Hitler's not-so-famous paintings

They have been analyzed over and over by specialists, mainly with the aim of proving how sick he supposedly was. What do you think of them? Could it be that in a couple of centuries they will all of a sudden receive praise and attention?
Pic related

all he needed was a chance to improve

Some of his paintings were pretty cool. I would have them on the walls of my office as a world leader.

They're better that I could ever draw.
I thought people went to art schools to learn how to do art better? I imagine a jew rejected him because he was not jewish enough.

how much are these paintings worth

>Modern artists having the temerity to call anyone sick

What a joke.

About 3 shartillion

They're mediocre, the art school was right to reject him if that was his best.

Rude.

Most of them are destroyed after being purchased.

So an awful fucking lot.

Hmmmm

What blood is still bright red when dried??

Explain why it is mediocre
I wouldn't go as far as you but is true though, his paintings lack a certain something

Why would you destroy them???

maybe it's diluted with water ?
I don't really know, I don't paint with blood but it seems really thick and sticky so maybe adding water or something makes it a better medium and alters the oxidation properties ?

The "Look at me I'm so cool and liberal" kind where the user wants attention but is too worthless to even do what they claimed.

What kind of fucking art school accepts people who are already too good to learn?

yeah its prob water color

pictures of a anti-semitic racist xenophobic person can never be considered good. even when the painter was picasso

it's not modern enough, he didn't paint a dildo

They Jews who own the rest of the paintings convinced them it was for the greater good.

He draw people like retard. Should become an architect perhaps.

Do you want an in depth explanation or my opinion?
To be brief examine the carriage and the proportions of the people in the street, they're very poorly laid out, not to mention the lack of detail on the building.

>What kind of fucking art school accepts people who are already too good to learn?
Prestigious ones that look for overwhelming talent, which he lacked.

>Picasso
>good

...

They're just lacking artfulness and distinctiveness. They're cheap souvenirs for tourists. Hitler only did them because he was short on money. He knew he didn't have a career ahead as an artist. Notice how he didn't paint at all after he got into politics -- that's his own admission of how bad he was. If he wasn't such a bad artist and didn't get rejected from art school, then maybe his hatred towards Jews (given their prominence in modern art of the time) might've been lessened. He probably wouldn't gone on that insane drive against entartete Kunst.

Why do really awful politicians produce such bad art? That's the real question for this thread.

Nah. They were pretty standard.
Vienna was blooming with a lot of artistic activity about that time. He could have been just unlucky and didn't bribe his entry like many others.

If anything he did live off his painting so he must have been doing something right with them.

Both the in depth explanation and your opinion would be interesting, this said, I don't know if you have the time to write them down. It is as you want

And you're right, I checked more thoroughly and the way he draws people make them look like some kind of dolls, and the buildings lack details (even though we could say he is more of an impressionist than a classicist)

"A bad person is bad at everything"(C)

According to the analysis of this painting, the man was undoubtedly racist and antisemite

Theres a bunch of them, modern art critics like to shit on them, but they are beautiful.

I never realized that, fpbp.

boring colours , look at that sky

Because the richest people in the world are also vindictive, petty and Jewish.

I'd rather not to be perfectly honest.
I'm an amateur at this subject at best, so everything I say should be taken with a grain of salt.
Not to mention this is Sup Forums and I'm Australian

Do you not see the detail in the bottom picture?
30 mil is excessive though.

I'm triggered.

They're awful. Shows an utter lack of understanding of anatomy and architecture, subject-wise. Style-wise, there's absolutely nothing to see. Every single noob had the exact same style at the time. He obviously doesn't have a single clue what art is about and it's with good reasons that he was rejected I'm sure.

>They're awful. Shows an utter lack of understanding of anatomy and architecture, subject-wise. Style-wise, there's absolutely nothing to see. Every single noob had the exact same style at the time. He obviously doesn't have a single clue what art is about and it's with good reasons that he was rejected I'm sure.

Are the critiques double blind studies? You can show someone a well revered art piece and tell them Hitler painted it and they'll hate it.

Any studies of Hitler's paintings and how it affected him as a person needs to be double blind

i think he was pretty good

i cant draw anything that looks good

Over 6 million

Priceless. His most famous painting was looted by the Americans and has been stored in a bunker beneath the Pentagon since 1945. It's prohibited from ever being seen in public again.

>Do you not see the detail in the bottom picture?
>30 mil is excessive though.
It's literally an asshole, aussie

I'd suggest reading the paragraph above that.

IS it a picture of Eva Braun's titties?

Well mostly gay men dominate art nowadays.

Picasso was fucking awful. Worse than that, he was a decent artist, but he made bad art on purpose. Fuck him.

If they were painted by Lenin they would be praised and you'd see them on tshirts.
You know it's true.