New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
Sign up
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
-1
GoFukYurselfCommies on scored.co
1 year ago -1 points (+0 / -0 / -1Score on mirror ) 1 child
Like your analysis, very educational to me. Thank you.
devotech2 on scored.co
1 year ago 0 points (+0 / -0 )
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.
Toast message