Hitler's Watercolors Defaced by Modern "Art"...

[Big Orange]

May 30, 2008

Jake and Dinos Chapman go to work on 'abject' Hitler art

Ben Hoyle, Arts Reporter

Adolf Hitler's stint as a jobbing painter has always been rather overshadowed by his subsequent career in politics. However, nearly a century after the future Führer was rejected by the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna, 13 of his watercolours go on show today in a London art gallery.

They are the star attraction in a new exhibition by Jake and Dinos Chapman, the Young British Artists famous for showing mannequins of children with genitalia instead of faces and for Hell, a series of nightmarish Hieronymus Bosch-style dioramas arranged in the shape of a swastika, which was destroyed in the Momart warehouse fire in East London in 2004.

Bought anonymously from collectors around the world for a total of £115,000, the Hitler watercolours are mostly plodding landscapes and a few smaller studies. The Chapman brothers have transformed them — the gallery uses the word “annihilated” — by painting rainbows, psychedelic skies, floating lovehearts and smiley faces into the background of each picture. The resulting work is now available as a job lot for £685,000. The brothers said that they were expecting angry reactions to the work but denied that it was offensive or that they were profiting from Hitler's notoriety.

The show, at the White Cube gallery in Mayfair, is called If Hitler Had Been a Hippy How Happy Would We Be, drawing on the joke that the Second World War and the Holocaust might not have happened if Hitler had been more fulfilled as a painter.

During his time as a struggling artist in Vienna between 1910 and 1913, Hitler painted more than 1,000 paintings by his own recollection.

Originally sold for a handful of coins on the street and in beer halls, the value of the pictures increased sharply after he rose to power in the 1930s. They remain highly collectable.

Tim Marlow, director of exhibitions at the White Cube, insisted that the Chapman brothers' project was not glorifying the work. “There's no question about them paying homage to them,” he said. “These are very bad paintings - abject paintings - and Jake and Dinos have now annihilated them. We bought them anonymously because the last thing we wanted was to increase the market for Hitler's work.”

The original paintings are so “bland and benign” that they give no hint of the artist's monstrous imagination, the Chapman brothers said.

They have attempted to use them to explore one of their favourite themes: their obsession with the psychology of the artist to the exclusion of the art itself.

Jake, the younger brother, said: “It's endemic to the way people read art, to look for something in a work that's an indicator of some kind of symptomatic trauma or a revelation of the artist's inner self, rather than trying to identify how the work works.

“When you look at the Hitler paintings you try to work out if this person was ill or mad or whether this is in some way axiomatic of someone who will go on to kill seven million people. [But] the drawings of themselves aren't offensive.”

James Smith, chief executive of the Holocaust Centre in Newark, said: “Hitler's mediocrity and blandness as an artist illustrate that it takes neither a genius nor a psychopath to organise genocide, and as such, his paintings do have some value as historical artefacts. Painting over his originals to make a point about the past and its relation to the present is probably the most appropriate form of vandalism I have encountered.”

Link

What gross historical and cultural vandalism, he was a butcher and some people here are not impressed by his objectively middling but competent artwork, yet Adolf Hitler was fifty times the artist than these modern art hacks are: what next? Demolish castles because they were built by feudal lords that owned people? Smash up Aztec daggers because they were used in human sacrifices? Burn all Medeval copies of the Koran and Bible?

[Elwell]

I think it's brilliant.

Adolf Hitler was fifty times the artist than these modern art hacks are

You, sir, are a tool.

[~Faust~]

I was to write a big rant about that, but honestly I don't know what to think of this.

In general, taking an artist and severely alering his work long after he is dead (Last supper, anyone?), I find that to be unethical and highly disrespectful.

On the other hand, we are speaking about Hitler here and not daVnci and frankly speaking I do not see the historical value of those paintings. So I don't really care wether they get burnt, altered or something.

Just don't do that shit with my paintings when I'm dead, k?

[luverly_marie]

LOL. Hitler's art is always a joke in my college history classes.

Sorry it's just I can't sympathize here, Hitler was a monster, and I couldn't care less if they mangled his art.

[Blue]

There is a difference between japanese feudal lords and hitler. There aren't any still living survivors from the japanese waring states period. Also, the culture as a whole had time to heal, grow, forgive and ultimately forget.

The holocaust is still a fresh wound.

Adolf Hitler was fifty times the artist than these modern art hacks are

I agree with Elwell here.

[Jasonwclark]

This is definitely irritating.

On the one hand, I suppose if you pay half a million dollars for something, you should be able to do whatever you want with it... But to just paint over the backgrounds of the originals like that? I don't know, it seems wrong. They could have accomplished much the same effect by working on reproductions rather than the originals, and then the whole thing about profiting from Hitler's work would be less of an issue. If a couple German artists had attempted something similar with one of Churchill's paintings, it would be an international scandal. You'd think these things would have some additional value as historical artifacts, that would prevent something like this from happening.

"Painting over his originals to make a point about the past and its relation to the present is probably the most appropriate form of vandalism I have encountered.”

