I looked it up, he was 23 at the time of that one (give or take a year, as I just went by year of painting/birth.) Sounds like he'd only been officially studying art for five years or so. Also poor and largely homeless at the time, it seems, which I bring up because he probably wasn't practicing art full time.
Right? There are issues with it, absolutely. It's a lot better than I can do, not that that should be any measurement for art. But, more importantly...despite its flaws, it does capture a feeling, and that's one of the big requirements for art. For all the focus on Hitler's issues with perspective and the like, in my opinion the people exude a certain feel, and the whole image is impactful.
Honestly, never really looked at any of his art before. If you'd just listened to the narrative, you'd think his art was a joke. It's not. Looking at some of his other stuff, it's the same kind of thing; imperfect, but captures a feel. Honestly, it's pretty good. Especially when you consider that a lot of the masterpieces are also flawed in some way.
Hitler did good art. Again, as you say, probably not great, but good. It's actually quite evocative, especially when compared to what you'd think a Mustache Man painting would look like based on popular description.
It's amazing how ideologically captured these people are. That dude whining about people thinking the art is good probably thinks all those people are Nazis. Are some? Almost certainly. All? No. That's just good art. Better than plenty. Definitively 'above average'...which is again a terrible measurement because average sucks ass. Seriously, a lot of his art is quite evocative.
Also, I looked it up, and nearly choked at the irony. Here's what good ol' Wikipedia has to say:
General opinion of his works is overwhelmingly negative; they have been described as cold and unfeeling, with many arguing that Hitler had some talent as an architect, but was lacking when describing natural elements such as trees or people.
I'd flip most of that. But hey, what do I know? Sure, the people aren't that detailed, but it fits the piece, and plenty of art from a distance isn't detailed. The people still bring that life to the painting. It's good art, I like it.
Also, there's people out there who want to find and destroy all of Hitler's art.
I despise all of these people. They're so bent on 'pwning Hitler' (who is dead and already regarded as one of the most evil and hated men in history), they'll deny reality and lie. Then again, they'll do that toward forwarding their other goals too. Also, I've seen people calling him a lazy loser, and his failures all being his fault, and that's he an incel radical. I wonder if they apply the same level of scrutiny to someone like Marx's pathetic life.
It reminds me of the reaction to Ben Shapiro's rap thingy. I don't like rap. I don't like Ben Shapiro. But is that song he collaborated on the WORST SONG OF ALL TIME?
There is effort and respect for classical technique...
But I also can see why he was flunked twice on the entrance exam. If it had been done alla prima he'd be the best alla prima painter who ever lived, but it wasn't so he doesn't have that excuse.
They critique Hitler's art the same way they critique AI generated images: the target is tagged as an enemy so they aggressively hunt for details they don't actually care about, but can mock and get backpats from people for pointing out, and they dress the whole thing up in dialect that's 1/3rd black, 1/3rd smugness derived from the lowercase parts of the Something Awful forums, and 1/3rd what happens when a 95 thinks they're a 110.
It is, in fact it might be closer to +95%, but as I said in another comment, that's a terrible measuring stick. The majority of people are useless at a particular field, and even within that field the people who practice it are going to be largely unimpressive. That said, yeah, I actually like his art work. Never looked into it till right now, but it's good, and has a good feel.
And I like how people bitch he can't do people, when in my opinion that's what really brings this piece to life. It's not the main focus, but it's a nice little garnish that makes everything pop.
It is a good painting. Is it great? Probably not.
I mean how old was he when he painted it?
Comparing it to masters that have been painting all day every day for 40+ years is unfair. And we often see only the finest works of said masters.
I looked it up, he was 23 at the time of that one (give or take a year, as I just went by year of painting/birth.) Sounds like he'd only been officially studying art for five years or so. Also poor and largely homeless at the time, it seems, which I bring up because he probably wasn't practicing art full time.
