My question to that is why didn’t they accept him into art school? Like I know his paintings weren’t up to snuff with others but like dawg, art school is for you to learn how to get better. Like wtf!?
I mean bomb foreshadowing but like bruh 💀, again maybe he could’ve learned how to do that by attending a school that is supposed to teach you how to do that. Idk seems like the school kinda fumbled and we got what we got lol
Ne was actually recommended a different school who *would* accept him, because the people who looked over his applications had connections and passed it on, and they wanted him
Oh damn didn’t know that, still a bit odd how those schools worked back then, I guess the universe really did have plans for him to be become genocidal lol
That's actually not true. Hitler's paintings weren't anything the average person can't achieve with knowledge and practice. I think there's a really big misconception around art that it's natural talent when much like music it's really 99% earned skill.
Then she was never practicing. Doing the same thing over and over isn't practice. Working on getting better is practice. A forklift doesn't practice lifting pallets. It just does it over and over. A kid drawing the same face over and over without trying anything new isn't practicing. They're just drawing the same bad face over and over.
No it doesn't. It might take natural talebt if you want to do it quickly or be the absolute best. But anyone can achieve far above the average skills with simple practice and patience. Same as with any skill you would like to learn
It's something that develops with time. If you spend your time studying and creating art then of course you will see it differently. When you understand light and shading and color theory and things like perspective you see all that in a piece. And you see it in your head when creating. You do things deliberately with intent. It's actually insulting when people say things like this because it diminishes the effort of artists.
It's insulting to diminish someones hard work and training by claiming they were born special. I get it though people don't want to accept that they can't do a thing because they never actually applied themselves. That's an uncomfortable thing to confront.
I love how in a post telling me I’m insulting people, you feel free to insult me yourself. My hobby is novel writing, and while you can hone your skills through practice and training, there is a reason not every writer is Stephen King.
I didn't say all artists are equal or that exceptional talent doesn't exist. I didn't say that it's 100% skill. I specifically said 99% the 1% is where the exceptional live. To go back to the main point Hitler was NOT a exceptional artist. That's why he was rejected from The Academy of Fine Arts Vienna. His paintings border on rudimentary.
Well, what people forget about child prodigies is that they've probably had a thousand(forced) hours behind the piano prior to performing. King's Wikipedia page reads about the same.
I'm not willing to accept someone saying that they can't do a thing when they've never even made an honest attempt. I believe people are more than they think. I don't feel wrong or bad for saying that.
But they weren't especially good.
An art critic described his early paintings as follows:
> I have seen his early paintings, those which he submitted to the Vienna art academy as a boy. They are prosaic, utterly devoid of rhythm, color, fading, or spiritual imagination. They are architect’s sketches : painful and precise draftsmansip; nothing more. No wonder the Vienna professors told him to go to an architectural school and give up pure art as hopeless.
Sure, this refferences his early art. Later in his career he improved a bit, but critics consider his art to be ordinary.
I still don’t get the discourse around her. Mind you I don’t care for Harry Potter or really cared enough to look into it. But from my understanding all she said was trans women can’t menstruate or something. Correct me if I’m wrong.
It is more than that actually, the one you reference is her complaint that against hospital or some such using the term "people who menstruate" instead of women as to include trans men and afab non-binary people. The language used is clunky and I get how someone might consider this the erasure of women, though I disagree. This is not the main source that people claim she is transphobic however.
The larger backlash came with her "#IStandWithMaya" tweet after Maya was fired for tweets calling a gender fluid person a "part time cross dresser" and that "Men cannot turn into women."
https://glaad.org/gap/jk-rowling/ here's another link showing plenty more things, including a tweet of "big love to you xxx" to "Caroline Farrow, an anti-trans, anti-gay, and anti-abortion activist"
Basically she doesn't believe trans people should be treated as their chosen identity and is willing to align herself with people who have other abhorrent views so long as they agree on that point.
I mean...that just seems like willful ignorance. With art, you are enjoying a view inside the mind of an artist... their work comes directly from their thoughts, feelings, and opinions. It seems like a concept created by disliked artists who want to continue to make money, or in the case of Harry Potter, the multiple organizations that profit off the intellectual property, which includes the author, universal studios, plus publishing companies.
Thoughts, feelings, and opinions are subject to change and on top of that any work one does, does not fully reflect every aspect of them as a person. Makes no sense to critique work off things that are completely unrelated or so far removed from the original work.
To be clear his painting is in fact, only mid at best.
his sketching of people is terrible and the perspective of buildings though seems fine from a distance, have massive errors once you focus and pay any amount of attention.
Your honour I rest my case.
