This must have been one of the greatest exhibitions of modern art ironically. I had never seen the moving video footage of the exhibition, thank you for finding and posting that 😃
No problem! And I agree! They united some of the most talented modern artists in one building! The exhibition did so well that I can't help but think they failed miserably at trying to discredit modern art.
"We will gather all of this 'degenerate' art in one place and show people how bad it is" *exhibit is 6x more popular than the state-approved-art exhibition* "...well at least we got ticket sales..."
I've seen at least one video that interviews a man who was an art student at the time. He said he and his friends were hugely inspired by the 'Entartete Kunst' exhibits. They seemed to use it as a starting point for a subculture of forward thinking artists. I loved that story
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: "Anyone can cook." But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more.” ― Anton Ego, from Disney Pixar's 'Ratatouille' I do love this quote
You know this quote is great but also ironic. As it was said in a animated film, something that is consider a art media in which many sees it as childish, and yet it holds more truth to the realworld than most adult films.
i’ve always been interested in how the human brain processes art- and what we define as art or simply visual noise. i feel it’s important to revisit this conversation about what “degenerate art” really means- who’s saying that and why
"Degenerate" art is art that tries to replace skill with low-effort techniques, statements, or habits, that are intended to, or succeed in gaining the same attention but for "cheap shortcut" reasons. Chickbait is a perfect example of this. Another is art that in it'self means little, but was done in a way intended to shock or go against cultural norms, not to make a statement, but just to garnish attention. An example would be fecal art, which in the art-world, is the equivalent of walking into a crowded mall, and screaming the N word for attention and to shock people. Art is about communicating something. If you have nothing to say, and use culturally shocking, rebellions, vulgar or cheap shortcuts to gain attention, it is degenerate. P.S.It is important to note that many great forms of art are intended to shock, but the key word here is if you're using these techniques and _have nothing to say_ except "Look at meeee!"
I mean, if they're pumping out hundreds of these childrens crayon scrawlings out a year per artist... It might be low effort garbage and a way to launder money. It could be considered degeneration of art, and actively hostile toward the concept of beauty. We are not born without prejudice. If a deformed guy looks at a baby, that baby is likely to cry. If a person frowns at the baby, that baby will cry. We are born with in-built ideas of what beauty and kindness are. These aren't "societal constructs". They are the result of 3.5 billion years of evolution, and in many cases, those instincts are pretty accurate in protecting us from harm. If we recoil from things that look rotten, it may be because rot is contagious and lethal. We evolved to dislike puke green and black streaks. Even now, if you see black streaks in the wall, it means you or your landlord needs to buy some N100 masks and replace the dry wall and anything else tainted by the black mold.
That's not to say you can't depict ugliness. I love the Warhammer 40k aesthetic, and that includes some very horrific imagery. But, it's counter-balanced by beauty and symmetry. It's the concepts of humanity taken to its extreme. Anyway, I digress. Point is, I think there is an assault on masculinity, individualism, morals and beauty. I think the assault is intertwined and designed by conniving billionaires. I think Hitler saw this, but then took his ideas in a very wrong direction, and unfortunately, we steered away from his brand of extremism and toward another style of tyranny. We're entering a dark era, one with no identity and maximum oppression. This thing "they" are working on is something not even Mao and Stalin could accomplish in their lifetimes: complete erasure of the human past. Give it enough generations and people won't know anything. George Orwell warned us of this.
@@Ranstone Cultural norms? Federals do not allow cultural norms. If you fight with someone they put you in jail. They stomp and pulverize your cultural norms, turining them into feminized BS.
True. Some argue that voting was a bit manipulated as the space for "yes" was bigger than for "no". But Austrians did it because it was beneficial for Austria. And Austria was for Germany nothing but a burden
@@karolinakuc4783 Austria & Germany are the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. This Empire was destroyed by French,British & Spanish forces, the Reich collapsed in early 1800's and reformed about 60 years later as the German Reich 1871. 🙂 The Allied split Germany apart and every time the Germans want to unite, a British and US American has issues with it 🙂
This channel is so wonderful, so enlightening and presentation beautiful. I came upon it by chance just recently and have a lot of catching up to do now. Thank you very much. I am most grateful.
Hitler was so jealous it's funny. And the thing is, there was a use for his style. He really could have made a living with those paintings. The issue is that he didn't know how.