Right? There are issues with it, absolutely. It's a lot better than I can do, not that that should be any measurement for art. But, more importantly...despite its flaws, it does capture a feeling, and that's one of the big requirements for art. For all the focus on Hitler's issues with perspective and the like, in my opinion the people exude a certain feel, and the whole image is impactful.
Honestly, never really looked at any of his art before. If you'd just listened to the narrative, you'd think his art was a joke. It's not. Looking at some of his other stuff, it's the same kind of thing; imperfect, but captures a feel. Honestly, it's pretty good. Especially when you consider that a lot of the masterpieces are also flawed in some way.
Hitler did good art. Again, as you say, probably not great, but good. It's actually quite evocative, especially when compared to what you'd think a Mustache Man painting would look like based on popular description.
It's amazing how ideologically captured these people are. That dude whining about people thinking the art is good probably thinks all those people are Nazis. Are some? Almost certainly. All? No. That's just good art. Better than plenty. Definitively 'above average'...which is again a terrible measurement because average sucks ass. Seriously, a lot of his art is quite evocative.
Also, I looked it up, and nearly choked at the irony. Here's what good ol' Wikipedia has to say:
I'd flip most of that. But hey, what do I know? Sure, the people aren't that detailed, but it fits the piece, and plenty of art from a distance isn't detailed. The people still bring that life to the painting. It's good art, I like it.
Also, there's people out there who want to find and destroy all of Hitler's art.
I despise all of these people. They're so bent on 'pwning Hitler' (who is dead and already regarded as one of the most evil and hated men in history), they'll deny reality and lie. Then again, they'll do that toward forwarding their other goals too. Also, I've seen people calling him a lazy loser, and his failures all being his fault, and that's he an incel radical. I wonder if they apply the same level of scrutiny to someone like Marx's pathetic life.
It reminds me of the reaction to Ben Shapiro's rap thingy. I don't like rap. I don't like Ben Shapiro. But is that song he collaborated on the WORST SONG OF ALL TIME?
Yeah, no.
Its worst problem is that its just generic. It certainly looks skillful enough, but you'd not even turn your head for it if you passed it.
Some of the perspective lines seem a little bit off.
In an alternate universe that guy painted pictures for low to mid tier hotel chains and didn't lead the third reich
But then who's going to burn the Weimar tranny books
We'd probably just be in (Current Year + 100).
There is effort and respect for classical technique...
But I also can see why he was flunked twice on the entrance exam. If it had been done alla prima he'd be the best alla prima painter who ever lived, but it wasn't so he doesn't have that excuse.
You should see the quality of art from people who were allowed to attend that art school and graduate. Education has been this way for a long time.
He wasn't blocked for quality.
They critique Hitler's art the same way they critique AI generated images: the target is tagged as an enemy so they aggressively hunt for details they don't actually care about, but can mock and get backpats from people for pointing out, and they dress the whole thing up in dialect that's 1/3rd black, 1/3rd smugness derived from the lowercase parts of the Something Awful forums, and 1/3rd what happens when a 95 thinks they're a 110.
It's a good architectural piece (to the untrained eye) and a fantastic work of art compared to recent standards.
It's better than 90% of the population can currently do.
It is, in fact it might be closer to +95%, but as I said in another comment, that's a terrible measuring stick. The majority of people are useless at a particular field, and even within that field the people who practice it are going to be largely unimpressive. That said, yeah, I actually like his art work. Never looked into it till right now, but it's good, and has a good feel.
And I like how people bitch he can't do people, when in my opinion that's what really brings this piece to life. It's not the main focus, but it's a nice little garnish that makes everything pop.
Also, who cares how good or bad an artist he was? Does anyone actually care outside of trolling with them?
As if all works of art by all great artists have been masterpieces.
If people told him his paintings were good, the course of history could have been changed dramatically!
Yeah, and if you offered a leftist the chance to go back in time and tell Hitler his art was good, they couldn't do it, because Literally Hitler.
Is this a confirmed hitler piece? Because the little details make me suspect AI.