According to art critics Hitlers art is shit

What do you think pol?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc
youtube.com/watch?v=mB-i9OkwCD4
discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>art is subjective

non-art fag here.

Hitler's work always looks like theres something wrong with them but I can never say what.

This
It always looks disproportionate

Hitler's paintings aren't that great, but they certainly are better than the absolute trash that is modern art.

it's a fucking nice house, I don't know what else to tell you.

Its trying to be photo-realistic but fails with the composition and shadows , also the colors tend to have this boring look and don't make the viewer interact with the painting.

In short his painting where something what you expect on postcard but nothing that would make a human stop and take a deeper look at the it.

the (((art-world))) is bullshit

His paintings were completely uninspired and pretty sloppy when it comes to execution.
He didn't have much time to perfect himself sure but he really didn't show much promise or outstanding talent.
He was another dime-a-dozen academic painter but never had the time to mature (if mature he did and seeing how that sort of painter turns out, he might not have)

Hitlers art is shit because it's bad for sheckels.

The actual criticism he received is that he'd be better suited towards architecture. He loved to paint bloody buildings.

You know who else does that?
LITERALLY EVER ARCHITECT, ARTIST AND FUCKING PRE-SCHOOLER EVER.
Basically he was putting his art in a completely full, over-saturated market and expecting to become a fucking millionaire.
There was no sheckels in it, so the jews did not support.

Jackson Pollock, on the other hand, is an established artist, who has succeeded in getting his brand out there, and had unique artwork that can easily be identified as his.
This means there is an open market for his work, it could be considered "predictable" for his brand to grow in value, therefore his artwork makes a god investment. Sheckels.

Art isn't just how good you make paints. It's a bloody business.
The reason art degrees are useless sheckel scams, is because they never teach this one key fact.

Think about artwork as shares, the artist a brand. Artist becomes well know, shares rise in price.
You know what won't get an artist recognition? Paint bloody buildings, you fucking dope. Everyone paints buildings.

He was applying for art school so presumably he would have gotten better. He was rejected because he couldn't paint the human form.

how the fuck do you interact with a painting

Hitler does mid-tier art, but top tier anschluss.

Apparently Jackson Pollack's best painting was on his windscreen.

Well, yeah. That's why he wanted to go to art school. Because he wasn't perfect.

Not an art fag myself, but it's the perspective mostly. Not so noticeable in OP pic, but quite obvious in his other works.

I think that both are pretty bad?

When a painting 'really makes you think', you're interacting with it in a sense. Your brain versus the art. Other people interact differently, and it creates a unique impression on each individual, ideally.

>he fell for the art is subjective meme
I thought pol was redpilled
youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

I think he needed to work on perspectives, his buildings tend to look a little wonky.

Modernism happened, and severely impaired art forever.

I understand why some would reject it, Hitlers work is very standard, it lacks personality and style that is unique even among those seeking more realism

>according to (((art critics)))

But modern art was pushed by the CIA.

Looks fine to me. Just really boring...

The second piece is worth more because it's literally a mess that can be interpreted in any way by people. Fits well in many rooms, whereas a picture of a town is just plain boring...

Hitler wasnt amazing but he was better than the contemporaries that were creating the same modernist cancer we have today.


(((Modern Art)))

he was going for photorealism
the schools didn't want anything like that.
they were degenerate and wanted postmodern shit. this fed into his philosophy

Any artist could give you a run-down on why Hitler was a shit painter. That picture wouldn't be beyond a 16 year old and anyone could paint it by the numbers. I doubt Hitler was a 'creative' person, a lot of his rhetoric is sourced and he famously couldn't cope with interviews and meetings.

That image OP posted is not a valid comparison because the intention of the artwork is completely different. Art is always subjective, but when looking at what Hitler painted his technique was almost always poor.

his perspective is always a bit off, but its still better than most if not all modernism shit

So they could sell useless art degrees for extortionate prices, allowing a debt based economy, when you have low-class peasants working as Starbucks baristas to pay off their debts and never get rich because their art sucks.

Some did succeed, but most fell.

You mean the same (((critics))) that were raving over this dogshit?

Hobby drawfag here

Hitler couldn't grasp the perspective of things.
His everything converges the wrong way and looks either flat or deformed.

