Was Hitler really that bad as an artist?

Well at least he's better than George W.

>window behind the stairs
>the size of that door

No, not at all lol

if he had gotten an actual education he could have been pretty good

to be fair his goals couldn't be met unless he conquered the entire world so its not like that was ever going to happen.

It's just a hobby for Dubya tho, not like Dubya is aplying to any fancy art school or trying to make a living off it.

I disagree

europe contained most of the jewish population in the world at that time, so not really...

its shit

trust me, there were plenty of jews west of the Pacific Ocean and behind the most powerful navies in the world. And even then, the logistics of killing that many people in such a short period of time WHILE waging a world war is pretty intense stuff, how much more can you ask of them they stacked the box scores.

I actually don't like bush as president but i actually like these dog paintings. there's a certain playful innocence to them

ok maybe you are right but I think Bush is at least better at composition and creativity. Hitler just does boring ass landscapes and cityscapes

yeah i looked up the numbers and you're right. only about half of world's jews were in europe

The top two windows are OK. What the he'll was he doing on the bottom left one?

That image is probably misleading to non-Germans.

The parliamentary assembly is not to be confused with the parliament.
It just elects the president, which is mostly a representative job, contrary to the chancellorship.
People elected to the PA (or federal assembly, as it should be called) don't have to be members of any parliament, and it is in fact very common that prominents such as artists, writers, or sports people get elected. See: The trainer of the national football team is in there.

Of course, the parties make sure beforehand whom gets elected as the president, so the whole assembly, too, is just representative.

Just admit you hate Hitler more than Bush already and get over it. Sheeiet.

He was about on par with the shadman.

He paints like a child. I for one find them adorable.

>his goals couldn't be met unless he conquered the entire world

patently false.

I'm curious, what do you think Hitler's goals were?

holy cow, that's bad

really bad

like wow, that's going on the wall of a highway hotel lobby

As an amateur sure he was quite talented. He needed major work and being accepted to school would have made him quite good I think. Most likely not a revolutionary but probably quite popular mainstream artist for the middle class

Eradication of "Judeo-Bolshevism", which, yes, involved removing Jews and Bolsheviks from the world. That in turn requires control over pretty much everywhere.

No he paints like an adult with little experience. A child's painting usually lacks perspective and depth

>lacks perspective

where have I seen that? :^)

He couldn't into perspective at all.

...

Hitler was the artistic genius of a generation, with an unparalleled aesthetic vision in the legacy of Goethe and Wagner.

Even at a young age the (((((jews))) could tell how the light of his brilliance threatened to destroy their dark world of usury and international control, so in order to stop his ideas from reaching the masses the (Judio-muslim zionist) board of directors at the Akademie der bildenden Kunste Wien rejected his application to study, so that they could vilely use this once noble aryan institution to push such degenerate ""artists"" as Anselm Feuerbach and Gustav Klimt, a known solicitor of the Jewish race.

Truly the wretchedness of the Jews knows no bounds. But luckily plucky young Adolf was able to rise above these challenges to free Germany, nay, Europe, from unprecedented destruction and disenfranchisement, and in some ways single-handedly save western civilization from demise.

Pic related. If Hitler could do these pieces with such finesse, such elegance, at the mere age of 20, just imagine what he could have accomplished had he not had the Jews holding him back his entire life.

I legitimately thought that was a clown

It is

no it's a tranny

desu the one on the left has a poignancy about it

>implying this isn't dubyah's style

...

>it's not really art unless it looks pwetty!!!

Would hang on my fridge/ 10

>Ignoring centuries of constantly improving technique is justified as long as I pretend it has an intrinsic meaning

his shading, perspective, and composition were all thoroughly fucked. he was good for a hobbyist, I guess

agreed

Probably why he wanted to attend school to learn more

Degenerates like you shit up the glory of the renaissance

All of the works on the bottom half are honestly much more pleasing to the eye than Hitler's trite pap. I'm glad he was rejected: he had no vision, and he couldn't accept that.

i'd say streetpaintersellingpicturesinasquare-tier

not shit but not good either

So a photograph is the epitome of artistic talent then?

>glory of the renaissance
>FUCK OFF DAD WE WUZ ROMANS AND GREEKS AND SHUT

No thanks

>tfw if Hitler never seized power the Weimar Republic would've continued to produce THICC art

Truly the worst timeline.

Shut your WE WUZ ass down white goi.

lol shut up you ahistorical stormnigger philistine

Holy shit that muddled mess on the bottom left and the half-drawn portrait. Are these finished pieces? How are people pretending that the artists didn't just get bored or couldn't figure out how to finish and called it quits?

You had me going for a while there. Well baited my friend.

>So a photograph is the epitome of artistic talent then?

That's why art is heading to somewhat of an existential crisis in terms of technique.

Anyways doesn't justify pretending to like shit "thought provoking" (nah) modern art. You can still make beauty without reverting to stupid shit-on-canvas crap.

(edited to make more sense)

>waa it's bait

He was ok and could have improved, plus he was way better than the average art student nowadays.

Maybe there will be VR and 3D art scenes in the future.

Stagnation in the medium is what's causing the directionless and pessimistic "hurr durr blank canvas is art now" and "I signed a urinal because it's art" bullshit.

New horizons will mark the return of beauty.

