demagogue on 17/5/2006 at 13:54
Did anyone watch John Cusack's movie Max about Hitler's artistic period? One punchline (of the actual history, not the movie per se) was he grew increasingly bitter and frustrated and moved into hate politics because his artistic product was so mediocre and derivative in the opinion of his peers ... postcard crap, and he wanted to produce something "great".
BTW, Mussolini was a futurist poet. I don't think it's a coincidence. The interwar period was pretty unique in the union of art and politics ... much different than the way we think about art's social role today IMO.
SD on 17/5/2006 at 14:44
Quote Posted by Scots_Taffer
Hahaha yeah, because we humans are one-dimensional aren't we?
Don't be a muppet Scots. Hitler is an irredeemable figure in history, and no amount of staid, sophomoric art by him can change that.
What next? Genghis Khan was a great cook? Josef Stalin had a keen interest in flower arranging?
Like I say, anything trying to paint (ololol) Hitler in a positive light is going to be of a dubious nature because most people have acknowledged that he was one of the foulest people to ever walk this earth.
mxleader on 17/5/2006 at 14:47
His paintings of dogs are a little creepy! Two of the paintings have a human quality to them. Most of the work is sophomoric and is not at the same level as the great artists of his time.
It is interesting to note that his work didn't seem to make any political or religious statements like the truly great artists. He just did sketches and impressionist paintings that really said "I am a big nothing fuckwad and my peers don't like my work and I am going to be bitter about it!"
Fragony on 17/5/2006 at 14:56
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Like I say, anything trying to paint (ololol) Hitler in a positive light is going to be of a dubious nature because most people have acknowledged that he was one of the foulest people to ever walk this earth.
That is why his paintings are so interesting, I wouldn't mind having one. The paintings themselves are history just because he was a very naughty boy.
Stitch on 17/5/2006 at 15:05
Strontz is in rightful indignation mode and Fragony just said he wants to own a Hitlerpiece.
Better pack a lunch.
Fragony on 17/5/2006 at 15:26
Quote Posted by Stitch
Fragony just said he wants to own a Hitlerpiece.
Wouldn't you? I love historical stuff, probably my dads fault. You know that series Band of brothers? In the last episode captain winters gets this gun, that was previously owned by Napoleon and later by Adolf Hitler after he conquered france. Later Winters had given the gun away, and my father almost bought the gun from the guy Winters gave it to, but the price was a tiny(well not so tiny) bit too steep. Give Hitlers paintings or Mao's shorts, all equally awesome to me.
demagogue on 17/5/2006 at 15:40
Quote Posted by mxleader
It is interesting to note that his work didn't seem to make any political or religious statements like the truly great artists. He just did sketches and impressionist paintings
Yes, but he had strongly political opinions about what "good" art was (traditional, Wagner, et al) and what "degenerate" art was (modernist, Klimt, et al). He sponsored a "degenerate art" show to ridicule the modernist art of the time and it was wonderful, really some of the best art of the period (so the critics say today) ... people flocked to it and it was a big splash, much to his mumbling disappointment.
Printer's Devil on 17/5/2006 at 15:43
Of all the things you could get upset about, a thread about Hitler art appreciation would not be a bad choice. Go Stronty!
aguywhoplaysthief on 17/5/2006 at 15:47
How can you retards fuck up a thread about paintings of city streets.
I blame you Stronts.:mad:
Fragony on 17/5/2006 at 16:48
Quote Posted by aguywhoplaysthief
How can you retards fuck up a thread about paintings of city streets.
I blame you Stronts.:mad:
In his defence, they
are shit.
