This is both unimaginative and unsatisfactory. Your application to Vienna art school is rejected.

His paintings are pretty boring, but I feel like they're good enough that he should've been accepted.
A school is supposed to teach you how to achieve your full potential and be able to make masterpieces, there's no point in a school only accepting people who can already do that.

hitler liek watermelon

I bet that house is full of dead jews!

>>185704
they basically told him that he should have applied to the architecture school instead because they thought he had more talent for that (and he also liked architecture more), but he should have gone through secondary school at 21 as a requirement, because he dropped out, so he didn't
the paintings are not bad but he clearly had issues with perspective and geometry

If hitler was born in 2002, he would be a random outcast posting on Oekaki@Heyuri today

alternatively, perhaps one of our oekakians is the next hitler...

Worse artists got accepted

>>185719
Remove the degenerate trash, please.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_art

>>185723
*removes you*

>>185719
I don't get how you like the first row over the other two. Hitler's stuff looks like something my grandma would hang over the dining table. They're good on a technical level, but don't really incite much emotion

>>185719
i think this is all good art
hrdlicka is not really my style tho

>>185725
I guess I could understand some people seeing Schiele's art as good... but Hrdlicka's stuff looks like shit. Literally, it's like Hrdlicka took a dump on a sheet of paper and started spreading that shit all over it

>>185732
Thinking of art as only that pleasing to the eye is reductive.
Hrdlicka wants, in my appreciation, to express agony, apathy, quiet desperation. Art is a vehicle for emotions, nothing more and nothing less, while the superficial (color, styles, materials, medium, techniques) are only tools. The thing to judge is whether said tools were coordinated in a way that channeled emotion and to what extent.

My point is, Hrdlicka's stuff intentionally arises a certain heavinness in the spirit. Hitler's stuff doesn't do much for me, i can appreciate a good technique and composition, but that's as far as it goes. Think of the difference between reading a poem and reading a wikipedia article

>>185733
>Art is a vehicle for emotions
i like art when it expresses a struggle of the artist to show his vision and triumph, and most of the art post-renaissance lacks that struggle, consequently lacking depth on the emotion it's trying to express and giving way to easy feelings and quick emotions without the containment and the restriction offered by that kind of required struggle, which perfectly reflects modern society as a whole.

posted on Heyuri (the place to be)

>>185734
What do you mean by struggle? How can one possibly know whether an artist struggled more or less to accomplish his vision? How can one be sure of the artist's exact vision in the first place?

I'm not asking to dismiss, just to understand what you meant (´･ω･`)

>>185735
to take >>185739 comparison, i think hitler took much more time and pains to paint that than schiele and hrdlicka. i think this also reflects the painter himself. he's not satisfied with an easy painting to express what he feels. he has to draw a detailed scenery. i don't agree with nazism, but hitler was surely a man not of his time and this shows.
take this renaissance painting for example. there's an INSANE attention to detail down to the way the clothes fold. the musculature, and also the flora. and this is just background to the whole scenery and the symbolism. it's almost like the painter is showing he is so full he has life to spare, he's playing with us or showing off like a king so rich he just throws gold coins to the streets. but today we just get the symbolism and we want the symbolism, the "emotion" immediately.
why did we get rid of this detail? of this playing around the symbolism? did the artist stop being so rich? he has nothing to share anymore because he can't even fill himself. and that's our world as a whole today.

*to take >>185719 comparison, typo

>>185738
I don't think a work of art is better because it has more detail, nor do i think effort put in should be a measure of quality.
If detail makes art better then we should start building museums for Where's Waldo puzzles, or for the myriad of photorealistic pencil drawings that people like to share, which i find even more pointless, since they don't leave space for the artist to express anything. I'm not saying less detail is better either, my argument is that we shouldn't take it as a determining factor.

The same goes for effort. We can make assumptions about what required more or less effort for the author but we can never know for sure, so it's not worth it to take it as a measuring stick. However, even if we did have a way of knowing for sure what would that tell us exactly? Different techniques, intentions, subject matters and visions will lead to varying degrees of time before finishing the work. Not to mention individual skillset. If i tried to make a painting, a song, a movie, a book, etc, from scratch it would surely take me 10x more than it would a trained artist, but that wouldn't make mine inherently better simply because it took more out of me (assuming the results of what we made were comparable, of course)

Ask yourself this: If you found out through whatever form that a piece of art you liked was actually made in half the time you assumed at first and that, on top of that, it was actually a secondary project for the author, would you suddenly like it less? Would it be lessened in your eyes even if the only thing that changed was that you gained new information?

Then again, i don't think it's right to assume a perhaps simpler work of art was easy to make just because it took less technical prowess. Struggle to meet vision is not only time adding rigourous detail. If your vision is different you'll struggle just the same, but in a different way. Knowing how to express yourself in as little words as possible may be just as hard as trying to write the most encompassing essay.

