Hitler and Art

[Rambuchan]

Firtsly, well done on a great article Ukas!

It gives us detailed personal insights into Hitler's early life and some glimpses of his psychology, aside from the art of course. The whole thing reads most pleasantly and I'm grateful for you posting it up. Thanks.

Hitler's early artistic / bohemian life is something that I also looked into in past studies. I never made the keen observation that you have done here regarding his handling of people. There is a reason I didn't and that is because I mostly disagree or think it inconsequential to his character profile as an artist and later as a man who would disregard the worth of people so easily.

I agree that the last portrait in the OP is very awkward and that 'something' may be gleened of his perception of people from this (I'd say he just had a portraiture weakness). However, the other people in the more architectural paintings do not seem that out of place if we consider the wider field of architectural paintings.

If one considers the great painters of buildings in Europe through its art history, you'd be able to pull out a big hatful of names that may be accused of what Hitler is here. These painters had their mind's focus on the buildings and the people are typically placed as balancing, and life bringing elements to the piece. I don't think Hitler compares that badly to many of these painters. Conversely, one could accuse Monet of neglecting the finer points of architectural perspective when he painted say the Houses of Parliament on a foggy day in London. But he'd tell you 'well I was painting the light of that foggy day, and the Houses of Parliament were merely incidental to that'. I'm pretty sure Hitler would say a similar thing about the people in his paintings. That said, the last portrait is pretty shocking. Poor lady!

Now, one thing that should be mentioned here, which hasn't so far, is that many have attributed Hitler's hatred of Jews from this period of his life (leaving aside their later scape goat value to him). Vienna's galleries and their patronage circles were heavily populated by a wealthy Jewish community made up of bankers, industrialists and other bigwigs. From my recollection, many historians have noted Hitler's sorry financial state in this period and compared his homelessness to the opulence of this Jewish community. It was at this impressionable and seemingly vulnerable age of his life, many claim, that Hitler developed an envy, distrust and disliking of Jews. It certainly makes sense.

 

[CartesianFart]

Now, one thing that should be mentioned here, which hasn't so far, is that many have attributed Hitler's hatred of Jews from this period of his life (leaving aside their later scape goat value to him). Vienna's galleries and their patronage circles were heavily populated by a wealthy Jewish community made up of bankers, industrialists and other bigwigs. From my recollection, many historians have noted Hitler's sorry financial state in this period and compared his homelessness to the opulence of this Jewish community. It was at this impressionable and seemingly vulnerable age of his life, many claim, that Hitler developed an envy, distrust and disliking of Jews. It certainly makes sense.

It is still not a concrete evidence on the motive of Hitler's psychology.Since psychology is not a reliable science anyway.I say that using anti-semitism as a tool to give the German nation a bogeyman as the reason of all the pitfall of the sanctions of the "Treaty of Versailles."Of course i am being conjectural as well.

 

[Leonel]

Mess with art students, they may become the next Hitler.

 

[Ukas]

Hitler's early artistic / bohemian life is something that I also looked into in past studies. I never made the keen observation that you have done here regarding his handling of people. There is a reason I didn't and that is because I mostly disagree or think it inconsequential to his character profile as an artist and later as a man who would disregard the worth of people so easily.

Agree. It's tempting, but the concept is too wide to draw water-proof conclusions.

I agree that the last portrait in the OP is very awkward and that 'something' may be gleened of his perception of people from this (I'd say he just had a portraiture weakness)...... That said, the last portrait is pretty shocking. Poor lady!

One problem is that at the moment I don't have a very reliable source of Hitler's works. There are photos in books and in the internet, but often without confirmation of date or authenticy. I suspect the lady-drawing was made in Vienna before he applied, but can't be sure as it could have been done when he was 15 years old.

Human drawing was his main problem. I've seen couple of his nude drawings and they were bad in the sense, that any gifted 13-years old could do better. That is, if they can concentrate!

However, the other people in the more architectural paintings do not seem that out of place if we consider the wider field of architectural paintings.

