i have seen a few [about 15 or so] and although some of them were not too good at least half were quite good.
2006-06-17 06:38:36 · 11 answers · asked by BERNON W 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
this is about the art, if duchamp declares that everything is art shouldnt hitlers, no matter how they appear.
2006-06-17 06:52:28 · update #1
marcel duchamp 1887-1968, also known as r mutt, his signature on his readymades such as upside down urinals.
2006-06-17 07:19:43 · update #2
I don't know who 'Dumchump' is or was , but I don't think every thing is art!
As for Hitlers paintings they are better than anything I could do , but that wouldn't be difficult.
What is an interesting point though if you are inspired by a work of art, be it painting, music or whatever should you be swayed one way or the other by the history of the artist??
Sorry I didn't really intend to pinch your question, just got carried away a bit. My answer to your question is no they did nothing for me!
2006-06-17 07:15:48 · answer #1 · answered by budding author 7 · 11⤊ 1⤋
No, because how are we going to be taught from the previous if we shrink the completed spectrum of someone ? all of us have a good facet and a foul facet. variety of like the PH Scale of humanity. Hitlers paintings became his activity. it really is all. He became no longer as successfull as an artist as a pacesetter. a pacesetter who took his usa down the incorrect direction. He turned right into a draw close manipulator. i'd in no way damage his paintings. it really is like destroying historic records. If Napoleon or Saddam Hussein had painted or made some variety of paintings or literature. Why would we make sure to damage it ? Publishers nonetheless print Mein Kempf. that is what is going to be realized variety Hitler; His ruthlessness became coated up through his paintings & social qualifications. particularly his potential to command interest and to apply words properly. human beings fell for it.
2016-11-14 21:53:33 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Perhaps as Duchamps stated anything can be art, but there are levels. Hitler's level was close to what I would expect from a first year art student with no previous formal training.
His nudes look amazingly like self portraits with breasts. Try penciling in a short, black mustache and see what you get.
2006-06-17 07:31:56 · answer #3 · answered by martin b 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have never seen.
I think that there has been evidence to suggest that genius is next to insanity so maybe his paintings are works of genuis.
Even if they are I am quite sure we will never see them displayed in museums freely.
Just had a look at the website. He is very good at shapes of all kinds but is not so good with faces. The nudes & landscapes are especially good.
2006-06-17 08:46:50 · answer #4 · answered by monkeyface 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cool man, short moustache, Oiled hair, very cool man. His a Picturesque guy. And I'm not lying
2006-06-17 06:55:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no way! hueva is painting them must be outta der mind!!! He was nuttin but a violent person!!
2006-06-17 06:49:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I prefer Churchill's!
2006-06-17 06:43:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No;and his book gave me a headache too.
2006-06-17 06:43:56 · answer #8 · answered by zenan p 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really they are quite dull and amateurish
2006-06-17 06:48:10 · answer #9 · answered by svensjr 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I hate them!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-06-17 06:50:54 · answer #10 · answered by THE ONE 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