1 year ago3 points(+0/-0/+3Score on mirror)2 children
Hitler got better at painting people over time. This was done well after he got rejected from the academy of fine arts.
His original submissions were paintings of buildings and landscapes. The inanimate objects were absolutely immaculate. His scaling of the people next to the buildings, however, was sometimes quite awful... objectively speaking. He also fucked up light and shadow pretty often.
This is not even considering their preference for modern "art". But it's not really relevant in their not letting him into the school. If it were an art school that did exclusively classical art, they wouldn't have admitted him either.
He was offered to go to the academy of architecture, because they loved his paintings of buildings. However, he did not have the prerequisite requirements to go there.
What's more interesting to me than hitlers art school deal is how his and Mussolini’s (who wasnt a painter, but was a big art dude) views on art were contrasted from each other significantly and how that shows their very differing ideologies and opinions. Hitlers artwork is 19th century romanticism and shows a utopian view of rural agrarian life. Mussolini's preferred artwork was 20th century futurism and showed a utopian view of technology, the future (aptly), and urban life. Both are correct for their own reasons.
The worst thing about futurism is its effect on Italian fascist and francoist architecture. Lots of big ugly square soviet fucking buildings. They're everywhere in spain. Any government office built during the Franco period looks like a cube. Any apartment complex built during the same period looks like a khruschevka. Everyone radical in the early 20th century except for Hitler and Stalin (ironically, both embraced neoclassical realist architecture) had some insane bullshit going on with their nations architecture.
40% of our annual total tax dollars are stolen by central banking kikes in usury interest and inflation.
Western civilization yearns to build epic cities in honor of our ancestors, however the jew parasite is always tightening the noose, leaving their host nations with just enough to barely survive.
They poison our minds, our food (just one example: babies need fat more than anything and baby formula is full of toxic seed oil and lead. Rice-based baby food is full of arsenic), our water, our spirituality. They steal our wealth, our history, our children and our birthright.
Monuments, art galleries, museums, pristine streets, zero homelessness, scientific marvels, fellowship with Jesus: these are natural within the White Amalek.
The finer details of his works are also up to speculation. The fine lines are usually very shallow. But hitler was homeless. He didn't have an art studio to sit in and perfect his craft. So it's forgivable
I know I sound like an elitist dickhead, but any art academy on the planet that's remotely renowned is going to be full of elitist dickheads. That's kind of the whole point. An art academy that would have accepted realist and impressionist art (which is what hitler did) would have also rejected him.
He was in the top 10% of applicants. He actually did really well. But the academy was only accepting top 1% applicants, which hitler wasn't.
He got way better with time. But his 1907-1908 work is definitely more amateurish than the painting in OP, and the painting in OP still has a glaring issue in its own right with the expression of baby Jesus. Mary looks good though. The fact that the academy also had a preference towards modern art because it was in vogue was another damning factor. And you can't entirely blame them, the mid to late 1800s was utterly dominated by paintings that looked exactly like his, everyone was tired of them. He would have had to be an exceptional standout to have been picked up.
His original submissions were paintings of buildings and landscapes. The inanimate objects were absolutely immaculate. His scaling of the people next to the buildings, however, was sometimes quite awful... objectively speaking. He also fucked up light and shadow pretty often.
This is not even considering their preference for modern "art". But it's not really relevant in their not letting him into the school. If it were an art school that did exclusively classical art, they wouldn't have admitted him either.
He was offered to go to the academy of architecture, because they loved his paintings of buildings. However, he did not have the prerequisite requirements to go there.
What's more interesting to me than hitlers art school deal is how his and Mussolini’s (who wasnt a painter, but was a big art dude) views on art were contrasted from each other significantly and how that shows their very differing ideologies and opinions. Hitlers artwork is 19th century romanticism and shows a utopian view of rural agrarian life. Mussolini's preferred artwork was 20th century futurism and showed a utopian view of technology, the future (aptly), and urban life. Both are correct for their own reasons.
The worst thing about futurism is its effect on Italian fascist and francoist architecture. Lots of big ugly square soviet fucking buildings. They're everywhere in spain. Any government office built during the Franco period looks like a cube. Any apartment complex built during the same period looks like a khruschevka. Everyone radical in the early 20th century except for Hitler and Stalin (ironically, both embraced neoclassical realist architecture) had some insane bullshit going on with their nations architecture.
Western civilization yearns to build epic cities in honor of our ancestors, however the jew parasite is always tightening the noose, leaving their host nations with just enough to barely survive.
They poison our minds, our food (just one example: babies need fat more than anything and baby formula is full of toxic seed oil and lead. Rice-based baby food is full of arsenic), our water, our spirituality. They steal our wealth, our history, our children and our birthright.
Monuments, art galleries, museums, pristine streets, zero homelessness, scientific marvels, fellowship with Jesus: these are natural within the White Amalek.
I know I sound like an elitist dickhead, but any art academy on the planet that's remotely renowned is going to be full of elitist dickheads. That's kind of the whole point. An art academy that would have accepted realist and impressionist art (which is what hitler did) would have also rejected him.
He was in the top 10% of applicants. He actually did really well. But the academy was only accepting top 1% applicants, which hitler wasn't.
He got way better with time. But his 1907-1908 work is definitely more amateurish than the painting in OP, and the painting in OP still has a glaring issue in its own right with the expression of baby Jesus. Mary looks good though. The fact that the academy also had a preference towards modern art because it was in vogue was another damning factor. And you can't entirely blame them, the mid to late 1800s was utterly dominated by paintings that looked exactly like his, everyone was tired of them. He would have had to be an exceptional standout to have been picked up.