If one considers the great painters of buildings in Europe through its art history, you'd be able to pull out a big hatful of names that may be accused of what Hitler is here. These painters had their mind's focus on the buildings and the people are typically placed as balancing, and life bringing elements to the piece. I don't think Hitler compares that badly to many of these painters. Conversely, one could accuse Monet of neglecting the finer points of architectural perspective when he painted say the Houses of Parliament on a foggy day in London. But he'd tell you 'well I was painting the light of that foggy day, and the Houses of Parliament were merely incidental to that'. I'm pretty sure Hitler would say a similar thing about the people in his paintings.

As a centre-figure of impressionism at it's height, Monet didn't paint the subject, but his impression of the subject. Impressionism was the first form of modernism, and was already far away from realism. In impressionism, the idea was to paint the momentary impression of the subject and through the artist, so the work had to be personal. It was like a creative, an intelligent way to take photos - not just copying what is obvious to the eye.

In realism, the idea was to copy the whole subject on the canvas and be truthful to it in every detail. There may be some focusing and balancing, and some personality - but not as a rule.

If we study paintings of Rudolf von Alt, Hitler's so called tutor we notice some similarities to Hitler. I will post couple pictures of Alt's paintings with comments in this post.

Now, one thing that should be mentioned here, which hasn't so far, is that many have attributed Hitler's hatred of Jews from this period of his life (leaving aside their later scape goat value to him). Vienna's galleries and their patronage circles were heavily populated by a wealthy Jewish community made up of bankers, industrialists and other bigwigs. From my recollection, many historians have noted Hitler's sorry financial state in this period and compared his homelessness to the opulence of this Jewish community. It was at this impressionable and seemingly vulnerable age of his life, many claim, that Hitler developed an envy, distrust and disliking of Jews. It certainly makes sense.

I didn't include it, because I generally follow the presumption, that Hitler, on the contrary to his dictation in Mein Kampf wasn't notably anti-semitic before 1919. Kubizek, relatives, etc. people who have been interviewed about Hitler's life in Vienna haven't really witnessed any dislike of Jews that you could trust on. His comerades in the trenches told that he was a loner, who sometimes took part in discussions and was often heatedly anti-Marxist and pro-German, but not anti-Semitic. I believe, that Hitler's version in Mein Kampf can't be trusted, as he tried to furthen his political message and more importantly his political image by writing it. Hitler became anti-Semitic after the war and was already opinionated when he joined the party - so I believe he was one to believe in the "back-stabbing theory" - the Jews and the Marxists were blamed for organizing the anti-War sentiment in the homefront thus causing Germany to loose the war.

As a footnote, one could also discuss, how Hitler was artisticly limited by his mental condition. Although often so presented, Hitler wasn't a psychopath, nor a sociopath, as these types do not have resources to do everything he did the way he did it, even though he would probably have scored highly in Hare's psychopathy checklist test. However, his violent raising caused the obvious psychological problems, which marked him for the rest of his life. Temper, instability, odd sexuality, self-centricity, incertitude etc.




But, now, two Rudolf Ritter von Alt paintings:

Generally, you can see that the quality is now much higher than Hitler's. Even with the buildings. Humans seem to belong, and there are absolutely nothing which will make you want to take a ruler and measure the perspective.

Here's a somewhat lighter approach, different to the usual strict realism because focus is on the street life, and buildings are dim and only there to form a background for the people.


Here you can see the difference between Hitler and a real artist. Latter has no visible difficulties in his working. One has to remember, that von Alt had the luxury of time and education in his use. Hitler had to paint quickly just to survive, and was primarily self-educated. But did he seriously have what it takes to be a successful artist in his own opinion? Given chance to study, perhaps. It wouldn't have been the first time when art lessons could have helped the troubled mind. Architect? Given chance to study, he may have had a great career there. It's truly a sad thing in this particular case, that the world will never know.


Have Fun,

Ukas

 

[Rambuchan]

Thanks for slaying my personal myth about his Bohemian days and rumoured anti-semitism back then. I feared it may have been speculation upon not a great deal. I also agree Mein Kampf can't be taken as gospel for the reasons you mention. And I won't go into an art history lecture like yourself but I think you've missed the point of what I was saying in your defining 'realism'. His was not a realist style. That's too broad a term. There are 'architectural', 'landscape' and other painting traditions, which fall under the umbrella term of 'realism'. Neither of these two styles mentioned require the painter to focus with any great concentration upon people in them.

