Five paintings allegedly by Adolf Hitler to be auctioned in Nuremberg

Lonely1

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,742
The Guardian said:
The sale of the artworks has sparked outrage with one landscape attributed to the Nazi leader expected to fetch at least €45,000

Five paintings allegedly by Adolf Hitler will be auctioned off on Saturday in the German city of Nuremberg, sparking anger that the Nazi memorabilia market is alive and well.

The city’s mayor, Ulrich Maly, has condemned the upcoming sale as being “in bad taste,” speaking to Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper.

Among the items to go under the hammer are a mountain lake view with a starting price of €45,000 ($51,000) and a wicker armchair with a swastika symbol presumed to have belonged to the late Nazi dictator.


The auction made headlines after several artworks were withdrawn Thursday on suspicion they were fakes and prosecutors stepped in.

Sales of alleged artworks by Hitler – who for a time tried to make a living as an artist in his native Austria – regularly spark outrage because collectors are willing to pay high prices for art linked to the country’s Nazi past.


Source

Cultural or significant historical items or just plain bad taste, ERA?
 

Advc

Member
Nov 3, 2017
1,945
Despite the disgusting person that Hitler was, this items are pieces of history. They should belong in a museum because of that.
 

Wulfric

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,395
I hope the seller donates a portion of the proceeds to a Jewish organization.

Should be an interesting auction regardless.
 

Nilaul

Member
Oct 26, 2017
732
Greece
There nice paintings even if they were done by Hitler. They do belong to a museum. They are a part of history and there a reminder that external events broke him and turned him evil.
 

Yaboosh

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,283
I can almost see the argument behind a painting of his being a historical artifact worth preserving but not a random wicker chair he happened to perhaps own.
 

Rassilon

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,690
UK
I’ve seen few Hitlers in the gallery context, they really are quite hobbiest and dull in quality.

It’s enlightening that such a maniac would only be capable of the most mediocre of paintings.

The one’s I saw were the one’s the Chapman Brothers bought and ‘vandalised’ by adding sunshine and rainbows.

 

Dekuman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,459
If someone dug up Attila the Hun's artifacts, we wouldn't burn them , we'd put it in a museum.
 

Rendering...

Member
Oct 30, 2017
7,121
Nope, disagree. Put them in a museum. You don't burn history.
Yep, they're historically significant. It would be small-minded and cowardly to erase evidence of the contradictions in human nature.

Fully agree with this. It says something about the human condition that a monster like Hitler could create such pleasant landscape paintings.
Precisely.

No. How about we don't rob future generations of valuable insight into humanity's dark history, and the psyches of monsters?

It's sort of important for people to understand that creativity and beauty don't preclude unspeakable cruelty and evil. Part of a complete education is learning not to be fooled by appearances, or ostensible virtue.
 
Last edited:

Lesath

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
752
Of what historical values are these really? Genuinely, do they better reflect the culture of his time than the works of his peers? Do they demonstrate an unparalleled level of mastery? Do they reflect some sort of respectable artistic innovation?

Reading the article, none of these things are true, so then we're convinced they have value because one of the worst men in the history of the world made them. We ascribe worth to these pieces by the virtue of the six million lives taken and countless more ruined, in the same way we could ascribe worth to a rag that Hitler shat on and somebody else subsequently saved.
 
Last edited:

WedgeX

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,762
How do you feel about ancient torture devices being stored in museums?
This is equivalent to oil paintings produced by a genocidal king or bishop before they ordered the torture devices created.

I am usually all aboard the things belonging in museums. Things created by Hitler, though. Not sure his artistic vision deserves to continue to exist.
 

Buzzman

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
1,307
At the end of the day, you could make this sort of argument for any museum with historical artifacts from Nazi Germany. Borders on pretending the history didn't happen.
You don't teach the horrors of war by parading around Nazi memorabilia. Somehow Germany teaches their history fine without displaying giant marble swastikas or statues of Hitler.
 

Metallix87

Member
Nov 1, 2017
9,201
You don't teach the horrors of war by parading around Nazi memorabilia. Somehow Germany teaches their history fine without displaying giant marble swastikas or statues of Hitler.
This isn't random Nazi memorabilia. These are historical artifacts that help us contextualize Hitler's life before he became the monster. If anything, it helps to show us that such evil and cruelty and malice can exist in anyone. I'm not talking about a random Nazi jacket or swastika or something thereabouts.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,384
In 100 or maybe even less years, Hitler will be treated like any genocidal or murderous maniac: just another museum person. Atilla, Ghengis, etc are all museum people. Hitler will too. No need to burn.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,498
My first thought. Burn 'em.

Of what historical values are these really? Genuinely, do they better reflect the culture of his time than the works of his peers? Do they demonstrate an unparalleled level of mastery? Do they reflect some sort of respectable artistic innovation?

Reading the article, none of these things are true, so then we're convinced they have value because one of the worst men in the history of the world made them. We ascribe worth to these pieces by the virtue of the six million lives taken and countless more ruined, in the same way we could ascribe worth to a rag that Hitler shat on and somebody else subsequently saved.
Amen
 
Oct 27, 2017
759
Take a picture of them and then burn them. That way anyone who values their historical significance can value how amazing they aren’t.
 

phanphare

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,267
Of what historical values are these really? Genuinely, do they better reflect the culture of his time than the works of his peers? Do they demonstrate an unparalleled level of mastery? Do they reflect some sort of respectable artistic innovation?

Reading the article, none of these things are true, so then we're convinced they have value because one of the worst men in the history of the world made them. We ascribe worth to these pieces by the virtue of the six million lives taken and countless more ruined, in the same way we could ascribe worth to a rag that Hitler shat on and somebody else subsequently saved.
worth noting the 6 million number is just Jews, he killed double that overall
 

AYF 001

Member
Oct 28, 2017
576
In 100 or maybe even less years, Hitler will be treated like any genocidal or murderous maniac: just another museum person. Atilla, Ghengis, etc are all museum people. Hitler will too. No need to burn.
To you, maybe.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/genghis-khan-equestrian-statue
Might as well put everything by an evil part of history away. It might create modern (blank).
We eradicated Polio, but (most) people still get vaccinated to prevent it's resurgence. FDR knew well enough about both, and I wonder what he'd think about the co-incidence of fascism and curable outbreaks re-emerging at the same time.
 

Shinjuku 4x4

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
554
This should be interesting. I think we accidentally destroy too much history to purposefully lose any.