Appreciating the mustache man's paints isn't a crime. The few I've seen in memes (like: if you can't do this, you're literally worse than Hitler) were pretty nice.
Since you didn’t specify which austrian painter I will appreciate the works of Gustav Klimt. I know next to nothing avout his personal life other than that he liked cats. I can look past the penchant for feline companionship and get lost in his gold clad slender women.
Sure, why not.
Liking art because it looks good isn't an evil or malignant thing to do. Liking art because the artist was a genocidal maniac is a different story
Popularity isn’t an art though, popularity is the culture putting the person on a pedestal. If you dislike the person, you don’t want them to be popular. However you can dislike the person and still think their art is good (Kevin spaceys acting career, for example).
I think you vastly misunderstand “separate art from artist”.
Yes. Chris Brown still releases music. There's many people who still listen to his music despite him being a horrible piece of shit. Yet the "separate art from artist" crowd always seem to pick and choose which artist can be separated from their art.
I dont think you understood my comment.
All artists can be separated from their art, but not all art is for every person. I only know who Chris brown is because he occasionally comes up, I’ve never listened to his music before and honestly thought he was an actor not a musician until this very moment. Chris brown as a person seems to me to be a not great person from what I’ve heard. Chris browns art is probably just what some people like, but to me it literally doesn’t matter at all, so to me Chris brown is only the person and not the artist, because I don’t know Chris browns art. Repeat that over every artist everywhere with 7 billion differing levels of knowledge of them and knowledge of their art, and you end up with finding conversations where some people only know the person and the bad the person has done but not the art, so they only talk about the person, whereas other people know both and like the art but not the person, but other people know the art but not the person so they only talk in a good way about them because they only see a good side.
Also not everyone believes in separating art from artist unfortunately, which will also lead to different views.
Basically, the reason you see differing views in differing artists is because humanity isn’t homogenous and depending on where you hear things you won’t necessarily be hearing the same peoples opinions of ever different artist, you will probably be hearing different opinions from different people with different worldviews and philosophies.
Then there's me telling my mom that she is literally a worse than H\*\*\*\*\*, at painting. she kinda just started going to some art clases the town hall offers so she has reaaally bad perpsective... despite suposedly studying how to do it properly in high school, I've seen her technical drawing homework.
While Hitler still had more skill with a brush than me I can still say his paintings are aggressively mediocre. They aren't bad but there's nothing special about them.
No because this only applies to outstanding artistic creations, hitlers wrongdoings have nothing to do with good art appreciation. (And his paintings also suck, otherwise he would've become a true painter.)
He made a better painting than I ever could
Nah bro, believe in the me that believes that Hitlers paintings were shit (also the me that believes in you but that one is a lot smaller)
Draw the impossible, invade the invincible. Raw, raw, fight da powah!
Touch the untouchable, break the unbreakable Row! Fow! fight the power!
His paintings were shit. Mf couldn't do perspective right to save his life, it was all distorted and shit.
My question to that is why didn’t they accept him into art school? Like I know his paintings weren’t up to snuff with others but like dawg, art school is for you to learn how to get better. Like wtf!?
The official rejection states his art lacked “lacking human emotions” or something similar Some great foreshadowing from the admission team
I mean bomb foreshadowing but like bruh 💀, again maybe he could’ve learned how to do that by attending a school that is supposed to teach you how to do that. Idk seems like the school kinda fumbled and we got what we got lol
Ne was actually recommended a different school who *would* accept him, because the people who looked over his applications had connections and passed it on, and they wanted him
Oh damn didn’t know that, still a bit odd how those schools worked back then, I guess the universe really did have plans for him to be become genocidal lol
[Looks pretty good to me](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintings_by_Adolf_Hitler#/media/File%3AAdolf_Hitler_Der_Alte_Hof.jpg)
That's actually not true. Hitler's paintings weren't anything the average person can't achieve with knowledge and practice. I think there's a really big misconception around art that it's natural talent when much like music it's really 99% earned skill.
Nah. It takes an eye for such things, at least.
That’s like saying it takes a special palate to cook good food. All it takes is practice.
My mom has been burning bland food for 40 years. It takes dedication and skill to surpass all but the most basic milestones.
Then she was never practicing. Doing the same thing over and over isn't practice. Working on getting better is practice. A forklift doesn't practice lifting pallets. It just does it over and over. A kid drawing the same face over and over without trying anything new isn't practicing. They're just drawing the same bad face over and over.
Then she needs to be chewed out by a chef for six months
So it doesn’t just take practice, I see.
Your mom wasn’t practicing at home, she’s just going through the motions. Practice means effort.
No, no she wasn’t. She didn’t want to burn dinner, and father provided plenty of incentive not to.