Having fun,

Ram

 

[Ukas]

Thanks for slaying my personal myth about his Bohemian days and rumoured anti-semitism back then. I feared it may have been speculation upon not a great deal. I also agree Mein Kampf can't be taken as gospel for the reasons you mention. And I won't go into an art history lecture like yourself but I think you've missed the point of what I was saying in your defining 'realism'. His was not a realist style. That's too broad a term. There are 'architectural', 'landscape' and other painting traditions, which fall under the umbrella term of 'realism'. Neither of these two styles mentioned require the painter to focus with any great concentration upon people in them.

Having fun,

Ram

Didn't ment to slay your idea, only point out my opinion. We have so much info about young Hitler, but we can still only guess when he had his first anti-Semitic ideas. Perhaps from his father? Perhaps already in school in Linz? Even that when he first spoke out his thoughts is unclear, was it before or after joining the party? We can't even say for 100% sure, was he truly anti-Semitic or did he just use it to further his political goals. If all this would be clear to us, there wouldn't be need or place for further historical study.

In other words, you just may be right there.

The art lesson wasn't directed to you, as I could read that you have a profound knowledge of these matters, but to the possible audience. Hitler's realism - his idea about architectural painting was similar to von Alt's. I think this is how he would have liked to paint too.

While I agree with your definitions of landscape and architectural painting, I still point out that "rules" of 19th century realism were strict. The purpose was to make quality art, and the way how the whole picture is handled determined its level.

If you look at the first one of von Alt's paintings, you will see the whole area is painted well, with skillfull and rich use of colour. Von Alt has not focused in a particular area, it's more like he has casted certain areas to different roles (roof of the cathedral, it's tower, religious cavalcade in the "spotlight", spectators in shadow, etc. etc.) which then are weaved to this masterful entity, which actually is a rather commonplace story of a religious cavalcade leaving the cathedral.

If you look at the second painting, you will see a different deal. Focus is on the street life but still all buildings are well drawn and on their places looking like buildings. Similarly, if von Alt focused clearly on buildings, the people were sketches - but again well drawn.

I don't see Hitler's working as hopeless but promising. Perhaps he was shameful or insecure when studying human figures? I imagine it his mind and behaviour caused him troubles when he applied to Vianna academy.

 

[Rambuchan]

Didn't ment to slay your idea, only point out my opinion. We have so much info about young Hitler, but we can still only guess when he had his first anti-Semitic ideas. Perhaps from his father? Perhaps already in school in Linz? Even that when he first spoke out his thoughts is unclear, was it before or after joining the party? We can't even say for 100% sure, was he truly anti-Semitic or did he just use it to further his political goals. If all this would be clear to us, there wouldn't be need or place for further historical study.

In other words, you just may be right there.

Or as equally wrong as anyone else on the subject I guess.

I'll observe the paintings again when I have some quiet moments and come back with some further thoughts on them, their styles and what we may gleen fom that.

Also, the library in your sig is very Thanks for all the hard work and tutorials.

 

[Rambuchan]

Rudolf Ritter von Alt's paintings are certainly more accomplished than Hitler's. I see also that von Alt has handled his people with far more attention and detail. They certainly seem more alive that Hitler's people, which mill about these buildings. I'm still finding it hard to back the idea that this betrays a certain something of Hitler's dark psychological approach to people. It's murky water of course. Almost as murky as trying to find the root causes of his anti-Semitism (aside from political opportunity). I'm happy to back the idea that Adolf was just plain poor at painting people. That's for sure!

To further wade into these murky waters. What does Picasso's Cubist portraits tell us of his perception of other people? Some cases where the 'betrayal' argument applies: Lucien Freud is one of England's most prominent portrait painters atm and his subjects are shown in all their horribly real glory, with pock marked, yellow, sickish skin. Much is said of his realist approach to portraiture. Lucien's view of real life humans sits well with his sorrowful depiction of them on canvas. How about Gauguin? The argument applies well here. His handling of Tahitian women betrayed his weakness for their beauty. At the same time he was a wreck of an interpersonalist, being a reclusive, addicted to hashish and painkillers, perhaps why he only chose to paint these Tahitian 'babes' and himself, no other person.