It doesn't sit well with me, even if the artist is near universally despised. One would hope that Jake and Dinos at least had the foresight to properly photo-archive the watercolors, before they ‘annihilated’ them.

[Peter Coene]

In my oppinion those paintings have great historical value as in many ways they help us to understand that there was more to Hitler than a raving, murderous, lunatic. This isn't to say that he was a great guy or anything of the sort. However such paintings help to remind us that the man was still human, not some demon of pure evil spewed forth from the depths of Hell. He had passions and aspirations aside from murdering off large groups of people. While I'm no huge fan of the guy I think that defacing his work is an act of vandalism, and cannot be excused by the fact that he was "a bad guy."

[DavePalumbo]

It doesn't sit well with me, even if the artist is near universally despised.

i really have to say i agree

[TMG]

Why destroy historical artifacts just because the creator of them was immoral? That's madness.

[kev ferrara]

People don't own artworks. And they don't own historical artifacts. They just rent them until they die or give up the lease to someone else for a price.

These pieces did not belong to the people who bought them. They should have acted as good custodians.

What if I could buy the best Rembrandt, the best Mucha, the best Klimt, the best Frazetta... and then I decided to set fire to them as an artistic statement? Anybody here want to support that?

This is the worst kind of pandering sniveling pathetic destructive "art act" I have ever heard of. Nobody has been brought back from the dead by this. Nobody has been saved. No future Hitler is going to care.

All that has happened is defacement for publicity.

kev

[Big Orange]

I think it's brilliant.

You, sir, are a tool.

But that is the truth sadly, the credibility and worth of much of mainstream critical art has really declined down the crapper if average art from an important (if vicious) historical figure is hidously defaced by infantile, talent free doodling by overpaid twits and is somehow seen as highly creative.

[Blackhawk]

The current state of western culture breeds contempt, disrespect, and total ignorance of the past. This is just a sign of the times. I don't agree with destroying historical artifacts from the most prominent figure of the 20th century, despite how sick and evil he was.

[Jason Rainville]

People have already said it so there's no reason to go on about it; destroying/defacing any historical art, no matter how evil or misguided the person was who made it, is doing a huge disservice to future generations who want to experience/study it.

[Elwell]

Deface≠destroy.

[Jason Rainville]

That's why I put the slash

[Elwell]

We were posting at the same time. It was actually a comment on the previous use of the word in the thread.

[Prometheus|ANJ]

This gives me an idea. I could take an original Mondrian or a Picasso, then paint it over with nasty permanent colors and turn it into stale hyper-realism. As some sort of statement, about something, I don't know what, but I'm sure I'd get people's attention.

[sve]

As always, rewriting history for our own good... because we might interpret it wrong.

[Dave Kendall]

I smile at the thought Hitler would of hated this, but in reality this is pretty puerile. You might of been making a point if you got a holocaust survivor to wipe their arse on them.

These are the same one trick ponies who defaced a number of old Goya prints. Now that was vandalism.

[ArtZealot]

However such paintings help to remind us that the man was still human, not some demon of pure evil spewed forth from the depths of Hell. He had passions and aspirations aside from murdering off large groups of people.

I disagree. Hitler wasn't human. He most definately was a fucking monster. Remember, he tried to wipe out an entire race because he thought it seemed like a good idea. I'm glad his art was defaced, people that cruel and wicked deserve nothing better. I don't know why he deserves any sympathy at all.

[kev ferrara]

I don't know why he deserves any sympathy at all.

He was a human. He's fucking dead. He can't accept sympathy or deny it. Hitler's feelings don't exist. It is pointless to try to "spite" a dead person. There is no way now to "give him what he deserves."

But he is a historical figure and his paintings are historical artifacts. And historical artifacts belong to the world.

Half the ancient shit in museums probably belonged to sadistic nutjobs, helmets and decorative robes and ritualistic stuff... maybe all that stuff should be defaced, eh?

[~Faust~]

I disagree. Hitler wasn't human. He most definately was a fucking monster. Remember, he tried to wipe out an entire race because he thought it seemed like a good idea. I'm glad his art was defaced, people that cruel and wicked deserve nothing better. I don't know why he deserves any sympathy at all.

Yeah, so we better forget him and make sure there's no evidence of him left.

[eskanto]

I smile at the thought Hitler would of hated this, but in reality this is pretty puerile.

He would have definitely called this degenerate art to say the least.

[serhc]

the most brilliant thing about this act is that if anyone protests, they'll be labeled nazis!

[TASmith]

"What if I could buy the best Rembrandt, the best Mucha, the best Klimt, the best Frazetta... and then I decided to set fire to them as an artistic statement?"

You can. In fact, there's an American collector who does this every year, picking whichever art he thinks is worst and burning it on video as a kind of performance art/whatever. There was one lawsuit over this already, because the artist who sold his work didn't know it'd be destroyed. In America, art is owned and can be destroyed by law. In France, art is indeed leased and the owner must act as a steward in good faith, properly caring for the work. Different countries have different laws, sad as it sounds.

