old-fashioned and strict father Alois denies this and sends him to technical high school in Linz, Austria. At the age of 13, his father suffers a fatal lung haemorrhage. At the funeral young Adolf cries heart-breakingly, but simultaneously he is quite happy and enthusiastic about his newfound freedom. Two years later, just before graduation, he quits his school and starts a more cultural life in Linz. He wanders about the streets of Linz and is happy to visit galleries, museums and art exhibitions. Opera too becomes one of his passions. In there, he especially likes the pro-German works of Richard Wagner.

The year is 1907. At the tender age of 18, Hitler decides boldly to actualize his dreams and apply to the respected Academy of Arts in Vienna. After two days of admission tests Hitler was optimistic and confident, but was seriously disappointed. Of 113 applicants Hitler belonged to those 85, who weren’t let in. His drawings were judged unsatisfactory, especially model drawing was his weak point. Nevertheless the professors encouraged him to apply to architectural department of the academy, but this was out of his reach. Hitler would have needed the leaving certificate from his old school to apply!

“It was like a shocking bolt of lightning would have blinded me…” – Hitler describes his feelings in Mein Kampf.


Although he failed at the exam he is fascinated by Vienna and decides to stay there.
He becomes friends with August Kubizek, who wishes to study to be a composer. However August has similar problems with his parents that Hitler did. Hitler persuades Kubizek’s parents to let their son to go to Vienna, and one argument he uses is that August would be living with a bona fide art student. Hitler and Kubizek move together to share a small and cheap apartment. Kubizek told afterwards, that Hitler was very careful to spend money, but bought only the best colours, paint brushes, paper and canvases. In 1908, Hitler applies to art academy for the second time, with no success. His friend Kubizek has a successful first year in his music academy, and perhaps out of jealousy, or courtesy, unlucky Hitler disappears from Kubizek’s life.

In those days the life was hard in Europe and after loosing his dream of a career as artist and also his loving mother Klara, Hitler lives the life of a vagabond in Vienna. He sleeps on park benches and eats in charity soup kitchens. Winter is a cold one and as a penniless pauper, he has no choice but to live in homeless dormitories and cramped shelters of the poor. During his poor years in Vienna he manages to make few Marks by painting hundreds of watercolours and some oil paintings, which are sold by Reinhardt Hanisch, another unemployed. With the help of Hanisch, Hitler gets also few orders. One time Hitler is startled, as he sees one of his still lives as frame filler in a photographer’s shop. Hanisch explained that it’s sometimes really hard to find customers and got Hitler to paint also posters for shops and boutiques. With the pay he had from a single work, he could eat couple of times or spend a night in some cheap room. He was as Bohemian as one can be.


1913 Hitler fulfils one of his dreams; he moves to Germany and by doing so dodges the mandatory service in the Austrian military. In Munich he lives in Schwabing district, where also modernists like Wassily Kandinsky and Paul Klee resided at the time. It is highly probable, that Hitler never met these masters – as Hitler was increasingly interested in politics. Some artists who lived in Munich claimed that sometimes in Cafes this odd young man, who claimed to be an artist or an art student, turned a friendly discussion of art to a heated political debate in only a single minute. When the Great War starts in 1914, Hitler like many others greets it happily and feels adventurous.

In the front, during the breaks, Hitler paints and sketches buildings and sceneries he saws – which are often mauled by artillery. As his comrades have witnessed, again he is known about enthusiastic preaching, when the talk moves to politics. After the war Hitler had less and less time for his art, as he was driven more deeper to the world of politics. After he joined the Nazi party, he used his talents to design party insignia, such as the famous Nazi swastika, the flag, banners, bands, book covers, posters etc.


As a hobby Hitler had something going on all the time. Especially architecture began to interest him. He sketched and designed furniture, houses, city districts and even cities. When he became the leader, he had a chance to make his ideas come true. He drew sketches of buildings, which then were built by favoured architects, such as Paul Ludwig Troost and later Albert Speer. These houses were decorated with a plate which had the following text on them: “Arkhitektur des Führer”, architecture of the leader. Hitler designed different things, such as furniture for his Berchtesgaden residence and eating utensils for Reich Chancellery.

Lowest estimate of Hitler’s paintings, watercolours and sketches total number is 300. This number is doubtful, as is the highest estimate, 7000. Hitler himself estimated to have made approx. 1000 pieces. Before the beginning of the WWII, Hitler tried to trace down his works from Vienna and Munich period, for three reasons: First, he wanted to find out if the works had any Jewish influence. However, there are no evidence, that he would have destroyed any of his works. Secondly, one of his dreams was to transform his old hometown Linz to Europes (or Neuropas) art capitol, and in Linz there would be a Führer-museum, and in the museum there would be a wing for his own creations. Third, Hitler realized that the high prices which were paid for his works had little to do with their artistic value. He sometimes felt a bit ashamed, and defended that his works were amateuristic scribbles, made to pay the rent.