>>185733
>Thinking of art as only that pleasing to the eye is reductive.
Honestly, I don't even think Hitler's art looks any more pleasing than the other paintings in the image anyway. Real life doesn't tend to look very good outside of sunny days.

For me the worst looking modern art are expressionist, impressionist and cubist paintings with low contrast colors. The fewer the number of distinct shapes, the greater the importance of color, and out off the entire of the color spectrum these people decide to use various shades of brown.
That said, I think ones that have well defined black lines, like nude descending the stairs, still work, cause the black gives a nice contrast to the brown.

>>185741
i never said or implied a work of art is better because it has more detail or that the time needed to make it measures its worth. that's merely consequence of what i said is the point.

They lack.

>>185738
Hitler's paintings are nothing like that Rennaissance painting though. Hitler's are very banal, inoffensive. They look like they belong on greeting cards or on the wall of a retirement home. They remind me of Thomas Kinkade, a skillful painter who chose to paint absolutely nothing of interest, at least not the ones he chose to show publicly.

>>185751
But here's one of Kinkade's secret paintings that was only revealed after he died. He had struggles with alcoholism, and you can see his vulnerability here. Whereas everything in the works he sold is buttoned-down, controlled, picturesque. I guess that works for a lot of people though, because he sold a lot of paintings.

>>185751
this painting is so great. I want to go inside it and live in this place that is far more beautiful than real life is. ヽ(´ー｀)ノ
are you sure it's not interesting, or are you just bored of beauty?

>>185751
I don't think those are very comparable. Kinkade's paintings are clearly aiming for a certain ultra cozy atmosphere, with the bright colors and stuff, and they are good at achieving that. Of course, you might not think that's very interesting, but it's not something devoid of thought. Hitler's (at least the ones posted in this thread) do just seem like he randomly went outside and just painted what he saw without trying to give it any unique appeal.

>>185768
That's the thing. It's not bad in itself, but it's not stellar either. The impressionists literally built a movement out of taking ordinary settings or subjects and capturing the feeling of it instead of what was in front of their eyes. That's where the name came from, they painted their impression of things not the things themselves

biggest problem i think is the word "art" is used to describe a lot of different things, at least in english. you can have a highly realistic portrait or a heavily stylized painting and they'll both be called "art" (and that's just with oil on canvas...). Also a problem is the idea that something "needs" "effort" to be considered "art", and nobody can agree on a threshold for this "effort"

Easy way i've found to solve this is to break it up into "i like this" or "i dont like this", and describe the parts you like and don't like Doesn't really solve the "art" question though...

>>185796
heyuri.net is art (plz kaguya dont ban me)

Are ban messages art?

>>185800
make ASCII hentai ban message ｷﾀ━━━(・∀・)━━━!!

>>185800
Everything and nothing is art.

I remember when I first brought my aunt to America she dropped a few hundred on reproduction kinkade paintings. She really thought they were masterpieces ( ´ω`)

Okay guys.

Theres a caviat about hitlers paintings that many are missing and that was WW1.
A lot of the hitler paintings you see that look really boring and bland are pre-ww1, during the war he continued to paint and actually got better at his artwork, art historians have pointed out that if he had enrolled again he would have been accepted as his artwork during the war period was more expressive, and less bland.
However hitler got into politics. If you look at his later artworks (which there is very few because these paintings were taken by the US government and are just locked up in a vault) youll see theyre more loosey goosey and less like architectural concepts. He typically painted and sketched his dog in later life and even did quite a few nudes which are also locked up.

I think important context is missing from these types of convos. Hitlers artwork improved beyond his initial denial from art school and most of his artwork is destroyed / in private/government pocession so its difficult to get a clear picture.

The traditional narrative that hitler or nazis etc were creatively bankrupt due to their hatred is something that a lot of people parrot and doesnt have historical merit. Germany pre nazi period was a hub of creativity and many creative craftsman were not killed and simply became nazi like everyone else and got jobs utilizing their skills making nazi stuff. There were many nazi cartoonists, sculptures, painters who were doing weird stuff in the 1910s and 20s and just changed subject matter with the times.

>>185825
>Germany pre nazi period was a hub of creativity
this was a historically controversial topic debated even by germany's own philosophers and critics of the 19th century

ｷﾀ━━━(ﾟ∀ﾟ)━━━!!

>>185751
I like that one, its not as garish as Kinkade's others. Not everything has to pour with symbolism.
Still gets demolished by the average Thomas Cole painting, though. I used them as desktop wallpapers often.

>>185719
>>185732
I'm the opposite. Hrdlicka's illustrations are interesting, but that sculpture looks like shit, and Schiele's looks terrible too.

>>185733
>>185734
>>185738
We don't have enough modern art melding expression and meaning with the craftsmanship that makes the thing captivating to look at for its nuts and bolts. To pretend the debate is only either-or is to advocate for incomplete art.

>>185768
This post is art.