Look at those four windows senpai. and the stairs, and the fence and so on.

Its like one of those MC Escher mindfuck pictures,
The perspective of the entire scene is just super fucked.

What's the difference?

I like the pieces by the guy just under captain mustache

SIEG MEIN KAISAA

SIEG KAISAA REINHARUDOO

>You can still make beauty
Why did you post a Bo Bartlett then?

mmm Bo Bartlett. Delicious

bipolar hivemind detected

w-well your waifu a shit haha epic comeback

Yes

Now fuck off neckbeard

W's new stuff is pretty dope, he's come a long way from the bathtub.

Now he's just painting thank you for your cervixes

>Anyways doesn't justify pretending to like shit "thought provoking" (nah) modern art. You can still make beauty without reverting to stupid shit-on-canvas crap.

The art contrasted to Hitler's work wasn't shit though. It clearly required both skill and careful forethought, the artists just saw fit to actually experiment with the medium.

>continuing a genre that others have done and done better is an artistic statement
>questioning a genre or trying to create a new one is not

Can he only paint people in profile or front on?
What a hack.

>It clearly required both skill and careful forethought,

Is this yours by any chance?

If you can't tell that that door at the top of the stairs is about 3 times too tall, I can see why you cannot immediately recognize how terrible Hitler was as a painter.

He had absolutely no sense of distance, scale, or perspective. He was not only a total amateur, he was a particularly bad amateur.

A simple googlio search would've solved your mystery, wiseguy

Is that a yes?

Nope. I don't defend all modern art, just that the pieces contrasted to Hitler's there (the top and the bottom there) have artistic merit. We needed to explore art that isn't beautiful for the same reason we need to explore tragedy as an artform; getting out of the idea of inspiring insipid positivity is necessary for the genuine growth of a medium.

He's decent. Had potential but probably thought he was wayyy better than he was. Couldn't paint figures for shit and had some pretty terrible paintings mixed in with some half-decent ones

Well I'm not defending Hitler's art so there's that.

We are getting into opinions so I'm going to brake here.

Daily reminder.

Hitler's art has glaring technical flaws. Perspective consistency being one of the most prominent.

Artists like Hitler were fairly common in Vienna during the time period. They sold paintings as souvenirs to tourists from other parts of the Empire.

They learned their lesson.

tossing craftsmanship and technical merit out the window. so you can be Avant Garde.

Better than most of the "modern art masterpieces" I saw last time I went to the museum.

>proper perspective
Fuck off
That's all good art, except Hitler's horrible regressive craponacanvas.
All that art has better technique than the milquetoast trash you probably adore.
Renaissance art is horrible, Rome and Greece had horrible art. Disgusting Mycenaeans raped beautiful Aegean culture. The art found on Crete alone is superior to everything on the mainland until the Hellenistic age (where they became influenced by superior cultures).
That's hilariously ugly art.

>if you like good modern art, then you must also like bad modern art!
None of that is avant garde, it displays superior craftsmanship and technique. Back to riddit, teenager.

It's so garbage, here is I did something out of boredom(not an artist), looks way better than this horrendous piece of shit

I unironically like it. Scale it up and it'd be pretty nice, actually.

Looks like something you would see hanging on the wall of a cheap hotel room

>retards failing to realize that Hitler was an aspiring artist and not an actual artist

He needed training at an Academy, but those Jewish fucks wouldn't admit him, so he became dictator if Europe and gassed them all

> The art found on Crete alone
any examples?

Show the chancellor some respect!

This

Or this?

See Hitler dindu nuthin

This tread is relevant to something i want to vent about:

I saw something on TV and i cant remember what it was in (think it was based on a book too?)

Anyway there was this guy at the end who was a billionare who was buying hitlers paintings and its thought hes a bad guy i think and then the main character goes to his house and the 'Twist' is that he has been buying them, burning them and putting the ashes in jars and was like "lol look at my collection".

He did it because he was a jew and they were 'Evil PAINTINGS'

I sperged out about it but my Gf was apathetic about it. I explained why i thought the guy was a massiveprick and should be arrested for destroying historical artifacts, even if he 'owned' them.

I mean, people would call him a monstorous ludite if he slashed the monalisa or pissed on a Goeth peice, but because Hitler drew it its fine?

Fuck that logic

(by the way i think his art is quite standerd for the time but i reckon if he got to follow it as a carrer he'd be remembered as a 20th century master for some peice or other. He had a definate talent there. Maybe he'd be the master of Futurist paintings or something?)

>Tiny brain
Rubens' is better because it looks more realistic
>Normal brain
Goya's is better because Saturn looks more beastial, you can see in his eyes the fear of his prophesied fate and his abandonment of any pretense of divine nobility
>Big brain
While the above is still true of Goya's painting, there's something to be said for the workmanlike mundanity of Rubens' Saturn. The stern expression, the hunched posture, the slightly furrowed brow, it all suggests a kind of morbid indifference. He's taking a tiny bite out of his infant son, like he doesn't enjoy the act but he's doing it out of driven necessity. The viewer gets the idea of the preparation before the scene, while Goya's is more immediate, more like the viewer has seen something they shouldn't have. Rubens' Saturn still very clearly in control of his own facilties, while Goya's Saturn has turned into an animal in the wake of his crime. On a deeper level it's almost more horrifying than.

Both painting are good for different reasons.