I think it's tragic how some people have so much talent yet go un-noticed because someone else is more shocking or controversial. It's the person who draws a red dot on a blank canvas, and sells it for 13 million dollars, and the artist who works 3 years on a piece and no one cares. I genuinely understand the resentment.
@@Ranstone yes, me too to a certain degree, but c'mon, is your frustration that big that you have to kill people for it? I think his decisions were taken based on other criteria, the art must of been a constant catalyst.
@@Ranstone In your hypothetical example, have you considered that the painter of the red dot could have also been making art for years and years without recognition, until after a long time, he found a style of art which he enjoyed creating and which galleries and audiences responded to? Modern art is a deep and complicated field, and no one is guaranteed success, just like all other forms of art. Whether you put three years into a work, thirty years, or thirty minutes, there is never any guarantee that your work will find an audience.
@@Narokkurai art is a business too. It's known that certain companies invest in acquisition of paintings for large sums of money so they can do some money laundering. What's one of the most frustrating things about certain artists, especially painters, they get recognition after they die. Their art suddenly becomes valuable after death, this is unfair. Now we have plenty of artists, mediums to promote them and a.i. to put everyone on their knees with what can be made.
@@oanaalexia Well really, when it comes to art as a profession, nothing beats advertising. Marketing and advertising is the number one most reliable way for artists to get their work seen by the masses and get paid for their work. Truth is, whether you're an abstract impressionist or a meticulous traditionalist, getting anything sold at a gallery is like winning the lottery.
I disagree with the closing statement. It's not the responsibility of an artist to make their work accessable. Artist are not entitled to success, and the public is not entitled to make demands of artist unless that artist is trying desperately to maintain public favor.
I believe it is peoples lack of understanding of art history and artistic principles that expressly leads to their poorly informed admiration of classical works and hatred for modern. It also seems somewhat eurocentric. Art is a very broad concept. It's a very freeing thing. It's a form of expression, that requires no skill, and can be engaged with by anyone. A lot of people, especially non artists who just like to admire and gatekeep, would like to place hard boundaries around what you can consider art and what you can't. People want a solid definition of art. Rules to follow to make it and interpret it. But the reality is art is simply human expression of emotion and ability. Everyone should make art. Its healthy for your mind. Anyone who tries to think of reasons why certain art is art and certain art isnt... Is a terrible person.
If they have to intellectually understand their way into appreciating it then what is it that they are really appreciating if on the other hand those who simply engage with a fresh perspective tend not to like it?
@@retrocomputing Is it a fair analogy to compare art to a sports competition? Are you serious? "Oh my The Grande Odalisque is aesthetically pleasing and proper art done by a master, but oh her proportions are so weird, 80/100, 2nd place" Most art forms require both technical proficiency and imagination/ideas, athletics require just technique and physique, using for example the legs of an athlete as the main point in your comparison is building your argument about the medium, running with a crooked leg is like painting in a slashed canvas or playing with a 2 string guitar, the difference is the former makes the task impossible and the latter just makes the craft harder, with enough imagination you can make something excellent, there's no ideas in running or throwing things (except for Fosbury!), it's objective, you run fast, you jump high, you win, it's a competition, and even though art has formal analysis, "experts" don't agree with each other, I think Rafael transfiguration is a mess (I'm not an expert) just from a formal analysis point of view, but a lot of experts think it's a masterpiece, but that's beyond your point cause your horribly written analogy was aiming at the frauds of modern performance art, right? It doesn't make any sense, sorry
@@literalwho9017 I can rewrite it without comparing to a sports competition: Everyone can do anything they like, but not everyone is a master (or can become one). Let's say we have a craft category with established rules. A newcomer who ignores everything that this category is about can't be considered an equal to the masters just because you think art is subjective. That newcomer can create a new category and that's fine, but the categories aren't equal as well. There are objectively good and objectively bad, talentless performers. And some categories can be a fad or even a fraud.
Any of the commenters here saying "x kind of art isnt art" is simply voicing an opinion, but the ones thinking their opinion is fact, are completely out of it, as confining art to certain parameters set by any 1 individual or organization is inherently totalitarian, fascist maybe, but totalitarian at heart.
@Lee no it would not. your comment sounds like people who think that free speech means all speech. it does not. you cannot incite violence, abuse or murder of people and expect not to face consequences.
