Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2024 Poal.co

1.0K

(post is archived)

[–] • 13 pts

too realistic, art needs to be ugly and offend people.

  • communists
[–] • 8 pts (edited )

Have you seen the absolute drek that was produced by the jew "artists" that were accepted? I don't have the link handy but it was all, uniformly, utter shit.

Art of every sort should serve the cause of upholding, preserving and defending the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. To uplift and exalt the human spirit. It should engender in the human heart a sense of wonder and pride in being a member of a species, a culture, a civilization that contains within it the capability to produce such a thing.

Think of every piece that filled you with wonder. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. Beethoven's "Ode to Joy". That is the purpose of great art.

All you have to do is look closely and carefully to discern that any so-called "art" that is debased or degenerate, that exalts ugliness, evil and lies, has jews embedded somewhere at it's source. Every. Single. Time.

https://voxday.net/2021/10/28/they-are-here-to-destroy/

https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/the-spoliation-of-pop-culture

[–] • 0 pt

I know what you're talking about. Heres (vid8)an old NatSoc video talking about it

[–] • 4 pts

He never mastered the vanishing point, for Art, or the Jews.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

Contrast to what was lauded at the time. As @firstbox states, his competition was all about ugly, degenerate, vulgar, antisocial modernist drek.

Maybe he wasn't the best but he clearly towered over the comtemporaries who were accepted.

[–] • 2 pts

It's one of those situations where the world (and frankly, Germany) would have been better off if Germany's universities weren't a Marxist shithole a the time. Hitler would have painted, and Germany wouldnt have ended up divided between the Soviets and the "reee feels" West Germany.

[–] • 2 pts

What an awe inspiring perfect painting. So much brilliance and talent destroyed by the jew. It's a shame the holocaust wasn't real. PIGS.

[–] • 1 pt

I will point out that the art he was producing at the time was technically acceptable, but also highly derivative. Romantic german artists like Kasper David Friedrich had been producing works like that for a hundred years before hitler came along and their works were better too. People were probably getting a bit sick of seeing "yet another painting of a castle."

[–] • 1 pt

This is very well done.

[–] • 2 pts

It's a nice painting. And that's kinda the problem with all of his paintings, they're just "nice paintings" in a style that was popular a hundred years earlier. He'd probably have done reasonably well selling them in the park, but even if the art academies hadn't been cucked they wouldn't have gained him any renown.

[–] • 2 pts

Isn't the point of an art school to help you improve and expand your horizons? Seems to me he was more than talented enough to get in.

[–] • 1 pt

Sure, but they're always going to prefer someone pushing in (what they see as) a promising new direction.

At the time art was in crisis because it's traditional niche had been almost completely replaced by photography. No one was interested in faithful reproductions of reality any more, photographers could do that better and cheaper. It took them a while to work out how to do interesting stylistic things that photographers couldn't, but by then most art academies were jewed beyond belief.

[–] • 0 pt

It's ok, not great tbh. Lots of proportions wrong.

[–] • 0 pt

He made enough on his street art to live decently in Vienna for awhile. Enough to keep him from begging for jobs in the jew-owned factories of the time. The same ones that he saw good German men reduced to mere numbers for a profit.

[–] • 0 pt

I don't think this is one of Hitlers. I've seen his work, and while it is good it isn't photo realistic in terms of proportions.

This is probably a fake photochop. The buildings look collaged together.

[–] • 1 pt

i've seen his work, and while it is good it isn't photo realistic in terms of proportions.

If you've seen his work you'd know he needed to learn how to do proportions and lines of perspective correctly. But I cannot prove you're incorrect. It seems like his to me.

[–] • 0 pt

The aesthetic looks like his but most of his paintings are "lifeless" he didn't often include people while not exclusively a still life painter he would maybe include one or a few people in his art but typically just those who caught his eye, I noticed a trend that he'll often include cloaked figures and lone older women who seemed to be poorly.

if the OP pic is his I have no doubt that he took to that criticism of lifeless paintings and tried to improve, had the fools accepted him he probably would have done his best to study the human form and use that study to liven up his work.

[+] [deleted] • 0 pt
[–] • 0 pt

look at the antifa guy in the middle, pulling up cobblestones to throw them at the police...

Load more (1 reply)