His works were bought, but the compensation was very good. Officials paid 5,000-6,000 Marks for the owners, when workers average monthly pay was approx. 300 Marks. When works by “degenerate artists “ were purchased compulsorily, the compensation was about 50-150 Marks. These days owner of a Hitler could get 5,000-10,000 Euros, if they are smaller watercolours and 50,000 or more if larger oil paintings. Authenticity can be hard to determine, because copies and replicas were already made back in the 1930’s.

In his paintings Hitler was best when he reproduced architectural subjects. His sense of perspective was meticulous and he loved details at the expense of everything else. Humans were portrayed awkwardly, carelessly actualized and often out of proportion. Same with plants, bushes and trees which usually worked as set for the main theme, the building. In addition his colours were tame and reserved. Especially in landscapes his manner to paint the skies was copied from 19th century Viennese painter, Rudolf von Alt, whom he sometimes liked to refer as his “tutor”. The sky was often cloudy and atmospheric, although Hitler never came close to his idols use of colour and expression. In addition of buildings and landscapes he painted numerous still lifes.


As it is with all national socialist art Hitler’s art too is rarely seen in the art museums. Few years ago Gerald Ford-museum had one of his paintings in an exhibition, but it was removed after international opposition was expressed. Even though Hitler’s art was never propagandistic, it often possesses iconographic, non-artistic value, especially among numerous hate-movements, extreme right-parties and fundamental Christians. Hitler’s paintings can be bought, some of them are even sold in the internet. Today, Hitler’s art is a popular collector’s theme, especially among wealthy extreme right-wingers with Hermann Goering’s medals and Joseph Goebbels’ original writings.

It has been estimated, that if Hitler would have had a chance to study art, he could have had a decent career as a painter, or even a notable career as an architect – and even better; the world would have been saved from many evils. Also it’s very possible, that if he got a chance to study art, he would still have caused even more harm. The time was not Hitler’s child, Hitler was a child of his time.



building3.jpg


This one is rather well handled, but the general feeling you get is pale and somewhat out of proportions. Human figure on the left is ok, but others he should have left out.



building4.jpg


Building is quite good, again, then people close to front are very clumsy looking, out of place, proportion and sometimes out of focus.



building5.jpg


This one is one of the best I've seen from him. The house is extremely well painted and people don't bother this time.



landscape7.jpg


A nice one, so pale it look Japanese though.



landscape6.jpg


Well done again. A fluent work with not much complaints.



landscape8.jpg


A well done watercolour, bit impressionistic, but oh-oh, might be a little impure Jewish influence there!



woman3.jpg


Drawing of human subjects is Hitler's problem. Here he has made a decent portrait, with few clear problems, then added some effects (like one-tone gray skin) to avoid seeing mistakes. This level is what you usually get in 1st year of art school, if there are no students with skills to draw.
 
I've always thought Hitler was a better artist than he's usually given credit for. Of course, people want to assume that he must have been a bad artist because he was a bad person, but it hardly follows. I think the pictures you have here show that in fact he was quite skilled - with the usual caveat that he couldn't do people, these seem really rather good.

All that time hanging around art museums in Vienna gave Hitler a good level of knowledge of the subject, too. Although he apparently gave up painting some time in the 1920s, Hitler did remain something of an art expert throughout his life. There's a story of Himmler (I think) buying some paintings which Hitler recognised immediately were forgeries, although he didn't say anything at the time to avoid hurting Himmler's feelings!
 
I had heard that he was good with architectual buildings, but I didn't imagine it was that good. Too bad he couldn't have remained an artist his whole life.

Are you going to include anything about his architectual plans for Berlin?
 
Well this is the first time I saw really works from him. I am in no way competent enough as art criticizer. However I think he had a talent and with the real education Hitler could now be famous as painter, perhaps not like Kandinsky or Klee, but a certain fame. Also he would not have seen the poverty he had to see in Vienna where he was confronted with anit semitism. So it is more likely that after becoming a painter he would not have spent so much time for his political career later.
Comparing his drawings of buildings and his of models I think it was a bit unfair not to take him. He had talent. And with the (very needed) education he could have also made good model paintings, however in no way as good as his panoramas or building paintings.
IMO much harm would never have happened if Hitler was accepted. Also the works of Hitler are underrated, but nevertheless they are missing the last step he would have got in the academy.

Adler
 
Have seen the architectural drawings before in another forum (a Chinese architectural one) but not the other works. Thank you.

Interesting how the fates work. "Adolf Hitler the painter" or "Adolf Hitler the architect". Hmm... Oh well, maybe in an alternate universe....
 
Cool paintings, i like them :goodjob: - i don't blame him for not drawing ppl very well (People suck:p).
I like paintings of buildings and landscapes.

