Yeah, I know ahead of time there is going to a lot of anti-Hitler comments but those watercolors were painted under wartime field conditions. The guy had just come out of combat and was worn out and had been breathing poison gas for weeks.
Give me a break, OK? Some of them were dad-gum good. I really like that one of the trees all folded over a rural house. That gave a good insight, I think, into what he was longing for in that moment.
So, set all the hate-crapola aside. SOME of the watercolors were far above amature status, in my opinion. What's your take on them.
2006-09-30 06:55:12 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Painting
HEY SENOR YUMP--TURKEY!! I was asking about the quality of the paintings, not your opinion about politics. Can you understand simple English, idiot?
I hope no one else follows your willful ways, ignores the question and just decides to sit down in the midst of all this and impose YOUR preferred subject.
Vile moron fool.
2006-09-30 08:37:23 · update #1
Technically, Hitler's paintings are not too bad... if a bit academic. As a young man, Hitler wanted to go to the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna to study art, but was denied twice. Can you imagine, that World War 2 might have been completely avoided if the school had just let him in?
2006-09-30 07:08:53 · answer #1 · answered by Feathery 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was his frustration as an artist originally as a child
that sent him over the edge.The story as I heard it was that he had applied to a prestigious art academy and was passed over in favor of a jew.Plus he was beaten by his father pretty much all of his childhood.
Murderers can be amazing artists as well,It's just that they usually just stick to murdering.
2006-09-30 07:07:09 · answer #2 · answered by moebiusfox 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'd give them an A or B. Not C.
2006-09-30 06:57:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