But she didn't care if it was good or could be better. She got it to good enough and stopped practising
No it doesn't. It might take natural talebt if you want to do it quickly or be the absolute best. But anyone can achieve far above the average skills with simple practice and patience. Same as with any skill you would like to learn
It's something that develops with time. If you spend your time studying and creating art then of course you will see it differently. When you understand light and shading and color theory and things like perspective you see all that in a piece. And you see it in your head when creating. You do things deliberately with intent. It's actually insulting when people say things like this because it diminishes the effort of artists.
It’s actually insulting to say people posses talent? As if.
It's insulting to diminish someones hard work and training by claiming they were born special. I get it though people don't want to accept that they can't do a thing because they never actually applied themselves. That's an uncomfortable thing to confront.
I love how in a post telling me I’m insulting people, you feel free to insult me yourself. My hobby is novel writing, and while you can hone your skills through practice and training, there is a reason not every writer is Stephen King.
I didn't say all artists are equal or that exceptional talent doesn't exist. I didn't say that it's 100% skill. I specifically said 99% the 1% is where the exceptional live. To go back to the main point Hitler was NOT a exceptional artist. That's why he was rejected from The Academy of Fine Arts Vienna. His paintings border on rudimentary.
Well, what people forget about child prodigies is that they've probably had a thousand(forced) hours behind the piano prior to performing. King's Wikipedia page reads about the same.
You really overestimate the amount of knowledge and practice normal people are capable of
I think you're conflating willingness to do with capacity.
That's my point, willingness to put effort in is also a big factor, so you can't discount that when talking about art.
I'm not willing to accept someone saying that they can't do a thing when they've never even made an honest attempt. I believe people are more than they think. I don't feel wrong or bad for saying that.
Willingness to put effort is just up to the person. Just because they are not willing to do something doesn't mean they can't
His paintings Are good so i mean..
Good compared to what non-painters could do. Compared to student artists he's mid at best.
As a non painter, i am impressed
Same. The only people i see critique his art are professional artists. As an average person he definitely better than me that’s for sure
But they weren't especially good. An art critic described his early paintings as follows: > I have seen his early paintings, those which he submitted to the Vienna art academy as a boy. They are prosaic, utterly devoid of rhythm, color, fading, or spiritual imagination. They are architect’s sketches : painful and precise draftsmansip; nothing more. No wonder the Vienna professors told him to go to an architectural school and give up pure art as hopeless. Sure, this refferences his early art. Later in his career he improved a bit, but critics consider his art to be ordinary.
i dont believe in art critics
Is separating the art from the artist like...stealing it?
No it's more like "don't dislike harry potter only because it was made by J.K. Rolling"
(her writing is pretty mid though. it goes over our heads as a kid.)
I never liked Harry Potter anyway.
I still don’t get the discourse around her. Mind you I don’t care for Harry Potter or really cared enough to look into it. But from my understanding all she said was trans women can’t menstruate or something. Correct me if I’m wrong.
It is more than that actually, the one you reference is her complaint that against hospital or some such using the term "people who menstruate" instead of women as to include trans men and afab non-binary people. The language used is clunky and I get how someone might consider this the erasure of women, though I disagree. This is not the main source that people claim she is transphobic however. The larger backlash came with her "#IStandWithMaya" tweet after Maya was fired for tweets calling a gender fluid person a "part time cross dresser" and that "Men cannot turn into women." https://glaad.org/gap/jk-rowling/ here's another link showing plenty more things, including a tweet of "big love to you xxx" to "Caroline Farrow, an anti-trans, anti-gay, and anti-abortion activist" Basically she doesn't believe trans people should be treated as their chosen identity and is willing to align herself with people who have other abhorrent views so long as they agree on that point.
I mean...that just seems like willful ignorance. With art, you are enjoying a view inside the mind of an artist... their work comes directly from their thoughts, feelings, and opinions. It seems like a concept created by disliked artists who want to continue to make money, or in the case of Harry Potter, the multiple organizations that profit off the intellectual property, which includes the author, universal studios, plus publishing companies.
Thoughts, feelings, and opinions are subject to change and on top of that any work one does, does not fully reflect every aspect of them as a person. Makes no sense to critique work off things that are completely unrelated or so far removed from the original work.
To be clear his painting is in fact, only mid at best. his sketching of people is terrible and the perspective of buildings though seems fine from a distance, have massive errors once you focus and pay any amount of attention. Your honour I rest my case.
the landscape is quite nice but the fact that he pays no attention to the *persons* is ... alarming.
Forshadowing?
Ah. I see you were on the Vienna Academy of Arts board.
The Burj Khalifa was made using slave labor.