So I think there is something to be said of the argument that the handling of people in paintings 'betrays' an inner working. That's fair enough and obvious enough. I'm just finding that I haven't seen enough of Hitler's painted people to come to such a conclusion about him. I feel he was poor at painting people and wasn't that interested in them as subject matter either. But then again, I haven't seen many 'Hitler Retrospective' exhibitions recently. The galleries just ain't doing them.

 

[The Capitalist]

What art institutes that denied Hitler application?Was it in Austria,probably in golden age of Vienna?

 

[Verbose]

Didn't ment to slay your idea, only point out my opinion. We have so much info about young Hitler, but we can still only guess when he had his first anti-Semitic ideas. Perhaps from his father? Perhaps already in school in Linz? Even that when he first spoke out his thoughts is unclear, was it before or after joining the party? We can't even say for 100% sure, was he truly anti-Semitic or did he just use it to further his political goals. If all this would be clear to us, there wouldn't be need or place for further historical study.

You're right of course, but I'll just add that growing up when and where he did he can hardly NOT have come into contact with antisemitic ideas very early on.

His youth was contemporary with the nationalistic, antisemitical Völkisch movement. Antisemitism was endemic. If you bought into it or not was optional of course, but a powerful lot of ink was expended on "the Jewish question" in Germany already in the 1890's and onwards.

And at least we now know Hitler read and appreciated the Aryan mystic Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels series of pamphlets entitled "Ostara: Bücherei der Blonde" during his Vienna days. That's not to say he appreciated the antisemitism, yet, but he sure couldn't miss it. And the verdict these days is that it was a powerful influence, but one Hitler himself never explicitly recognised.

 

[Ukas]

I agree with you. There was a well-oiled machinery to blackpaint the Jews, which had been working even before the days of Martin Luther, who wrote the pamphlet "Of Jews And Their Lies". This was spread in the whole world and practised by e.g. in the USA by Henry Ford Sr. and Ub Iwerks, famous cartoonist.

I believe in the general idea that Hitler was a product, a sum of different factors. Violent childhood, nationalism, racism, poverty and war made him what he was. Where ever these conditions apply, you can meet thousands of mini-Hitlers.

Imo, Hitler was raised to believe in the German greatness. Also, he had thousands of possibilities to learn about antisemitism before the war. When Germany lost the war many accused the Jews. So did Hitler, rather than loose his faith in Germany.

So, most likely anti-Semitism became a method of escapism to Hitler and in addition, a successful political agenda.

 

[Adler17]

Antisemitism was a point in the time after ww1. However it was still a minority. Indeed antisemitism was one point not to elect Hitler and so he calmed down until he had the real power, what did not happen before 1934. Also we have to remember that Hitler, shortly after the war was very on the left wing as he was member of the so called Soldatenräte. So if he was an antisemit he changed the sides dramatically by entering the DAP, which eventually became the NSDAP, or little later.
That means that Hitler´s anitsemitism is even more complex and I can not really say when, or perhaps if, it was his main motive. However I think at some point he accepted it and lead it to dramatical consequences.

Adler

 

[Plotinus]

To further wade into these murky waters. What does Picasso's Cubist portraits tell us of his perception of other people? Some cases where the 'betrayal' argument applies: Lucien Freud is one of England's most prominent portrait painters atm and his subjects are shown in all their horribly real glory, with pock marked, yellow, sickish skin. Much is said of his realist approach to portraiture. Lucien's view of real life humans sits well with his sorrowful depiction of them on canvas. How about Gauguin? The argument applies well here. His handling of Tahitian women betrayed his weakness for their beauty. At the same time he was a wreck of an interpersonalist, being a reclusive, addicted to hashish and painkillers, perhaps why he only chose to paint these Tahitian 'babes' and himself, no other person.

So I think there is something to be said of the argument that the handling of people in paintings 'betrays' an inner working. That's fair enough and obvious enough. I'm just finding that I haven't seen enough of Hitler's painted people to come to such a conclusion about him. I feel he was poor at painting people and wasn't that interested in them as subject matter either. But then again, I haven't seen many 'Hitler Retrospective' exhibitions recently. The galleries just ain't doing them.

Those bourgeois galleries. They just don't appreciate the cutting-edge stuff.

