Auction of 'Hitler' watercolours

[herringbonekid]

there was a recent film 'Max' about Hitler's early non-starting artistic career...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290210/

unfortunately i haven't seen it, so can't comment.

personally i think his art is perfunctory at best. considering they were produced in the 20/30s you'd expect them to be a bit more avant-garde influenced. a bit of dada or surrealism creeping into the style. perhaps their conservative nature was part of the reason for their failure.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Well, let's face it: Hitler was, in many ways, a conservative man whose reactionary vision took sustenance from a distant, semi-fictional Teutonic past. There wasn't a Dada bone in his body, and his persecution of German Expressionist artists proved it.

.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

there was a recent film 'Max' about Hitler's early non-starting artistic career...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290210/

unfortunately i haven't seen it, so can't comment.

personally i think his art is perfunctory at best. considering they were produced in the 20/30s you'd expect them to be a bit more avant-garde influenced. a bit of dada or surrealism creeping into the style. perhaps their conservative nature was part of the reason for their failure.

"Max" is a good movie. Highly recomended. Losely based on the fact that a Jewish art dealer once represented Hitler's artwork.
I think his renderings of architectural subjects were the most developed. It looks as if he spent more time on those because like many artists he had a great admiration for great architecture.

 

[Lee Lynch]

Well, let's face it: Hitler was, in many ways, a conservative man whose reactionary vision took sustenance from a distant, semi-fictional Teutonic past. There wasn't a Dada bone in his body, and his persecution of German Expressionist artists proved it.

.

As a traditionalist, I'm sort of glad that at least he didn't contribute to the DaDa nonsenselol

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Just as most modern art is in my opinion tacky and without merit, Hitlers paintings are art to someone, and the history cannot be denighed. I personally like some of the buildings and to a lesser extent the landscape picures he did. I would own one just because it is a piece of history. History comes in both good and bad, but it still must still be preserved and remembered.

Alighieri

Yes, you are correct, history cannot and should never be denied. However, I wouldn't call the purchasing of Hitler art a way of preserving and remembering him or his history. I see nothing good of preserving anything that could be associated with a good act that he might have done. The preservation and rememberance of Hitler should be based on all of the evil and horrific deeds that he did, not of him as an artist, which to me he wasn't, but I'm kind of biased. I wouldn't own artwork by him, or any other dictator for that matter, and call it a preservation of history. Nowhere in his art is the preservence or reminder of the millions upon millions of innocent people he brutally tortured and murdered. Just my opinion, I just don't see how buying one of his paintings will remind me of all the evil he did. The only way the memory of Hitler will continue is by people talking about him and writing about him as the awful oppressor that he was. To me no good came from this man, and I use the term man very lightly, and that is what should be preserved and remembered. Once again, that's just my opinion. Who know's, if I didn't know who painted these paintings or if I was told they were painted by someone else, and I was shown them, I just might have liked them. As I've said, I'm a bit biased.

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Frankly, I'd much rather collect artworks created by those whom the Nazis imprisoned. Some WWII and "remembrance" museums have beautiful works made by people under the worst conditions. To me, such pieces are almost sacred.

.

OK, sorry to post twice in a row here, but I just saw what Marc said, and really wanted to comment on it. Yes, you all know, I'm a bit passionate when it comes to the discussion of Hitler.
I have seen such works that Marc is writing of. They are incredibly moving. They do a much better job at preserving and remembering the person that Hitler was than the works supposedly done by him.
Some of these works were in the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C.. I am not sure if they are still on exhibit there, for it has been a while since I visited, and some exhibits were from loans from other memorials around the world.
I highly recommend a tour of this facility to anyone ever visiting or living in the area. Here's the link, it has some very good information about the museum and the Holocaust. This is Holocaust art that actually does preserve and remember There is even an important discussion on rememberance and commemoration, which can be viewed after the on-line art exhibit.
I have been to many Holocaust Memorials. The one in Miami is so very moving, it is the one that moved me the most, outside of the Washington DC museum. It stirs up every kind of emotion, right from the first glance of it. You can see it rising up into the sky from quite a distance. Here is the link to information about it, if you are interested. We have a very touching one here in Boston, near the entrance to Quincy market. The small state of Rhode Island has just opened a museum of rememberance as well.
But anyway, Marc, you are absolutely correct. Nothing can tell the story better than pictures and essays written by both prisoners while they were enslaved and survivors. That is the story that needs to be told, over and over again. I have a deep appreciation for art, so don't get me wrong when I say that if these paintings were accidentally burnt up, I wouldn't be too upset. They do not preserve the memories, nor tell the story that should really be told. Actual accounts from survivors, drawings and paintings by them, museums and memorials, that is how the history of the holocaust is remembered.