Art is a human word. Words have definitions. If your creation falls out of the verbal definition, it is not that idea. Art is a broad, broad spectrum, but there are limits. My favorite example, relevant to this video is the classic "Walking into a crowded mall, and screaming that you live nazis and hate (insert racial slur)" is definitely public expression, but it's not art. It's just using shock and rebellion for the exclusive purpose of gaining attention you normally wouldn't garnish. Similarly, fecal art is a perfect example. The artist had nothing to say; they just wanted to rally attention for behavior, as a shortcut instead of working hard. Could fecal art be art? I'm sure, but all the ones I've seen had nothing to say at all besides "I did something culture does not approve of". TLDR: Art is expression, but expression isn't necessarily art.
@@Ranstone thats why i said "x kind of art is not art" is simply an opinion and not fact, because when i for example say fecal art is not art, i am simply voicing an opinion, my opinion is not fact because of course as you said it can be art, not IS art, but it can be. Also if that opinion was fact for example in my group of artist friends, it wouldnt be art in other friend groups of other artists. Simply put saying that x kind of art is not art is as totalitarian as demeaning a culture because they eat a certain thing you would never touch (ex. French culture, Eastern Asian culture etc.)
Conversely, saying that a painting with 1,000 hours put into it by a mastercraft artist, and a painting with 20 minutes put into it are the same, is highly degrading to the person who spent 1,000 hours on his. I would call that totalitarian.
That's why we should make an effort to distinguish artists and people that are trying to poison the well by using art as a means of money laundering. Doesn't mean that modern art is worthless and anyone involved in it is dodging taxes.
Ah, you're one of my new favourite TH-camrs, your videos are really entertaining and insightful. I stumbled onto your channel while looking into Barbara Kruger's work and I'm really glad I did!
There is an alternate universe somewhere in which Hitler, to one up the stuffy art world, created a powerhouse postcard company and became wildly successful.
And he'd be remembered very well in Germany and perhaps his fame would spread to America too, but like how some historical figures were wildly racist yet influential, everytime you hear him you just can't forget how crazy he was about hating Jews and all sorts of minorities
Shirer, who visited both exhibitions at the time, wrote that the degenerate one was extremely popular and people were very excited to see all of their favorite artists. And Goebbels had to shut it down because it backfired
William Shirer made up a good portion of his book. It's laughed at by any serious historian. The average German back then hated pretentious modern art as much as the average American hates it today.
Damn really? You would think if it was backfiring that bad Goebbels wouldn't have let it run for over 4 months, and then proceed to have many more exhibits in other cities around Germany until 1941.
Hitler in his youth was an artist himself but not a successful one . The philosophy of nazis art was similar to Roman and Greek, that venerataed the glory of humans body . Then there were a number of styles in arhitecture named "empire" style . There were famous in 19 th century after the Pompey was discovered but as a style at fist time it was formed in under the rule of Napoleon in France - style of glory and victory of the empire .The same stylie we can see in Stalin buldings . The symvolism of victory in every detail . Hitler had an idea of perfect race with perfect bodies without humility . One time I thought that for "G" in gamma cross( Hakenkreuz) could mean "Gloria gratia gens Germanika"
That philosophy of nazi art sounds like nazi propaganda. The really wanted to hype up the massacre of their own people on ww2 by all the other nations lol.
Tradtional art was a form of art that was deeply rooted in the soul and psyche of the Eurppean peoples, that was 5000 years in the making. Today’s art perverts and destroys all healthy perceptions and the body is viewed on in the most grotesque and consumptive way rather than the beauty that it actually stands for.
I've been reading "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff. One of his theses is that Expressionism and other similar artistic movements in Weimar Germany were actually precursors to Nazism, in that their rejection of rationality in favor of emotions was a form of world-hating nihilism that prepared the country to submit irrationally to Nazi collectivism. I'm not sure what to make of either Peikoff's thesis or the thesis presented here. And I don't know how to reconcile them.
This reminds me of an article I read on a Christian website about how video games, specifically RPGs, contributed to the rise of the alt-right and neo-Nazism. And the point wasn't so much that the violence in the games caused this, but rather the sense of achievement and power. Why would you want to live in the real world where you're some guy who works at a store or an office worker when you can be the hero of some fantasy land? And that translates to people trying to find that same sort of fantasy in the real world.
It's curious to see an Objectivist like Peikoff appropriate an essentially communist critique of expressionism as insufficiently didactic. I suggest you do not take it too seriously-expressionism has long been the subject of ire from both ends of the political spectrum due to the expressionists' conspicious lack of concern for politics. Radicals make a business out of arguing for the suspension of neutrality within the public sphere; it is only natural the value of a work that does not concern itself with politics will remain entirely opaque to them (and, safe to say, there is nothing apolitical about fascism).