Some of his paintoings look like everything is carboard or just flat out wrong.

Look at these distorted houses.
This pretty much sums it up.

The perspective is fucked up in most of his paintings.

That apron part gets me every time.

the painting below could literally be done by a toddler.

Imagine a swede making a comment on this topic in this manner.
Now read again what Denmarkbro has wrote.
This is why Sweden is cucked, and Denmark is not.

Take pic related. The shadows seem to be cast from about 3 different light sources, and you can tell he was going to have a ground level window before deciding he needed an exterior staircase.


He had some technical skill, but Hitler never really seemed to think through his paintings, there's no vision to them, or unifying thought.

youtube.com/watch?v=mB-i9OkwCD4

Holy shit that right house is abysmal

Hitlers art isn't 'bad', it's just very incredibly mediocre.

When you have to compare any attempt at realism to 'modern art' bullshit like pollocks drip paintings to make it look decent, that's not a good sign.

he was untrained, are you literally comparing an untrained artist to master painters to say that he's shit?

For an untrained artist his paintings are very good.

I've literally seen windows like that on old buildings that have been expanded

His art just wasn't that good mate. It doesn't diminish his character in any way to admit this. If he had been accepted he wouldn't have become the Fuhrer. Whether or not that's a good thing is a different debate.

>He had some technical skill, but Hitler never really seemed to think through his paintings, there's no vision to them, or unifying thought.

Just like his strategies

I always wondered how he couldn't see that window obscured by the staircase.

Nope, it could only be achieved by Pollock himself since it's a creative venture. It is a look into his mind, quite probably his vanity but then that serves to compliment the buyer. Not a lot of famous Asian artists, and here's why: you don't understand abstract thought be it expression, symbolism or art.

Not enough contrast and depth (shadows) which makes everything look flat and give the optical illusion of being disproportionate like an underdone cellshade

Pretty sure some artfag could shoop up his work a little based on those two things and it would look totally different

>When you have to compare
him to painters with years of professional training to make him look bad...

because there is nothing strange, interesting, offensive or provocative about hitler's art.
the thing about modern art is not about photo-realism. Since dawn of photography art changed it's course in very drastic way.
Seriously what is interesting about hitler's art?
They are always about buildings or scenery. They are like boring family restaurant paintings.

I'm not actually Korean, I'm just here for medical treatment.

and it's not "creative". it's just paint thrown on a canvas with no real meaning or message.

Well i understand that today i have internet and access to the best literature and the bewst books on art ever BUT hitler would be legitimately not good enough to pass the entry exams into a Russian Art School today

He had poor fundamentals.
You're supposed to know perspective and shit to pass the exams.

That Jackson shit looks like someone picked up the tarp under another painter's canvas and framed it.

and what's interesting about the garbage Pollock shat out?

That's not why but good shot roach.
Hitler's art shows promise but lacks thought and experience. Its clear he's untrained but fairly talented.

Looking at the painting it looks like it lacks emotion. The colors are dull, nothing stands out in the picture, and the forms in the picture look bad. Its like when games came out when the 360 was still new and Sup Forums used to complain about seeing nothing but brown and blur. It feels like I'm looking at something Hitler made to get into art school or use to claim he was an artist, rather than something he made to express himself or something he made in a burst of creativity.
It's kind of like when you read a paper by someone that is completely devoid of emotion or real meaning and just seems repetitive and like it's simply words on paper.

>Pollock

If you look at his painting where I've marked, you can clearly see a black alien.

That's why it is worth more. There are no aliens in Hitler's painting, much less a black alien.

Dude just accept it
You dont have to compare him with a professional to see it

Isn't that why you go to art school though? So you can learn to improve your flaws???

>Art is business

Well his forte was not art but removing juden.

i'm not educated about modern art or art in general but pollocks art is about rebellion against previous art movements. if i remember correctly that painting is one of first piece of modern art.
the talented part is debatable. in mein kampf he actually talks about this.

Yes, it's quite shit. He tries his best, but it just looks like naive art cause the proportions aren't right.

Art is only used for money laundering. I mean, no one is retarded enough to think that fucking Jackson Pollock's works are good, dont fall for the meme

>postmodern
it was modern then
its post mordern now

Hitler's art lacks balance......