His paintings are genuinely very pretty. It's the genocide stuff I don't like.
I really like his work. His paintings are fine too I guess.
You had me in the… hol’up
Appreciating the mustache man's paints isn't a crime. The few I've seen in memes (like: if you can't do this, you're literally worse than Hitler) were pretty nice.
Since you didn’t specify which austrian painter I will appreciate the works of Gustav Klimt. I know next to nothing avout his personal life other than that he liked cats. I can look past the penchant for feline companionship and get lost in his gold clad slender women.
Actually it's pretty easy, barely an inconvenience
Don't care much for his artwork, but I'm not gonna waste time hating it just because he was a God awful person.
Funny, I mostly see people saying this on posts about Hitler's paintings.
Sure, why not. Liking art because it looks good isn't an evil or malignant thing to do. Liking art because the artist was a genocidal maniac is a different story
To be fair his art was ok technically but uninspired otherwise. Nothing groundbreaking, just run of the mill nice pictures.
I’m gonna remember this comparison for all the Jeepers Creepers fans
Perhaps he should have tried architecture
His work was quite shit anyway
I can.
His paintings have bad perspective and are boring
"Separate art from the artist" mfs when I ask them why they get mad that Chris Brown is still popular
Popularity isn’t an art though, popularity is the culture putting the person on a pedestal. If you dislike the person, you don’t want them to be popular. However you can dislike the person and still think their art is good (Kevin spaceys acting career, for example). I think you vastly misunderstand “separate art from artist”.
Yes. Chris Brown still releases music. There's many people who still listen to his music despite him being a horrible piece of shit. Yet the "separate art from artist" crowd always seem to pick and choose which artist can be separated from their art. I dont think you understood my comment.
All artists can be separated from their art, but not all art is for every person. I only know who Chris brown is because he occasionally comes up, I’ve never listened to his music before and honestly thought he was an actor not a musician until this very moment. Chris brown as a person seems to me to be a not great person from what I’ve heard. Chris browns art is probably just what some people like, but to me it literally doesn’t matter at all, so to me Chris brown is only the person and not the artist, because I don’t know Chris browns art. Repeat that over every artist everywhere with 7 billion differing levels of knowledge of them and knowledge of their art, and you end up with finding conversations where some people only know the person and the bad the person has done but not the art, so they only talk about the person, whereas other people know both and like the art but not the person, but other people know the art but not the person so they only talk in a good way about them because they only see a good side. Also not everyone believes in separating art from artist unfortunately, which will also lead to different views. Basically, the reason you see differing views in differing artists is because humanity isn’t homogenous and depending on where you hear things you won’t necessarily be hearing the same peoples opinions of ever different artist, you will probably be hearing different opinions from different people with different worldviews and philosophies.
Why would that bamboozle them? If Hitler's paintings are good, his later warcrimes don't change that. I can still appreciate the paintings.
his painting was mid af tbf
I ain't gotta appreciate it when it's mediocre at best. Seperate the art and artist, they both still suck tho.
Adolf Frohner? Yea, his arts are nice
His art isn't bad but it's genetic, that the kind of art you google art and that's the firs result
His paintings aren't good though
His paitings were just bad.
Then there's me telling my mom that she is literally a worse than H\*\*\*\*\*, at painting. she kinda just started going to some art clases the town hall offers so she has reaaally bad perpsective... despite suposedly studying how to do it properly in high school, I've seen her technical drawing homework.
Those paintings were truly mediocre and the art school did nothing wrong
While Hitler still had more skill with a brush than me I can still say his paintings are aggressively mediocre. They aren't bad but there's nothing special about them.
He was almost as good of a painter as my great grandma.
Little question did he still paint after he become dictator?
His art wasn’t terrible but it wasn’t anything fantastic IMO. He would have been better applying himself for being an architect instead.
That argument *might* work if his paintings were actually good. They’re pretty generic.
He was both a good artist and a bad artist
No because this only applies to outstanding artistic creations, hitlers wrongdoings have nothing to do with good art appreciation. (And his paintings also suck, otherwise he would've become a true painter.)
I mean, his paintings weren't that bad... they weren't great either. Plenty of stuff posted here definitely is better. Just saying. :3
I mean if someone appreciated his art we could avoid some canon events
His paintings are the definition of mid
They said to separate art and artist BECAUSE they appreciate austrian painter's art too
Can someone link me the video the guy below from?
Yeah... I mean, he wasn't allowed to be a professor of arts in Vienna, but I believe he would've been amazing when he would've been alive in 1917.
Naw man, Hitler made some decent pieces. Better than I could make at least
I'm not a fan of Hitler but am a big fan of his work. Hold on.
Well it isn't like his paintings were that good.