-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Five paintings allegedly by Adolf Hitler to be auctioned in Nuremberg
- Thread starter Sqrt
- Start date
That's different because it would have value on its own for surviving so long.
No historic value to you apparently. And I imagine some museum would absolutely want them. You don't think a museum would want a painting by one of the most controversial figures in the history of the known world? I'll disagree completely there, but sure you're possibly right.
To me it seems like you're having a hard time separating your opinion on the matter with the undeniable fact that this stuff is a piece of our history (despite it being a piece from a terrible man).
Last edited:
So destroying it now and not preserving it is denying people in the future insight into one of the most despicable humans in history.
This whole subject is just despicable to me and wreaks of shortsightedness on our part.
Edit: not every day you use the word despicable multiple times!
If you want to save a piece of art from this time period for hundreds of years you can do a lot better. If you want to preserve something of Nazi Germany you can do a lot better. It's worthless.
Spare me the platitudes of the importance of preserving artifacts. If we can agree that the works have no intrinsic artistic value, then we agree that we ascribe value to the items based on who made it. I have yet to see any argument sufficient to elevate the historical significance of these works beyond the toenail clippings Brock and I were joking about.
We know that he was a mediocre artist; it's not a profound realization. Our collective capability for genocide is hardly held at bay by this understanding. All I'm seeing is that these paintings are treated like collector's items that fawning despicable owners try to justify having under the veneer of preserving history.
We know that he was a mediocre artist; it's not a profound realization. Our collective capability for genocide is hardly held at bay by this understanding. All I'm seeing is that these paintings are treated like collector's items that fawning despicable owners try to justify having under the veneer of preserving history.
Oh my god, that wicker chair is just tacky as fuck. There's nothing eye pleasing about that design, besides the obvious hate symbol.
Toss it.
Toss it.
I'm thinking that it's less secret respect for Hitler as it is just a general hoarding thing.
Edit the original post or you're probably going to get bombarded with alerts by people that disagree with your initial statement for some time to come. Save yourself the headache.
Let them work themselves into a tizzy telling me what I already know. Could give a shit.
Difficult to call the tacky shit this hack made art but I suppose I understand your point.
It's sad to see how many people are tripping over themselves to shove Hitler's paintings into a museum when his biggest contribution to the world of art was sacking the museums of Europe. Hitler couldn't be great, so he just stole greatness from others. It's sad to think Hitler's paintings, universally regarded as mediocre at best, would be honored in a museum, while the world will never know the true colors of Raphael's Portrait of a Young Man, which has been missing since the Nazis looted it from a Polish museum. Not to mention how many other works were taken from Jews and others murded by the Nazis to fill Hitler's galleries.
But hey, we can ignore this insult to art and hang his paintings in the Museum of Mediocre Art by Famous Persons and Other Memorabilia that apparently everyone here is so keen to visit.
We could put it up next to Bush's shitty dogs.
But hey, we can ignore this insult to art and hang his paintings in the Museum of Mediocre Art by Famous Persons and Other Memorabilia that apparently everyone here is so keen to visit.
We could put it up next to Bush's shitty dogs.
I think that your assertion that Hitler's paintings have substantially more historical worth than his shit and toenails is ridiculous. Pray tell, why do you think your claim is true?
Shit and toenail have no value because shit and toenails are the same for every person on earth and you can't derive information about those person's personal growth, artistic sensibility, education, mental state or even psychology from them. Whereas, by cross checking this paintings with other factual element we have from the same period about the same person, studying them may (or may not, but may) give additional insight about all of those, and help in building a better representation of one's persona.
When it's about human beings like Hitler, it's not irrelevant, you keep it because it may somewhat turn useful, it's basic conservation.
This is why things like those should be put in a conservation section of a museum or reserve.
Last edited:
In a history exhibit where they can be in the proper context of WW2 and what happened, no one is saying put it next to the Mona LisaIt's sad to see how many people are tripping over themselves to shove Hitler's paintings into a museum when his biggest contribution to the world of art was sacking the museums of Europe. Hitler couldn't be great, so he just stole greatness from others. It's sad to think Hitler's paintings, universally regarded as mediocre at best, would be honored in a museum, while the world will never know the true colors of Raphael's Portrait of a Young Man, which has been missing since the Nazis looted it from a Polish museum. Not to mention how many other works were taken from Jews and others murded by the Nazis to fill Hitler's galleries.
But hey, we can ignore this insult to art and hang his paintings in the Museum of Mediocre Art by Famous Persons and Other Memorabilia that apparently everyone here is so keen to visit.
We could put it up next to Bush's shitty dogs.
I could understand keeping them in a museum if they actually said anything about the time or him, it's not much better than bland seaside tat.
I can appreciate you're trying hard to make these pieces relevant, but his works are so utterly unremarkable that "[a]ccording to Klingen, Hitler had the style of "a moderately ambitious amateur" but his creations did not stand out from "hundreds of thousands" of comparable works from the period – making their authenticity especially hard to verify."
Put another way, art experts find that his work has no defining characteristic that sets him apart from his contemporaries - meaning whatever "personal growth, artistic sensibility, education, or mental state" you want to infer from his paintings are pretty much asspulls, provided you could have any faith the pieces are authentic in the first place!
How is there space in any WW2 museum exhibit for them? They'd be the lowest priority. What would you even say? "When not murdering Jews, Hitler painted"? Why bother?
Right. If these paintings have historical value then put them in a museum that chronicles the life of Hitler. But they don't look like they have that, nor do they have any artistic value to be put in an art museum. Therefore the only value they have are to private buyers, who there seem to be a few of.
I'm not trying hard to defend anything get down your high horse for real.
You keep this kind of things made by historical people because they may turn useful later, you don't know, i don't know, whatever some painting specialist is saying today is not relevant, others things might pop up tomorrow and make them significant, even if they are not today, this is why you keep them, that is called conservation.
To put it simply for weak minded people, it's a bit like items on a crime scene you don't know if they will be useful or not, and maybe you are certain they are not now, you still keep them.
It's just the generic (correct) attitude to have, whoever is concerned and whatever the artifacts are. you put them in a box at the bottom of some reserve and you preserve them.
Why not? There are plenty of biographies about him. Most likely it wouldn't be a museum dedicated to it but his life chronicled as part of an exhibition.
... Why
Hitler as an individual isn't important, what's important is the larger context that allowed him to take power and the result. Having a museum (or even an exhibit) dedicated to him is some weird founding fathers worship bs... but for Hitler.
I meant to use it in a loose sense. Maybe not the right word there. I just meant a figure as widely known/despised as.
i'm sure hoarders stumble on stuff made by adolf hitler every day.
But if they did find some random bs that was his, they'd keep it regardless of value because "even if everyone says it's worthless, it may be vitaly important in the far future".
To you. To think that an exhibit is equivalent to a celebration is your hang-up. Like I said there are plenty of biographies so there can be some contextual or textural merit in showing who this person was.
i don't know if you're just shitposting or really that dense honestly.
"museum reserve".. not random joe the hoarder backyard.
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.
A biography can exist on Wikipedia, there's a big difference between that and a physical exhibit with artifacts. And again, to what end?
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!"
And then put them on a watch list as some of them are more than likely a bit suspect.
Yeah I don't agree with burning stuff, but not everything is important, I wouldn't put his favourite socks in a museum either.
At best they should sit in a crate in a basement. Especially since,
There's nothing notable about them beyond possibly being painted by Hitler.
There's nothing notable about them beyond possibly being painted by Hitler.
To add context and texture to history. I'm repeating myself now.