His angles are inconsistent
His shadowing is incorrect
His use of color is juvenile
His perspective is off

The dude's art sucks....his mind must have been warped

Quite a bit actually, people don't spend millions on this shit for nothing. It's a palimpsest, it looks like many layers of creative ideas that come to have a new perspective in the final piece. The forms move from characters to anatomy and more lucid arrangements which catch the eye but blur what is intentional and what isn't.

13 yr olds on the chans make better art. You think A-dog would be drawing buildings if he could draw a waifu?

He fell for the art meme oh god

No you retard, you obviously go to school already at a master skill level so you can get credentials and connections. Why is this so hard for people to grasp? Isn't it obvious?

I'm not sure,user...

actually Jackson Pollock is still quite pleasant to look at, if only you would look at it for a little longer. The 'scribbles' have a fractal structure which is naturally pleasing to the eye, it mimics nature.( discovermagazine.com/2001/nov/featpollock ). As he got older he had a more advanced technique to make this fractal structure in the painting. He may not have explicitly been aware of this himself, but Pollock obviously must have realized that even by using drip method there is a difference between good and bad . Traditionally beautiful things weren't fitting at the time, it wouldn't express how people felt. Pollock's paintings are made spontaneously (action painting), but there was an attention to the technique so that it comes out right.

He likes painting buildings too much
They are the easiest shape you can meet in real life, usually just cuboids/pyramidoids with additions
And since even this thing he handles poorly due to bad perspectives and shades i suspect he just tried simulating being good by painting realism of the easiest kind and failing at even this
Not to defend abstract art in any way, its fucking shit, but hitler wasnt talented either

>It's a palimpsest, it looks like many layers of creative ideas that come to have a new perspective in the final piece. The forms move from characters to anatomy and more lucid arrangements which catch the eye but blur what is intentional and what isn't.

lmao what pretentious shite

the modern art market is nothing more than a means to launder money.

you'll either understand or you won't, in fact that is half the reason these pieces sell for millions. They really are invaluable for the collector who has a persoanl appreciation for them. I'm pretty familiar with the dealership and first and foremost it is about knowing clients.

>it's a palimpsest

the point of a palimpsest was to rewrite new shit because books were goddamn expensive

not write 10 different layers of shit that add up to nothing

wow, how deep he painted shit then he painted over it until it looked like a confused mess

>tfw you've been there and it's the building that's fucked up, not the painting.

Tfw Hitler was right.

Wtf is that bottom left window? Is that supposed to be on the same wall as the others? Was he fucking blind?

Modern art was a CIA psyops. Really.

>you now remember that story about the mom who sold her child's finger painting for a thousand or so dollars to an art critic who had no idea it was done by a child

You will get put down with insect pesticides soon enough turkroach.

>you just don't understand why this poo is (((art))) goy

i think they are ok
with some more training they could have become really good

...

Hitlers art is shit, perspective, shadows, proportions are all fucked up.

lmao look at the expression on his doggo. Hitler was most likely autistic. I think that's reflected in his work more than anything.

>Germany can't into art

are you hitler too?

Niggaa don't hate

>(((Modern Art)))

According to them my half eaten pizza is art too.

I fucking live this painting and how he has the shadow of the tower point creeping across the otherwise boring ground

Hitler's art was shallow and derivative.

Pollock's art is distinct and inspires discussions still held to this day.

stop trying to teach them i'm afraid they'll learn something

>I don't like pretentious art
Then enjoy Will Farrel movies and nothing else.

Did he paint in the 40s?

>He fell for the truth meme
I thought proxy users were red pilled

(((Critics)))

Needs more loomis

...

What really irritates me about these Sup Forums art threads is Sup Forums's intense autism over the assumption that
>abstract/non-representational = shit because modern art is shit

Dont get me wrong, the vast majority of modern art nowadays is shitty and pretentious.
But Pollock can be aesthetically pleasing, see . Marcel du Champ can be aesthetically pleasing, and if not that then the messages in his art are deliberate and dont require some pretentious reach-around thinking.

Photo-realism is not the be-all, end-all of art

"and this is what a dogs face looks like. i think. well, its uh, close enough and thinking about it hurts so here's my doggo sir"

I thought that was from Deviantart.
He was truly one of us.

Even Kelly would acknowledge.