Auction of 'Hitler' watercolours

[Warden]

Paintings and sketches thought to be the work of Adolf Hitler have attracted worldwide interest ahead of an auction in a small Cornish town.

See BBC news report here

Warden D

 

[MrBern]

the associated press report
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_en_ot/selling_hitler


"There may be a stigma attached to buying Hitler art,"

"the paintings are not very good and it's not nice to have a 'Hitler' on your living room wall,"

 

[jamespowers]

Am I missing something? Who benefitted from this sale anyway? A private collector? Where is the provenance? Kind of strange all together really. [huh]

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

Strange.

I just read some stuff at a website about Hitler's time in the first world war. It had a picture that he painted that was very similar to the painting of the church posted here, but with more muted colors. The fact that all these works suddenly appear out of nowhere makes them suspect.

 

[MrBern]

anonymous owners

Am I missing something? Who benefitted from this sale anyway? A private collector? Where is the provenance? Kind of strange all together really. [huh]

AP:
Historians claim Hitler, then a struggling artist, painted during breaks from the front while stationed in Belgium during World War I. The works were later found in a farmhouse in Flanders.

Though the anonymous owners had the paper tested to determine its age, confirmed the signature and matched landmarks in the paintings to sites where Hitler had served, it cannot be proven if the works are genuine, Walton said.

He said experts who authenticated them in the 1980s are now dead.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

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.

.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I was surprised to learn that he did perhaps several thousand works of art, some of which can be viewed here: http://www.hitler.org/art/

Most of the drawings are crude and sketchy, especially the portraits. The only area in which he seemed to excel was architectural renderings.

 

[Lee Lynch]

I've seen pics of his work before. Not that impressive, if you ask me.

 

[Harp]

Hitler's Art

The watercolors are likely genuine with valid prewar provenance,
but aside from authenticity legal ownership of any attributed
AH works should fall under wartime lien. Most art confiscated by
the Third Reich with subsequent provenance/ownership disputes
have been routed through international courts. Justinian precedent
should be overturned and whatever proceeds realized at auction
encumbered for restitution.

 

[Spitfire]

ART?????

This is just as much art as any other amateur doing hopeless watercolour.
Ask yourself this: Would you buy it, if the name in the corner said: Smith?
I guesse not!
And then ask yourself this: Would you buy it, just because the name in the corner says Hitler?
I hope not!

 

[scotrace]

If only someone had said "Yes, Adolph, these are quite good. You must devote your life to painting..."

A good reason to always encourage beginners no matter their talent!

 

[Twitch]

One of the things noted by contemporary art experts was the absence of humans in his hauntingly drab pieces. Perhaps had they been kinder.....?[huh]

 

[Baron Kurtz]

From what i've seen they are the works of an enthusiast, not the works of an "serious" artist (whatever that might be). The kind of thing yer ma would do, and you'd say "Hey, that's good!" - of course thinking "what a pile of ..."

But i must say - this is the first Hitler art i've seen. I'd heard so much about how terrible he was. Hell, he was no Constable, but it's better than i'd been led to believe. Not that i'm saying they're purchasable, they're just not the childish doodlings that they've been described to me as.

bk

 

[geo]

Had he been admitted at the Vienna school of architecture, history would have been changed.

Anyway, there are legitimate heirs. Read the story of William Patrick Hitler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Hitler

 

[jamespowers]

The watercolors are likely genuine with valid prewar provenance,
but aside from authenticity legal ownership of any attributed
AH works should fall under wartime lien. Most art confiscated by
the Third Reich with subsequent provenance/ownership disputes
have been routed through international courts. Justinian precedent
should be overturned and whatever proceeds realized at auction
encumbered for restitution.

This is what I was getting at.

Regards,

J

 

[Lincsong]

Don't know don't care.[huh] Let whomever buy it, buy it. Just don't glamourize it like some do the works of other pyschotics. :rage: That I just can't understand. You see people fantasizing about murderous scum.:eusa_doh: Like the way Hollywood glamourized Robert Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz. To me it comes down to this; here's a painting by a jackal.

 

[Alighieri]

This is just as much art as any other amateur doing hopeless watercolour.
Ask yourself this: Would you buy it, if the name in the corner said: Smith?
I guesse not!
And then ask yourself this: Would you buy it, just because the name in the corner says Hitler?
I hope not!

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

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Hell, he was no Constable, but it's better than i'd been led to believe. Not that i'm saying they're purchasable, they're just not the childish doodlings that they've been described to me as.

Hitler turned out to be an evil, horrific human being. Even so, some of his artistic work was quite skillful. Here are some examples of the best-looking stuff. If he'd gone through the Vienna Academy, who knows how much better he might have turned out? In any case, the man's ego was a monstrosity, and for that reason alone I wouldn't want any of those paintings -- even if they were masterpieces.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Those are pretty good. Other than that auction link, these are the only Hitler paintings i've seen. He's gone up in my estimation as a painter (frankly, i've never met an artist whos work is not highly variable ... moody types) The first one very Lowry-inspired, no?

bk

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I think that historians and art critics say that Hitler was a totally inept artist in order to "prove" that he was a loser, and to deny that he could have been good at anything with "redeeming social value".


This demonizing of absolutely every detail about Hitler's life is absurd. Hitler certainly proved to us all how AWFUL and EVIL he was. If we acknowledge that he created some good artwork, that acknowledgement does nothing to redeem him as a human being ... nor should it.


(By the way, Hitler was also a good dresser, with well-cut double-breasted suits and a keen, though conservative, sense of fabric color. Does this make him any less of a criminal? Of course not ... nor should it.)


If we think that evil people are cartoonishly so, then we're fooling ourselves ... and we won't be able to recognize the next Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot in our midst until it is too late. Evil people with a will to power are often quite charming and artistic. Both Hitler and Stalin got along famously with small children. Be warned ...


.