I have to say I'm not convinced by the argument that Hitler's poor treatment of human figures in his paintings reflects some kind of psychosis in his personality. The reason is that Picasso and Freud are both talented artists who choose to depict people in the way that they do. Hitler, however, was an artist of limited abilities who simply didn't have much skill with human subjects. There's nothing odd about that - being good at painting buildings doesn't necessarily make you good at painting people. I too am better at drawing landscapes than people, but I hope that doesn't make me an incipient Hitler!

 

[Adler17]

I think we all have demons in ourselves. Hitler living today would most probably not becoming that monster he was but perhaps a decent painter- or a comedian. We are all also products of our times. If the times are so the demons in us can dominate, or better have a much better chance to do so. So in us all there is a Stalin and a Hitler but also a Mother Theresa. The circumstances detemine much the effect of the eternal struggle. So we all could become murder and rescuer.
However a character strong enough can resist. But this character has to be in a way strong enough. And that´s also determined by the environment. If Hitler´s dad would have given him an artist education Hitler would have gotten much less contact with antisemitism or better much less influence from that.

Adler

 

[Rambuchan]

I too am better at drawing landscapes than people, but I hope that doesn't make me an incipient Hitler!

First Wayne Rooney and now Hitler

So in us all there is a Stalin and a Hitler but also a Mother Theresa.

Man, you are waxing lyrical today. (I agree!)

 

[Adler17]

Ramb, sometimes I have such a phase .

Adler

 

[Ukas]

Those bourgeois galleries. They just don't appreciate the cutting-edge stuff.

I have to say I'm not convinced by the argument that Hitler's poor treatment of human figures in his paintings reflects some kind of psychosis in his personality. The reason is that Picasso and Freud are both talented artists who choose to depict people in the way that they do. Hitler, however, was an artist of limited abilities who simply didn't have much skill with human subjects. There's nothing odd about that - being good at painting buildings doesn't necessarily make you good at painting people. I too am better at drawing landscapes than people, but I hope that doesn't make me an incipient Hitler!

With all this I agree. Have to point out it wasn't my idea in the first place, that Hitler's treatment of human figures depicted his later personality.

But, reason I bumped this thread is that I've been reading Nicolaus von Below's At Hitler's Side for the second time. Below was a Luftwaffe officer, who acted as Hitler's adjutant from 1937 trough 1945. I found something suitable to our discussion.

Below ponders about reasons, why Hitler had difficulties in making quick decisions, especially in difficult conditions. According to Below this was due to Hitler's artist's nature. "Every artist lives of intuition and incentive. These can't be commanded, but they will need time to mature. An artist either has time or he takes it", Below writes. "A politician, which Hitler had turned to against his nature, can't usually allocate time for himself as much as he desires. If he will make a desicion in haste, it may be a mistake. All major, successful decisions Hitler made after long calculations and careful planning"

According to Below the successes before 1941 were successes, because Hitler could reserve time, but after that the enemy often possessed the initiative, and made him do decisions in haste. As this was against Hitler's character it finally lead Germany in to catastrophe.


Quotes translated by me from the Finnish version. Below's At Hitler's Side isn't 100% reliable as a source, as it's written from a single point of view, but still a very good book, I can recommend it to anyone interested in Hitler and 3rd Reich.


-Ukas

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I have seen some of his works, to be entirely honest, some of them aren't bad. The basis for rejecting him from the Art School was bull. Just because he couldn't or simply chose not to paint people is not a very valid excuse for denying someone entrance to the Art School.

 

[Insane_Panda]

Well, back then, one required some degree of talent to enter Art school. () The art schools of the time were very different than the art schools of today. Art, for much of the 19th century and the early 20th century, was based on seeing, and technique. However, they also required their students to have a degree of proficiency in the arts, as training in the arts was radically different from what it is today and has been post World War II. It was more about capturing what you observed than expressing yourself, which is what the majority of today's mainstream fine arts programs stress.

 

[Insane_Panda]

I've been able to find several examples of Hitler]'s nude model drawings.

http://www.hitler.org/art/nudes/nude1.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/nudes/nude2.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/nudes/nude3.jpg
http://www.hitler.org/art/nudes/nude4.jpg

His works, as academic excercises, tend to look rather flat and disproportioned. This was probably one of the reasons he was rejected from the School. Hitler's work, IMHO, lacks anything truly great. Perhaps with some more practice and education in the arts he would have done better, but his images, as we see them now, are rather mediocre.