Five paintings allegedly by Adolf Hitler to be auctioned in Nuremberg

Oct 25, 2017
24,105
To add context and texture to history. I'm repeating myself now.
It's a waste of space for that level of context and texture. We don't need it. Nobody even wants it.

And of all the things to hoard.

"That's a nice painting in your den, Frank."

"Thanks, it's an authentic Hitler! Well, maybe, the art experts can't be sure."

"Why'd you even buy it?"

"Well it only cost me $50k, and he was one of the worst people to have ever existed so I really wanted something of his for my collection."

"...What. Aren't you just partaking the Nazi memorabilia trade?"

"Oh no, I mean we can learn more about his psychology or something."

"But you just said that the experts aren't even sure it's real. If they can't even figure that out, how the heck are they gonna learn about his mental state?"

"You never know! It's important to preserve history!"
The next time somebody tells me to clean my room I'm going to ask if they support ISIL
 

Bleu

Member
Sep 21, 2018
181
It still has zero value. Do you think museums have infinite storage space? Who would want to keep it knowing it's worthless and it will never be put to any use? Again it's a hoarder mentality but with a garage.?
It is not up to you decide that, that is why you put this kind of artifact in a museum reserve, so that it is preserved and so that people can study them if so they wish.
It's better then having those items on the market for nazi fans to build shrines out of them, it also allows you to control access to them.
And yes, the museums and national reserves have insane space and you can't possibly imagine the insane amount of things that lay dormant in the storage, most of them i'm quite certain people like you would put in the burner without hesitation (especially in zoology or old science stuff)
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,340
They belong in a museum.

There's no value to displaying statues of people like Lenin in Seattle or Confederate "heroes" in the south; those are monuments to oppression. However, there is absolutely historical value to displaying these in a museum, with the context necessary for onlookers to recognize the significance of said items, and why they're there in the first place.
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,310
Now I'm kind of wondering if you could have an exhibit in a museum that focuses on these "human" relics of Hitler, but constantly link every single one to the inhuman activities he did and ideas he held.
Because how can we truly understand Hitler unless we contrast his brutality with empty sentimentality???



It just really makes you think
remember what wolfenstein 3d taught you about dogs
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,557
It's a waste of space for that level of context and texture. We don't need it. Nobody even wants it.


The next time somebody tells me to clean my room I'm going to ask if they support ISIL
You keep saying nonsensical things like nobody wants it, or it's useless, or it has no value and so on.

I really hope you understand these statements are your own personal opinion on them and not reality. If nobody wanted a Hitler painting and it had no value it would not sell at an auction. Nobody would put it in an auction to begin with, and so on.
 
Oct 25, 2017
602
It's a waste of space for that level of context and texture. We don't need it. Nobody even wants it.


The next time somebody tells me to clean my room I'm going to ask if they support ISIL
Someone tell Marie Kondo that only Nazis throw useless things away.

Because how can we truly understand Hitler unless we contrast his brutality with empty sentimentality???

It really makes you think
Oh my god Hitler was a human being who'd have known? Maybe we're the dehumanizing fascists.
 
Oct 25, 2017
24,105
I already said I don't think they have any historical value. Are you even reading me?
None of Hitler's personal stuff would dude, certainly not enough for an exhibit or museum

It is not up to you decide that, that is why you put this kind of artifact in a museum reserve, so that it is preserved and so that people can study them if so they wish.
It's better then having those items on the market for nazi fans to build shrines out of them, it also allows you to control access to them.
And yes, the museums and national reserves have insane space and you can't possibly imagine the insane amount of things that lay dormant in the storage, most of them i'm quite certain people like you would put in the burner without hesitation (especially in zoology or old science stuff)
Agaunx hoarder mentality. They obviously don't even want it because they know it'd a waste. I would keep zoology stuff because that's important. Like cool fossils and taxidermies and shit. Not Hitler's doodles.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,097
You keep saying nonsensical things like nobody wants it, or it's useless, or it has no value and so on.

I really hope you understand these statements are your own personal opinion on them and not reality. If nobody wanted a Hitler painting and it had no value it would not sell at an auction. Nobody would put it in an auction and so on.
You're right, there are probably some very fine people who would want to privately own an original Hitler painting.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,340
I’m conflicted. We must remember our history; on the other hand, it offends me.
The defense for keeping poorly-constructed Confederate monuments (which are really just monuments to racism) erected in the south is that it's their "history". What should actually be done is to place those shittily-made statues in a museum, and displayed to recognize the history of the war, and explain why racist morons would think that placing monuments to losers in the middle of their cities was a good idea.

Put the artwork in a museum. Don't gloss over the atrocities committed after the paintings were made. People like to think of people like Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, and Adolf Hitler as "monsters", but that's reductive, and more importantly, naive. Saying they're monsters says that they're beyond humanity, and that we're better than them because we're not "monsters".

