Talk:Paintings by Adolf Hitler

Copyright status of paintings

The article could benefit from at least one image, and maybe more. I'm not sure this is right (and even if it is, one could easily be used with a fair-use rationale). First, the EU directives cited here apply only to work under copyright as of the effective date in 1995 (The WWII thing is not an issue with the paintings; they were executed long before the war). Second, the works were painted in Austria, not Germany, so that country's pre-EU copyright laws would govern.

The DYK discussion touched in the issue of publication ... I would say that any images that were sold by the young Hitler on the streets of Vienna were definitely published under US law. Another question is whether copyright in Austria at that time was opt-in or opt-out ... if the former, then this whole discussion is moot. If the latter, they may still be PD since the original copyright term might well have expired prior to 1995, both in the US and Austria. Daniel Case (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

The article as is suggests that criticism was universal that Hitler was a bad painter; this is not the case. I've added the reference to Spotts, and I'm sure there are others. Art is subjective, particularly if one can separate the subject from the artist.68.144.172.8 (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm not editing this correctly. However, far from 'proving' his paintings as "grim" as this entry misquotes them, Collotti and Mariani actually state that "his water colours show that as a painter Hitler was anything but 'grim'", stating that it was in fact his "political programme" that was in fact 'grim'- not his paintings. LairdKeir (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Paintings of Disney characters by Adolf Hitler

There are several press reports about four paintings of Disney characters by Adolf Hitler. While the authenticity of those paintings is still questionable (remember the Hitler Diaries), this story might be notable enough to be mentioned in this article.

• The Telegraph: Did Adolf Hitler draw Disney characters?
• Spiegel Online: Hitler als Cartoonist Zwölf Micky-Filme für den "Führer" (in German)
• hoaxes.org: Hitler Draws Disney
• Hitlers unknown pictures

-- Reise Reise (talk) 19:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Watercolor paints can contain neurotoxic substances

Recent articles, have yet to search for historical documents.

• Watercolor Sets with Toxic Amounts of Lead being Sold in Manila Stores
• High levels of toxic lead found in 5 local watercolor sets

How far of a stretch is it to suggest that Hitler consumed substances that destroyed his mind?

There wasn't that much to destroy. Hitler was a robot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.22.129.136 (talk) 10:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

73.163.28.44 (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

A very, very far one. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 21:09, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

controversial nature?

The article says the pictures are not shown because of their controversial nature. This is vague. Does it mean: artistically controversial; that they were painted by Hitler and it would be controversial to exhibit something by him as a person; they depict a subject matter that is controversial e.g. a murder? I would guess the second one, inwhich case the pictures are not controversial, the artist is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.95.7.93 (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC) It's because of the person who drew them being rather controversial.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 15:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree that statement could stand to be fleshed out a bit. There is a long-standing controversy about allowing these works to be displayed, and like other Nazi memorabilia, about the ethics of collecting such items. There's a Washington Post article from 2002 here that goes into depth about these issues and the status of existing Hitler artworks. This Washington Post story is only briefly cited in the article (as of this date), but I think there's actually quite a bit there that could be used to flesh out this article further. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Critical analysis poorly cited

The part about the art critic does not appear in the page cited. I’m pretty sure it’s nowhere in the book. Where is that tidbit actually from? Siúnrá (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

style and influence highly opinionated

most of this section is uncited and opinionated. not sure if i should butcher it in pruning or leave it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CwalkPinoy (talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it’s also mainly full of Hitler’s own opinions on his style which is of little value considering there is much that others have said of his work contemporary to him and since his passing.

"Use of art as a political tool" irrelevant?

The section "Use of art as a political tool" doesn't seem to contain any information about Hitler's paintings. This might be better suited for another article, and the information therein is probably already described elsewhere. Perhaps it could be deleted here, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.139.167.148 (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Jake and Dinos Chapman's alterations

If there are no objections, I will create a section on the exhibitions of Jake and Dinos Chapman, which used modified Hitler works in a modern exhibition. The exhibition had a lasting effect on the value and awareness of hitler's work according to sources. Edaham (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Price paid for the paintings

Wiki states:

"In 2009, auction house Mullock's of Shropshire sold 15 of Hitler's paintings for a total of £97,672 (US $102,239,829)"

The USD should be updated to the correct amount.

Also the source for this has since been deleted:

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/money/mullocks-auction-house-claims-art-adolf-hitler-sold-143k-article-1.361151 Sbarrios126 (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Article in general appears to be fairly hostile towards Hitler.

Upon reading through the article, I've noticed that it generally doesn't read in a non-biased manner, and I believe this is because, well, it's literally Hitler. I think a small overhaul in the tone of the article may be necessary but I don't want to do anything without getting some consensus. Heyimastopsign (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

um... ltbdl (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

What are your exact issues with the article? Cortador (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

It looks pretty objective to me; the negative opinions are sourced and represent the consensus regarding AH's art. If he had not gone into politics it seems unlikely he would be remembered for his art. The tone of this article is no more negative than warranted, and can be compared to articles about other people whose artistic endeavors have impressed neither the critics nor the public, e.g., Henry James Pye, Colley Cibber, Cherry Sisters, or Florence Foster Jenkins. Ewulp (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for checking in. Sorry I took a bit to respond, here are my 3 main issues:

1. Negative tone.

The language used in the article to describe his art feels rather dismissive and contemptuous. For example, phrases such as "Hitler's style was very stilted when representing architecture in his paintings. Instead of progressing, his works copied from nineteenth century and other artists", go beyond objective critique and border on pejorative commentary, instead of neutral observation. This kind of language is contributive to an overall negative tone.

2. Lack of Balance.

While this page includes some quotes that criticise Hitler's artistic skills (which is good! It provides insight into what those who are more educated in the artistic field believe), the article doesn't provide very much balance by including viewpoints that are neutral or, if they exist, even slightly positive statements regarding his artistic skills. If there are art historians or critics who have commented on his work in a less negative light, maybe those perspectives should be included to provide a more rounded view?

3. Overemphasis on Historical Context.

While placing emphasis on the historical context is important, especially considering that we're dealing with a historical figure, the article somewhat blends his political actions with critiques of his art, which will skew the reader's perception. The article is about his art, ergo, the primary focus should be on his art, with historical context as the background rather than the forefront. Heyimastopsign (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

To my untrained eye, Blumen-Arrangement picture in this article seems to contradict the notion that he does not draw plants nicely, and Mother Mary picture in this article seems to contradict that he does not draw humans nicely, it would benefit the article if more of his paintings are elaborated. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I added the proper reference for the 'stilted' claim if you want to review it. I think we should ignore WW2 era criticsm as it is hard to say how objective and fair that criticism is or whether it was motivated by politics. John Gunther is not an artist nor an art critic so his opinion combined with it being tainted by the geopolitical tensions of the time make it near worthless when there are certainly critiques from actual artists and art critics. This sentence: 'One modern art critic was asked in 2002 to review some of Hitler's paintings without being told who painted them. He said they were quite good, but that the different style in which he drew human figures represented a profound lack of interest in people' is what we should have more of, although the critic should be named. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I entirely agree that we should have more of that sort of thing. If I have time today, I'll look into critique by modern standards Heyimastopsign (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)