I'm a lot less on-board with this thought than I used to be. Most people I've seen mentioning how some art makes you a bad person, from my short time on earth, have been people who are already pushing bad ideas onto people, and are looking for a scapegoat. Christian Nationalists saying Harry Potter and Pokemon is Satanism, American Fascists saying Communism and the Gay Agenda exist in every show where a woman/queer/POC exists, and many more. I don't know if saying Nazi values arose from art is necessarily wrong, but I'm suspicious of the idea that art begets evil like this. Seeing as that's the mindset the Nazi's had, I don't like using that same mindset on them, it feels like we're saying they had a point when they were obviously delusional. Like, the bar for whether a group was ever "right" about something is so low someone dug down to hell and dropped the bar, and the Nazi's decided to limbo under it for bragging rights. There's literally no group we can be more sure was wrong about something than the Nazi's. If we ever agree with Nazi's on any point, that is about as red of a flag as we can have that we fucked up and got the answer wrong somewhere.
I don't understand art. I don't end up with my own interpretation of art works. Sometimes I just look at its beauty. I want to become one because I love drawing. That's all.
All you need to do is draw something that conveys meaning... weather that be a subject, idea, feeling, a combination therof, or all of the above is up to you. Make something beautiful.
@@tsu08761e People who appreciate art from an authentic individual perspective and create it themselves are more properly artistic than those who merely mentally wank pseudo-profound (i.e., the great 'understanders' of art) with the ideas and in the manner that they have learned is agreeable to their peers. Person 1: Appreciates beauty, comes up with own interpretations, loves to draw, inspiration comes from within, knows how to create Person 2: "Understands" art. Educated into that understanding from without. Knows how to rearrange concepts. "The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs. " -Emerson
Maybe they meant a "art student in renowned art school" It's kinda hard to define this word in that context. Hitlers paintings weren't that good even for the postcard standards, he lacked structure and consistency, it was just a pretty looking, polished turd, but a turd nonetheless. If you want to be looked at with respect by the art critics and other artists, you have to stand out with something that you master, either its theme, texture, composition or simply technical skill. Hitler lacked these things, and therefore his art was considered not that important, so he failed in their eyes. And yes, I was also rejected from art school so choose your next words very carefully...
@@sadpianist5846 Structure and consistency look like the exact skills he did have. Criticism would have to rest on other aspects you’d think. And sorry to hear that. You probably aren’t a complete wank-off and so they don’t want you around.
architectural art requires the ability to keep consistent perspective. He did not have the technical ability to draw what he set out to draw, and was not able to develop himself to create the kind of art he wanted to. In that regard, he was a failure.
the modern art world is a money laundering scheme, were what is expensive and "good taste art" is what the critics want, the modern art business has became a shadow of what once used to be, what is considered good or bad art should be decided by the audience and not by snobbish critics who don't even care about beauty
@@kek105 J'aime Les Enfants is one of such examples of art world connected people who are no joke connected to art world only because its easy to launder money through it : )))
I'm arriving at bit late to the party, but there is a terrific documentary available here on TH-cam that explores the 'Entartete Kunst' exhibition. It's called 'Degenerate Art - 1993, the Nazis vs. Expressionism'. It's well-worth the watch, and I thank you for bringing this subject to attention. :)
Do you know the name of the artist who made the statue of the two naked men holding hands and the name of the piece (minute 5:44)? I'm not finding it anywhere and I'd really love to know. Thank you, and thanks for this video. Those pieces of "degenerate" art deserve to be known.
This is extreme oversimplification. Nazis didn't ban expressionism because they didn't understand it, or because Hitler was jealous. They banned it because they believed in a totalitarian ideology with strict image of what German culture is and should always be. Existence of art that went against this "German culture" was an insult - not to mention dangerous propaganda-wise and something that led German culture on a different path than the Nazis wanted it to go. You always do this; you always recite facts without understanding them. DON'T do that with Nazism.
I'd honestly, as a part of your Fascist Art analysis, would love for you to cover Jorge Luis Borges; he seemed to do that hiding behind "I'm politically blind" kind of shit and constantly pretended to play the "enlightened centrist" and even just his Wikipedia page makes anyone suspect of him.