Yes, his works were under-rated because if someone at that time (shortly after WW2) would say they are good, then everyone would give him THE LOOK:). Before they arrested/tortured/killed him (like the americans do to potential terrorists nowadays).
 
cyrusIII85 said:
What compelled you to study about this subject?

As long as I know I wanted to become an artist. I've also had this fascination to Hitler since I was a kid. Few years ago, when I was in art school, I wondered why all the books about art history had long stories about Social Realism but only few lines about National Socialist Art. So, I naturally wanted to find out more about it. I knew that at some point I have to write a long paper and hold a lecture about something, I chose this as my subject. This was a merry marriage and it became a pet project also after graduation.

BTW, I too am a corporal and a painter with a keen interest in politics... :satan:


Plotinus said:
I've always thought Hitler was a better artist than he's usually given credit for. Of course, people want to assume that he must have been a bad artist because he was a bad person, but it hardly follows. I think the pictures you have here show that in fact he was quite skilled - with the usual caveat that he couldn't do people, these seem really rather good.

Years ago, I went to a bookstore with my mom and there was a book about his works. Now of course I regret painfully I didn't buy it. Anyway, I browsed it and was amazed about the quality of architectural painting. I showed some pics to my mom, and asked if she liked them. She said yes, they we're very nice. I told her they were Hitler's, and she just refused to believe me. Even though she saw what the book was about.
:lol:


GeorgeOP said:
Are you going to include anything about his architectual plans for Berlin?

I have a long chapter about the 3rd Reich architecture, which needs a lot of editing. Hitler's architectural works and ideas are included there. For some reason, there is much more info about architecture than art of the Third Reich.



Adler17 said:
Comparing his drawings of buildings and his of models I think it was a bit unfair not to take him. He had talent. And with the (very needed) education he could have also made good model paintings, however in no way as good as his panoramas or building paintings.
IMO much harm would never have happened if Hitler was accepted. Also the works of Hitler are underrated, but nevertheless they are missing the last step he would have got in the academy.

When I applied to an art school, I got rejected two times, then at third time I suddenly got the highest scores of 150 applicants. I trained months for the occasion and during the five days of entrance exam, I only slept for three hours a night, other times I worked. So there would be a lesson for Mr. Hitler right there. :lol:

Presumably young Hitler suffered of bad self-esteem, caused by his upraising. He was a bit lazy too - in his years in Vienna he never sought for a job. I imagine his personal, somewhat peculiar and awkward behaviour could also have worked against him. I can't really confirm this yet, but feeling I get is that Hitler was considered seriously at least by some of the professors - probably by those who would have been ready to walk an extra mile to help him.

You have to remember, that there were 112 other applicants. Back then, in the age of early modernism, skills at drawing were still greatly valued and you can safely assume, that the all-around level between applicants was much higher than today. Considering his skills and limits at the time, the professors probably judged correctly. All the works shown here were made most likely after he failed the second time. What really was unfortunate, that he couldn't even apply for architectural deparment of the academy as it was obvious where his talents were. But that again was his own fault.


Now, the reason Hitler's works are so lowly respected is of course mainly political, but one has to remember he really wasn't a good artist nor a very promising talent. The major problem didn't lie in his technical skills, but in his limitations to express himself as an artist. Most of his paintings you will see are somewhat eye-pleasing attempts to copy the subject at hand. There's nothing that would make you exclaim: "Now that's a Hitler!". Also Hitler had strong views against overcoming modernism. He was a strict realist, which is always ok when the idea is good - but Hitler's only idea of copying beauty was already outdated since the invention of photography, and was already turning to kitchy decorative art. These are the main reasons Hitler never had a chance to become a good artist.


If let in an art school, he could have quitted after a year or two, and became more disillusioned and vengeful. THis would have been as alarming, because his political ideas were already as strict as his views of art, even though he became friends with one or two Jews during his stay in Vienna.
 
Yes I have to be aware that there were 112 concurrents for the places. Also I think that Hitler´s work is not very good compared to many others, however world would be another if he was accepted. Because if he failed later and became even more insane, he would have found no background. A bit more craziness and no one would have followed him.
OTOH IMO Hitler´s work is art in contrast to things like Beuys´ Fat Corner...

Adler
 
Imagine how history would have been changed if Hitler had stayed with art, Fidel Castro had made the National League and Charles Manson had made the Monkees.
 
Very interesting. :goodjob:

I'm not an art critic either but I agree with your comments that the buildings look good but the people are slightly off-scale.

Odd how people can't separate a work of art from the person who painted it. :confused:

Congratulations and thanks for an excellent post.
 
Ukas said:
building4.jpg


Building is quite good, again, then people close to front are very clumsy looking, out of place, proportion and sometimes out of focus.

I also seen this painting,and come to the conclusion that this was his viewpoint on the German masses.Out of place,clumsy and sometimes out of focus.:scan:
 
Back
Top Bottom