Monsters don't make art. Humans makes art.

Humans have the capacity to be monstrous. But they are not monsters themselves. Dehumanizing them to distance yourself from their actions is foolhardy at best, dangerous at worst. Some of the most despicable people to ever live thought they were working to better the world, or at the very least, their world.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,208
Not surprised people are calling for them to be burned. You know how much art and artifacts in museums around the world would be destroyed if we destroyed anything made by a monster? We would have to tear down the great pyramid for one, just to give an example.

Put them in a museum. It is the ONLY correct answer. Not all art has to be celebrated.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,724
The defense for keeping poorly-constructed Confederate monuments (which are really just monuments to racism) erected in the south is that it's their "history". What should actually be done is to place those shittily-made statues in a museum, and displayed to recognize the history of the war, and explain why racist morons would think that placing monuments to losers in the middle of their cities was a good idea.

Put the artwork in a museum. Don't gloss over the atrocities committed after the paintings were made. People like to think of people like Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, and Adolf Hitler as "monsters", but that's reductive, and more importantly, naive. Saying they're monsters says that they're beyond humanity, and that we're better than them because we're not "monsters".

Monsters don't make art. Humans makes art.

Humans have the capacity to be monstrous. But they are not monsters themselves. Dehumanizing them to distance yourself from their actions is foolhardy at best, dangerous at worst. Some of the most despicable people to ever live thought they were working to better the world, or at the very least, their world.
This is a great post
 
Oct 25, 2017
602
Not surprised people are calling for them to be burned. You know how much art and artifacts in museums around the world would be destroyed if we destroyed anything made by a monster? We would have to tear down the great pyramid for one, just to give an example.

Put them in a museum. It is the ONLY correct answer. Not all art has to be celebrated.
Right, these Hitler pieces? Back in 2009 they were sold for $20,000. MAX. In that same auction his easel was purchased for $15,000, so I remain a skeptic of the whole "using art to gaze into the mind of a madman" argument (in addition to the whole "they're so utterly unremarkable the experts can't even tell if they're real in the first place" thing). Right now, if you're looking at the OP's article, they're being peddled for private collections, with a starting bid of $51,000. Hardly a commanding price.

Point is, any museum deeming these to have any artistic or historical value at all would have snapped them up already. These works are being traded around to private collections owned by the very sort of people who would be interested in having a Hitler piece in their house. I do not think that we as a society should enable that.
 
Mar 4, 2018
826
I don't find it surprising at all that he would only be capable of mediocrity.
Yeah, it's amazing how people can take the off-ramp from the decent take that is "we shouldn't burn our record of humanity's worst" into garbage about how the human condition is illuminated by Hitler's "pleasant" art? It's... milquetoast unimaginative trash that was done better by nearly anyone. It's not like famous German landscape painters are rare-- I mean, Caspar David Friedrich exists and I don't think I need to point out anything he painted on his worst day trounces everything Hitler ever painted in totality.

The paintings exist as a psychological reference into the mind of one of history's most successful sociopaths. They should be carefully well-preserved for that alone. The actual quality, or rather lack, of the paintings is important as a window into the mind of a man who was a failure until he found a political movement tap into, to be the head of. Realizing that he wasn't misunderstood but rather utterly incapable of rising to his own aspirations, and seeing the connection that has with his virulent hatred and sweeping conspiracies, has actual value. His art, as art? Is worthless. Any museum wishing to display such paintings would have to acknowledge this context and frame them as unremarkable and unfit to present outside of this context.

EDIT: Oh, and private sales should be rightly framed as creepy, weird, reprehensible, and feeding into the trade of Nazi memorabilia. That garbage is right out.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
3,557
You're right, there are probably some very fine people who would want to privately own an original Hitler painting.
Whether it's a museum or a nazi that owns/wants it, the quality of the person doesn't factor into whether or not it has any value.

I understand that some people have the opinion we should burn them and some have the opinion that they belong in a museum. Some people though seem to not even understand that those are indeed opinions, which is my only issue here.
 

PJV3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,643
London
Yeah, it's amazing how people can take the off-ramp from the decent take that is "we shouldn't burn our record of humanity's worst" into garbage about how the human condition is illuminated by Hitler's "pleasant" art? It's... milquetoast unimaginative trash that was done better by nearly anyone. It's not like famous German landscape painters are rare-- I mean, Caspar David Friedrich exists and I don't think I need to point out anything he painted on his worst day trounces everything Hitler ever painted in totality.