Everyone has their standards when it comes to art. As for me? I'm sorry, but if you have a completely empty room with a single slice of pickle nailed on the far wall. I just cannot call this "art" And when I hear about someone spending millions of dollars for a canvas with a single black dot at its center, I have to laugh at them then wonder if this is some money laundering scheme. Good modern art is on the level of Picasso who at least put some legitimate thought and effort into his pieces. And if anyone disagrees with me. Again, I say to each their own. I'm still going to point and laugh at pretentious gullibility.
Kinda missing the point here my dude. I’m sure he meant if an ideology were to limit such works because they thought these were “objectively bad” instead of the subjective way we all view art, that’s a gateway drug to pretty much restricting freedom of all kinds of art
@@TryinaD There are objective measures. Time spent on painting * (learning speed * time spent learning) usually = quality of final product. Art is semi-subjective, but we're born knowing what's beautiful. A baby will cry at ugliness. Heck, a baby will cry at a simple frown! Did society teach it that? There is something measurable in art. When we hear someone shred on a guitar and get every little nuance correctly, we can hear the thousands of hours of practice. We can hear the effort. There's something a bit objective going on, something measurable in time spent.
Your "black dot at the centre" example is precisely why historical context is so important in art The painting you described is creatively called "black circle" and was made by Kazimir Malevich in 1915 along with several other similar works. As you correctly implied, such a painting is, by itself, completely unremarkable. That's where the context comes into play. At the start of 20th century was when the shift to more abstract art became a thing (abstract in the sense of cubism and such, don't mistake "abstract" for "skill-less" in this context), and with it the obvious push against it, to the point where certain institutions called for ban or social "war" on this art (which will later actually happen in several countries as discussed above). This made a decent portion of those artists understandably upset. One of those men was, by that time already established and somewhat well regarded Malevich. That's why he made the painting and suprematist movement as a whole - as a sort of "middle finger" to those people (not entirely accurate, but it get's the overall point across). Generally nobody would care about that, but as i said, Malevich wasn't exactly a nobody, so those "words" had some weight behind them. In other words, nobody argues that the "painting" black circle was good, what is good is black circle as an art piece - as a gesture, as a statement and as projection of the mind of Malevich
@@user-zz3sn8ky7z "Black square on canvas" is equally no-effort and that one wasn't made ironically. Modern art is pretentious garbo. If you need 5 paragraphs to explain why a picture is remarkable, then maybe it sucks. The story is neat, so put it in his biography and call that book "art". You could call it, "How a Non-artist Helped Progress Art".
I don't understand how so many people struggle to understand that classic art has been popular since it's rise. It's played out in the mainstream. Art is about creativity, not creating art pieces in the same style under the same rules over and over because that's what "good art" looks like.
Western art has changed and evolved over the course of its history. That's not the issue. The issue is that modern art "degenerates" or erodes at traditional values and throws Western culture out of the window in its entirety.
@@Braingore-de-Rais and what, pray tell, is “western culture” even? Are we talking “European culture”? What even is that? Hell, every single country in Europe went to war with each other at least a handful of times. Are we gonna sit around and say that the Spanish are the same as the Irish or that Germans are the same as Italians? Are we going to sit around and say that Nordic gods are the same as Greek gods are the same as Celtic gods etc etc? How about architecture? You think the Parthenon and some Scottish castle are culturally the same? How about food? What is this singular “Western Culture” you speak of? This “Western Culture” nonsense is laughably asinine and demonstrates massive cultural and historical illiteracy at best and is a racist dogwhistle at worst as the literal only similarity amidst all the usual examples of “western culture” is that they were mainly white. This “Western Culture” isn’t going to erode over a few surreal paintings because it doesn’t even exist in the first place. Cry about it
One would faction in art was trying to do a few months ago was so much worse, as they were trying to take people's originals ( which by the way just means the original canvas they were painted on, I'm not interested in a "debate" on what is original ) and burn them in garbage cans. Stuff like that will never be OK. Luckily I made it abundantly clear that such vandals would be treated as trespassers if they stole my stuff, and for now that got the message across.
You lost me with the closing lines. I'm with Tolstoy on art interpretation. If you need to be told how to understand a piece of art to appreciate it, then it's not good art. I'm open to appreciating something more with more information, but if it doesn't make me feel anything other than confusion on first viewing then I have no interest in squinting to see whatever it is I'm supposed to see.