 

[Alighieri]

Yes, you are correct, history cannot and should never be denied. However, I wouldn't call the purchasing of Hitler art a way of preserving and remembering him or his history. I see nothing good of preserving anything that could be associated with a good act that he might have done. The preservation and rememberance of Hitler should be based on all of the evil and horrific deeds that he did, not of him as an artist, which to me he wasn't, but I'm kind of biased. I wouldn't own artwork by him, or any other dictator for that matter, and call it a preservation of history. Nowhere in his art is the preservence or reminder of the millions upon millions of innocent people he brutally tortured and murdered. Just my opinion, I just don't see how buying one of his paintings will remind me of all the evil he did. The only way the memory of Hitler will continue is by people talking about him and writing about him as the awful oppressor that he was. To me no good came from this man, and I use the term man very lightly, and that is what should be preserved and remembered. Once again, that's just my opinion. Who know's, if I didn't know who painted these paintings or if I was told they were painted by someone else, and I was shown them, I just might have liked them. As I've said, I'm a bit biased.

Ms. Buchanan,

I am glad you see and realize your bias. I gather that you might be or have family that is Jewish? With your passion I suspect so. Gently, I would like to remind that not everyone has the same emotional ties to what Hitler did as you might. Just as few on here might have strong ties to what Stalin, Chairman Mao, or other dictators have done, some will not have the same fervor against them. In your comment you completely dismiss anything good that Hitler did for the overwhelming evil he did do. I am in no way justifying his actions, which were evil, however one must take the man as a whole. If his father had encouraged him in his art millions of people could have been saved. And his art is a part of history, and very much a part of the man himself. And art or history preservation is about remembering the past, even the bad past. You may not agree with me, nor do I expect I could convince you that Hitler’s art belongs in a museum as a piece of history if not art. However, I still think it should be preserved.

Also, there is a book on , though difficult to read, may provide some insight to the history and social climate that actually let to Hitler's rise to power. http://www.amazon.com/Fuhrer-Hitlers.../dp/078670683X It is written by a historian that fled Nazi Germany. Hitler might have been the point man, but there was a climate in the world in that time that took Hitler from being at one time laughed out of parliament, to being (though coerced) elected to Chancellor and eventually made Dictator of Germany. And sadly America had a great deal to do with that climate, due to the great depression and our calling in of all European debt, Germany included. It may provide you some more clarity of who was supporting Hitler and who to direct your passions to.

Just a thought

Alighieri

 

[patrick1987]

What good, really, is the auctioning of these watercolors? And what good, really, was the use of that patronizing tone, Dante?

 

[Alighieri]

What good, really, is the auctioning of these watercolors? And what good, really, was the use of that patronizing tone, Dante?

Actually I am not Dante, but thank you for the compliment. The "good" you mention in auctioning the watercolors is that possibly they will be saved for history.
As to the tone you read my post in and the tone which I ment it, that seems to be a personal translation issue. I was simply discussing a topic, not being patronizing, just stating my views. How you interpret those statements is more based on what you choose to "hear" via typed text. As about 80% of all human communication is nonverbal (physical) then it is possible that my meaning and intent got lost in traslation to text.

Alighieri

 

[Baron Kurtz]

And we come around ... again ... to the issue of whether personal morality has any influence on artistic ability.

BEWARE! Minefield ahead ...

bk

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Actually I am not Dante, but thank you for the compliment. The "good" you mention in auctioning the watercolors is that possibly they will be saved for history.
As to the tone you read my post in and the tone which I ment it, that seems to be a personal translation issue. I was simply discussing a topic, not being patronizing, just stating my views. How you interpret those statements is more based on what you choose to "hear" via typed text. As about 80% of all human communication is nonverbal (physical) then it is possible that my meaning and intent got lost in traslation to text.

Alighieri

Well, Alighieri, I too saw the patronizing tone that you used, anyone can see it. I was just stating my opinion, and now I'd like to tell you that you are seriously misguided. Also, don't make assumptions about my religion or nationallity or anything about my person, that is not your place. You don't know me well enough to make such assumptions. Maybe you should look around the lounge a little bit, see how things work, get to know some of the people here, before you start attacking people personally. As for me being biased about the subject, I said I was, I don't need you, someone who I don't even know, telling me that I am.
As for Hitler's art and it's preservation. I've stated my thoughts on that. I don't care if it's the worlds most beautiful watercolor, I wouldn't insult millions of people by putting it on my wall. I don't have to know Hitler as the man he could have been, this makes no difference, I know him as the man he was and the atrocities he did. If you need to find something good in a man that did such horrible things, that's your decision. My thoughts, evil is evil, and there can be no good found in it. If you have to search and search to find one iota of good in a person, then they really aren't good. I see all people from all sides. I give credit where credit is due. Hitler was an awful man, their are no buts about that. I'm not going to try and dig deep to find something good in him, and then disguise those thoughts and call them rememberance and history. We all know what the real history of Hitler was. So, in my earlier post, I was stating an opinion, and I made that very clear. That does not give you the right to personally attack me for it. I listened to your opinion, just because mine was different than yours does not mean you have the right to come on in here with that condenscending tone and make assumptions about anything about me.

 

[jamespowers]

It is indeed a minefield. Having kicked the can around for a few pages now, I think we have all gotten our collective say in.

Regards,

J