[[Disclaimer: I by no means condone the killings perpetrated by the Nazi State. This post has absolutely nothing to do with taking pride in the actions of the Nazis. Please read thoroughly before making any comments.]]
Adolf Hitler was first and foremost a man, a human being, and as such bound to make mistakes. I’m not trying to make a case in his favor, but rather analyzing a part of his human nature. I’d like to briefly explore his views on art, criticize him as an artist and as a “pseudo-curator” (of ‘entartete kunst‘ or “degenerate art”), and state that question that has always lingered on my mind. Actually, i’ll start with that:
What would have been the course of history had Hitler been accepted as an art student at the school of Vienna? What if he had achieved his dream of being a successful artist instead of becoming Führer?
[Me] As a visual artist, I may see his case in a kind of biased way, but I will give no apologies for my thoughts on this subject specifically. Just to clarify: I do not claim to be an expert of his work in any way.
Hate the guy or not, he was an art-aficionado and considered himself an artist. So, let’s talk about the artist not about him as the brain of the mass murdering that took place with him as a leader.
Just by looking at his artwork, his paintings, one can surely deduce that he was an extremely conservative person and even possessed a sort of sensitive personality. It is obvious that he didn’t handle rejection or criticism well. He had his own style which was very traditional, even “neo-classical” with a tad bit of influence from modern art even if he hated it. Observing his paintings closely one is able to see the brush stroke and able to sense a bit of rapid movement of his hand – which could indicate a tiny influence of the way impressionists used to paint. On the other hand, this was not necessarily the case and may simply mean that was his own personal style. One thing is sure, he loved adding all those little intricate details of the buildings he painted – to which we could argue shows something of that complicated spirit he possessed.
Personally, I think that technically his artwork is pretty good since he seems to dominate well the concepts of perspective and light. I’m not a fan of landscapes or urban life as a topic in general…but to each his own.
Below are some of his works:
He denounced/criticized many famous artists by calling their works “degenerate art”. I strongly believe it was based on his ideals of what art should be…and that art obviously had to resemble his own. Each artist has a strong sense of what they believe art should look like and what purpose it has. He was no different. Any art critic or curator can decide what to put on a show based solely on their personal views (although it is not always recommended…) and think to themselves “the hell with what others think!“. Art is not something that can be clearly defined, so how can it be clearly defined what good or bad art is?
Anyways, he didn’t stop creating art after being considered a failure as an artist and I think that in itself is remarkable. The will to keep doing what he liked even with the knowledge that he’d never be famous in the art scene like Marc Chagall, Piet Mondrian, Kandinsky, Cézanne, van Gogh or Picasso, etc. is something I find oddly inspiring for some reason or another.
- Adrianne Katzen
[Update] I will probably be making more posts on this topic later on
(maybe discussing Entartete Kunst further in detail)….
Pingback: Nazi Cats!!! « adriannekatzen