The paintings exist as a psychological reference into the mind of one of history's most successful sociopaths. They should be carefully well-preserved for that alone. The actual quality, or rather lack, of the paintings is important as a window into the mind of a man who was a failure until he found a political movement tap into, to be the head of. Realizing that he wasn't misunderstood but rather utterly incapable of rising to his own aspirations, and seeing the connection that has with his virulent hatred and sweeping conspiracies, has actual value. His art, as art? Is worthless. Any museum wishing to display such paintings would have to acknowledge this context and frame them as unremarkable and unfit to present outside of this context.
I think that could only work if there was certainty that they were painted by Hitler, it all feels a bit too tabloidy for a serious museum to be claiming anything about a mass murderer and these pictures.
 
Dec 24, 2017
5,542
I don't see it as necessary at all. Take a Hi-Res pic of it and burn the originals, I don't see what his art offers, I don't see what left we have to learn or debate about Hitler. The better art would be destroying it. Do an art installation where people can spit on them until they are ruined, that would be more worthwhile.
 
Oct 25, 2017
602
Whether it's a museum or a nazi that owns/wants it, the quality of the person doesn't factor into whether or not it has any value.
I disagree; society should probably place more weight on the opinions of institutions employing art and history experts over Nazis in determining whether or not something has artistic or historical value.

I understand that some people have the opinion we should burn them and some have the opinion that they belong in a museum. Some people though seem to not even understand that those are indeed opinions, which is my only issue here.
Nobody's preventing you from posting?
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,097
What are you getting at?
You're insistence that there is a historical imperative that we preserve Hitler's knickknacks so we have "context and texture" is worthless. Scrutinizing the memorabilia of a despot gestures at some greater understanding of the human condition, but doesn't actually achieve such. There isn't anything to glean by examining just what type of chair Hitler liked to relax in when he wasn't drafting the Final Solution. Worst yet, it wraps him in a worthless sentimentality that blunts his monstrosity. As if knowledge of how he invaded sovereign nations, murdered and enslaved its people needs to be couched between human-interest fluff pieces about his personal life.

"Did you know the Holocaust systematically murdered over six million Jews, over two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe? Anyways, here's Hitler's baby shoes."
 
Oct 27, 2017
671
ps4, pc
honestly, i won't mind owning a such piece of history. it would be a bit like dark tourism, except you don't even have to leave your house. and the juxtaposition between the horrific acts committed in his name and the agreed middling artistic qualities of these paintings makes for funny feelings; simultaneous awe and mediocrity. if art is all about creating feeling, then this is quite the catch. yeah, if i could i'd get one.
 
Mar 4, 2018
826
I think that could only work if there was certainty that they were painted by Hitler, it all feels a bit too tabloidy for a serious museum to be claiming anything about a mass murderer and these pictures.
That too. If they can't even be confirmed as real Hitler paintings, that takes their value from "useful tool for psychological profiling and deflating his myth" to "pointless showpieces for gawking at." No need to go to any great lengths to preserve something like that. Consequently, my argument against destroying the things massively diminishes-- I couldn't care less. We have authentic and vouched-for Hitler pieces already.
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,172
You're insistence that there is a historical imperative that we preserve Hitler's knickknacks so we have "context and texture" is worthless. Scrutinizing the memorabilia of a despot gestures at some greater understanding of the human condition, but doesn't actually achieve such. There isn't anything to glean by examining just what type of chair Hitler liked to relax in when he wasn't drafting the Final Solution. Worst yet, it wraps him in a worthless sentimentality that blunts his monstrosity. As if knowledge of how he invaded sovereign nations, murdered and enslaved its people needs to be couched between human-interest fluff pieces about his personal life.

"Did you know the Holocaust systematically murdered over six million Jews, over two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe? Anyways, here's Hitler's baby shoes."
Ok, you have a very simplistic and reductive view on what should be preserved, why, and by who whereas I'd prefer the value of all artefacts to be analysed on a case by case basis. There is no insistence from me that these items in the OP should be preserved.
 
Oct 27, 2017
8,446
I'm sorry what's historical about paintings by one of the biggest mass murderers in the history of mankind? Like, you want to auction them off to rich people that are donating the money to the Holocaust Museum, and have those rich fucks burn 'em, cool. But there is no value in preserving these in my opinion.

Ok, you have a very simplistic and reductive view on what should be preserved, why, and by who whereas I'd prefer the value of all artefacts to be analysed on a case by case basis.
I feel like it's spot on actually. Can you tell me why you're so passionate about preserving this? I would understand if they are historical documents or something like that.
 

Dyle

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,215
Wisconsin
If they are to continue to exist, which there's a decent case they don't need to, they should be in public collections, not for private sale, especially if proceeds aren't going to some kind of Jewish charitable organization or other worthwhile cause. I would bet most legitimate buyers would be scared off by how many other items have been removed from this auction already, increasing the possibility that they make their way into positions where they could be fetishized by neo-nazis. If I were involved I would work to delay the auction at the very least, it's clear that there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed before they are put to sale.
 

