Adolf Hitler was a good Artist

Essentially, Pro"s tactic is to define the good artist as generically, as inclusively as possible. Unable to make the case for Adolph as a painter of particularly high quality (Pro"s definition), Pro dilutes the qualifications. If an artist is merely one who creates, then anyone"s an artist; those who express a particular interest "probably could be considered good. " But is Pro"s standard particularly useful in application to our inquiry? If a musician set aside her instrument in her youth but continued to listen to music, would we call her a good musician? If a director failed to qualify for film school but still watched movies sometimes, would we call him a good director? If her writings were generally thought trite and unimaginative by her fellow writers, would a voracious reader still qualify as a good writer? Pro reveals her bias in this statement: "this debate is to discuss Hitler's art, not what he did in his professional life. " But for those who are called to the life of an artist, who make the sacrifices of dedication, practice, and continual application, the professional life of an artist is inseparable from the work, the product of the artist. It"s like saying let's discuss David Bowie"s songs, not his musical career- how would separate them? I have argued that artists who give up working in their youth are objectively less likely to be remembered as good artists. Pro has countered that Adolph continued to view art & was therefore still an artist; but reading is not writing; movie-going is not cinematography. I have argued that robbing, imprisoning, and killing many colleagues is objectively disqualifying in most professional contexts. Pro has offered no counter. I have argued that censoring the work of many colleagues is objectively disqualifying in most professional contexts. Pro has offered no counter. I have argued that destroying the work and reputation of many colleagues is objectively disqualifying in most professional contexts. Again, Pro ignores the argument. Pro has instead countered that my argument is based on political bias- a charge I refute. I made no suggestion that Fascism or Nationalism or even anti-semitism are inherently disqualifying. One can discern some of Adolph"s political perspective from the books he banned or the paintings he mocked but I argued against the censorship of other artists generally. The impulse to dominate the conversation, to smother the voices of others under a pillow of political correction is anti-art whatever the political perspective employed. Pro has offered that the qualities of a good artist as: Contemplative Expressive Inquisitive Talkative Kind. Sometimes looks at art. But this describes just about all people sometimes (and even some animals), depends on mostly subjective interpretation, & makes no effort to distinguish an artist from any other profession. Many fine artists are taciturn or grumpy: are they therefore not artists? In R1, Pro promised to demonstrate the superiority of Adolph"s work but has offered instead platitudes without any measurable hierarchy. Is Pro arguing that Adolph is a superior artist because he was particularly kind? Pro has pasted 4 paintings in an effort to demonstrate Adolph"s superiority as an artist. None of these works are particularly engaging on an aesthetic level but they are useful as any to evaluate Adolph"s technique. "Tree at a Track" is Bob Ross 101: every young artist uses the splay of a flat brush to produce a leafy effect. The poorly observed lines of perspective give the path an amateurish, foreshortened feeling and the dull palette flattens the composition further, lending the eye no focal point, no journey. "Vienna State Opera House" is probably technically the best of these 4, which is to say nothing to write home about. We should note that the trolley is off its tracks- a line of cars at right angle to the viewer is much easier to paint than a line of cars curving away. The colors are again muted and beige- we get no sense of the brilliant copper green roof of the opera house or the glow of its white marble colonnades. "Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ" is just creepy and bad. Pro tip: if your subjects" faces are pale and pasty, offset the face with bright color to make the features pop. If super-white Jesus is wearing a white smock and super-white Mary is wearing a white veil and mantle, they"re going to look flat & uninteresting. Adolph tries to fix this by creating a mysterious red glow between them but the effect is more demonic than angelic and Jesus"s unnaturally orange hair isn't helping. The proportions of Jesus" face are all wrong- ears too small, eyes too large. The overall effect is a twelve-year old trapped in a toddler"s frame- very creepy. Look carefully at Jesus"s hand to notice the gap between the lowest digit & the second lowest- either Adolph painted a right hand on his left arm or Jesus has an extra finger- either way, technically weak. "Old Quarter of Vienna" Again, the palette is flat & dull - the eye is drawn nowhere. The perspective lines are atrocious-all the buildings look lopsided and dilapidated. Look at the wheels of the carriage: the far wheel is badly distorted & partial. And we can see both the left & right sides of the square house at center - truly amateurish drawing. In pre-war Vienna, technically proficient artists were a dime a dozen. Far more capable painters were literally starving in the street. That Adolph lacked a sharp eye was not necessarily disqualifying but for a new artist to succeed he must bring something to the table. While European art was exploding with revolutionary new subjects & techniques, Adolph stuck to styles executed more expertly by painters a hundred years before. On his best day, Adolph"s work was moribund & uninteresting, a beige cliche begging for commercial success in the absence of inspiration. Then as now, Adolph sucked at artist. pls.