I could care less about Hitler's work. Even if I did, it sounds pretty obvious that I could tell what part of the work was Hitlers and what was drawn over. Every time the Chapman brothers give an interview I enjoy reading it. I think they're actually pretty intelligent, even if I don't like their work. They certainly are skilled artists, but that's a seperate topic/debate. Of course it is pandering for publicity but that's what they're all about. They want to be celebrity artists.

I do agree that art in general should be cared for, and artists deserve certain laws to protect their work. If any other artist had been chosen for the vandalism I'd be very pissed, as would we all. I guess I just leave Hitler as a special exception. Art gets vandalized for a reason. Athens was sacked because of their power abuses over Sparta and other Greek states. There's a reason all those greek statues don't have heads. Ditto Rome. Now those are some artists to feel sorry for.

[arttorney]

It depends on the state, in the United States. This conduct would theoretically be actionable in California, although it might be necessary for the artist to be still alive to sue. I'd have to go back and check on that detail if I ever started to care. If that's not necessary, then somebody would still have to be the representative of Hitler's estate in order to sue. That job would suck.

[ArtZealot]

He was a human. He's fucking dead. He can't accept sympathy or deny it. Hitler's feelings don't exist. It is pointless to try to "spite" a dead person. There is no way now to "give him what he deserves."

Half the ancient shit in museums probably belonged to sadistic nutjobs, helmets and decorative robes and ritualistic stuff... maybe all that stuff should be defaced, eh?

To answer the first thing mentioned, yes he is dead, but whenever i hear people defending him like they would their buddy it just pisses me off. That's why i say that he deserves no sympathy with people saying "he was human!", i stand by what i said about him being inhuman.

The second thing you mentioned, yeah you have a point, history shouldn't be erased but if a few of hitler's paintings got defaced, who cares? The paintings weren't priceless works by Michaelangelo or Raphael who changed the world of art. It's paintings by some asshole who wasn't a very good painter to begin with, whose paintings are only gaining notoriety because he killed about six million jews. So long as they didn't deface every single painting Hitler's ever done it not that big of a deal, theres nothing to be learned from them.

Yeah, so we better forget him and make sure there's no evidence of him left.

I didn't say that. Read the last paragraph of what i said to Kev.

[kev ferrara]

if a few of hitler's paintings got defaced, who cares? The paintings weren't priceless works by Michaelangelo or Raphael who changed the world of art. It's paintings by some asshole who wasn't a very good painter to begin with, whose paintings are only gaining notoriety because he killed about six million jews. So long as they didn't deface every single painting Hitler's ever done it not that big of a deal, theres nothing to be learned from them.

Well, listen, if we burn a few scrolls, there's always others. Let's melt down some ancient gold jewelry too. There's always more. Twain's manuscripts... burn 'em, the books are already printed so we know what he wrote.

I guess you won't mind if I corrupt some of your art files, eh? You haven't exactly changed the world of art.

Oh, and fyi, Hitler did a lot more than stuff jews into cattle cars by the millions, starve them and incinerate them in ovens or gas them to death. And nobody's "defending him like a buddy", chief. My grandfather lost his entire family to the Nazis in Poland. Don't get on the high horse or I'll lop its legs off.

To answer your first question, people who give a shit about history care about the defacement of these paintings. History is worth defending, even if it was made by Hitler.

[GriNGo]

True words kev true words. Artzealot is definitley wrong on this one. But the miniatures that these artists have done are really kick ass... i think they are competent artists, but their defacing of hitler's stuff is certainly wrong.

[VirusArtist]

now i''m struggling with myself

one one hand, i'm totally for the idea of altering bad artworks, regardless of the artist. picasso in his "drwa like a child and keep it as minimalistic as possible"-phase would come to mind for instance.

On the other hand i think its the most fucked up thing you can do to gain recognition.

if they'd used copies of the originals and got like 20 or 30 known artists to put their "twist" on these paintings the idea would have been great. it would have been interesting to see what ideas, interpretations and "visual oppinions" would have come from the artists, but what was done is nothing but a tasteless and utterly senseless publicity stunt.

as for hitler being "no human" and a "monster": thats simplyfying things a little bit too much IMHO.
yes, hitler was a psychopath, yes, hitler abused his political power to make germany hell on earth and start the most devastating war in the history of humanity, but he wasnt the only one back then. he was a psycho with a serious personality disorder who turned out to be the perfekt tool for the other nazi sickos around him.

remember, this "monster" was surrounded by people like goebbels, goehring and mengele and hundreds of the same caliber. sociopathic idiots that only strengthened and enhanced his sick beliefs and added their own perverted fantasies to what would eventually lead to the holocaust.

i see a lot of the same kind of people and tendencies in the current U.S. government.

back on topic:

“When you look at the Hitler paintings you try to work out if this person was ill or mad or whether this is in some way axiomatic of someone who will go on to kill seven million people. [But] the drawings of themselves aren't offensive.”

couldnt disagree more. psychos arent born, they are made. analysing hitlers early works and putting them in context with the his life back then give a whole lot of insight on his transformation from a simple loser with no artistic skills to a raving sociopath.

cheers,
Etienne