L Thammy

Spacenoid
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,310
I don't think the comparisons to Confederate monuments are apt. Not to besmirch the overall point, because I don't really care that much about Hitler's paintings, and I don't think we're really chomping at the bit to get more of those. I mean that there's a pretty key difference between the two.

If Hitler's paintings are worthwhile to retain, it's because they - maybe - allow us some kind of insight into a horrific figure who has unfortunately shaped our history. If it tells us that he was an boring, talentless loser, then maybe that's some kind of historical value.

Meanwhile, Confederate monuments aren't relics of history themselves, they're generally things made after the fact to posthumously jerk off traitors that served a horrific cause. The only historical value the monuments themselves have is to remind us that there was a bunch of people who still sympathized with those traitors and spent a lot of time, effort, and money to jerk them off. It's like putting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in a museum.
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
8,446
I’m conflicted. We must remember our history; on the other hand, it offends me.
Is destroying these paintings going to make us forget the horrors of the Holocaust? Because I distinctly remember there being grounds and buildings to visit in Poland at Auschwitz. We aren't forgetting the Holocaust because we destroyed some mediocre paintings. The only way we forget the Holocaust is if we lose our humanity like Hitler did.

I'm not, maybe you should read my posts in this thread.
Nah I'm good.
 
Dec 7, 2018
13
The defense for keeping poorly-constructed Confederate monuments (which are really just monuments to racism) erected in the south is that it's their "history". What should actually be done is to place those shittily-made statues in a museum, and displayed to recognize the history of the war, and explain why racist morons would think that placing monuments to losers in the middle of their cities was a good idea.

Put the artwork in a museum. Don't gloss over the atrocities committed after the paintings were made. People like to think of people like Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, and Adolf Hitler as "monsters", but that's reductive, and more importantly, naive. Saying they're monsters says that they're beyond humanity, and that we're better than them because we're not "monsters".

Monsters don't make art. Humans makes art.

Humans have the capacity to be monstrous. But they are not monsters themselves. Dehumanizing them to distance yourself from their actions is foolhardy at best, dangerous at worst. Some of the most despicable people to ever live thought they were working to better the world, or at the very least, their world.
Well said, I think you've explained my own thoughts on this far better that I ever could.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,097
Ok, you have a very simplistic and reductive view on what should be preserved, why, and by who whereas I'd prefer the value of all artefacts to be analysed on a case by case basis. There is no insistence from me that these items in the OP should be preserved.
Then what are you even arguing about, my dude?
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,097
Good question. I'm not arguing anything but rather being argued at. It all started when one poster wondered why there would be anything about Hitler in any museum.
If you're here, in the thread about Hitler's shitty art being put on sale and bunches of posters saying "it belongs in a museum", planting your flag in saying that vague Hitler-related things should be in vaguely-defined museums, how are you surprised that people took that to mean that you were referring to the items this topic is specifically about?
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,172
If you're here, in the thread about Hitler's shitty art being put on sale and bunches of posters saying "it belongs in a museum", planting your flag in saying that vague Hitler-related things should be in vaguely-defined museums, how are you surprised that people took that to mean that you were referring to the items this topic is specifically about?
Because in my very first post I make it very clear what I'm talking about. Not my fault you're not reading it, jumping in halfway through and then wondering why you've wasted your time. Now it's got carried away and you still want to argue about it. Not even the topic, not even my views, but your inability to follow a conversation you were no part of.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,259
The defense for keeping poorly-constructed Confederate monuments (which are really just monuments to racism) erected in the south is that it's their "history". What should actually be done is to place those shittily-made statues in a museum, and displayed to recognize the history of the war, and explain why racist morons would think that placing monuments to losers in the middle of their cities was a good idea.

Put the artwork in a museum. Don't gloss over the atrocities committed after the paintings were made. People like to think of people like Mao Zedong, Josef Stalin, and Adolf Hitler as "monsters", but that's reductive, and more importantly, naive. Saying they're monsters says that they're beyond humanity, and that we're better than them because we're not "monsters".

Monsters don't make art. Humans makes art.

Humans have the capacity to be monstrous. But they are not monsters themselves. Dehumanizing them to distance yourself from their actions is foolhardy at best, dangerous at worst. Some of the most despicable people to ever live thought they were working to better the world, or at the very least, their world.
/thread
 

Mona

Member
Oct 30, 2017
8,935
Not surprised people are calling for them to be burned. You know how much art and artifacts in museums around the world would be destroyed if we destroyed anything made by a monster? We would have to tear down the great pyramid for one, just to give an example.

Put them in a museum. It is the ONLY correct answer. Not all art has to be celebrated.
I don't think the pyramids would fit