(1) in a long video documentary about the Nazi "Degenerate Art" exhibition, it was noted that, while all the artists therein were branded "Bolsheviks" and "Jews," in reality only a tiny proportion of them were either. (2) there's a Prager University TH-cam video about beauty in art, which puts forth an ideology which is uncannily similar to that of Nazism concerning art.
@@kacperfrontczak1257 "socialist" in the name "National Socialist Workers Party" had nothing to do with Communist socialism, as the Nazis considered the Bolsheviks to be butter enemies -- hence their using "Bolshevik" as a pejorative. As to vegetarianism: part of the propaganda about Hitler himself was that he was vegetarian, apparently as part of creating an image of him as a kind of austere, self-sacrificing spiritual leader. But research has shown that it was a scam: he heartily scarfed down sausages as much as any other German.
Fun fact, I think this fact was even mentioned on this channel in another video, but Hitler had a very poor understanding of perspective, a meh-understanding of shading and color theory, and an absolutely shite knowledge of how to draw humans and other living subjects. He actually drew, mediocrely, in a really common style for hobbyists and amateur artists. He was notably not-very-good, all things considered. Essentially, that means that Hitler was the 1900's Painting equivalent of a millennial who covers Jason Mraz songs on ukulele and tells all his friends "Music is my passion, I'm gonna go to school and become the next Luciano Pavarotti :P" Which I find hilarious, terrible tragedies aside. Like, it's cool to like the d*ckhead's art if you think it's alright, but it's also ok to clown on him for being so mid-tier, he was literally the worst person ever. If you were ever allowed to bully someone, Hitler is that guy. Normalize Bullying Hitler, I say.
When art is relativized in a society, so are all the traditional norms of morality and goodness, which leads to societal decay, as it was in the degenerate Weimar
When cheap imitations of those plastic tupperwares replace older architecture. They look horrible when they age and require more maintenance. Least in older buildings they look stunning when they age, but when buildings as new as Bauhaus age, they defy their promise of renewable and comfortable living
@@paulandreigillesania5359 the architect Vincent Sully said we once entered the city like God's now we scuttle in like rats. This was in response to how New York's Penn station was once a beautiful building and later destroyed to be some modern sludge
It is still a struggle to persuade people that modern art is real art, and that looking at it will not harm them. I was introduced to it I suppose at a Blue-Rider exhibition in the '60s and have enjoyed both abstract and representative art since. However, I am not sure that we are not being conditioned by curators these days. They may not be fascists or nazis, but many of today's galleries and exhibitions are arranged and captioned to persuade us of some, often spurious, political relevance and we have to be aware of who is in control.
I knew Hitler tried to study art, but I never actually looked at one of his paintings. Tbh, I found them quite beautiful. Its not the bold and lose style of the expressionists, but they feel calm, relaxing and balanced. Unexpected, but I guess it makes sense.
@@abelabel3664 Because i believe art need skill I think it’s fine to do art even if you don’t have skill but I have a problem with it being considered the best Art
@@avus-kw2f213 And how do you define skill...? And you do not agree with Hitler...he literally ordered art to be burnt and artist persecuted, not that artists did not get any money from their art.
When I once did a political art project it got cancelled for having Hitler in it. I remember when I was in school we had to do an art project about the topic "nothing". We were free to decide how and many drew pictures or made sculptures. I did an audio, because I wanted to cut something. I put politicians in there all in one saying nothing. Most of them current ruling German politicians from the Ampel government. My point was "politicians are saying nothing". Even though this was just a part of a whole exhibition, everything we did was a good example of "modern art". Also what I did. But I did also put Hitler in my project and the school didn't allow it. That was not only representative of what is probably accociates with modern art it still got cancelled for having both the chancellor Olaf Scholz, some green activist politician and Hitler in the same fucking audio. It was not meant that way. I just caught all of them blabbering nothing.
But also it speaks more to the nazi mentality in general like "we will decide what is good and dictate what is good". Historically if Hitler was into modern art he would declare war on more representative art.
No, not exactly. There is no objectively good art. Claiming to hold the "objective truth" and silencing people with different opinions or visions of art is weak, pathetic and dangerous.
Why is modern art good exactly? Picasso and Munch I like, even Rothko, they evoke some kind of feeling from withing, but most of these dont, just like the nazis said, it needs to have pre-context, like a book, to tell you that it is good.
And it shows how some people still don't understand that we need it to progress and challange new ideas. Heck, back in the day even impressionistic art was considered something bad, not to mention in the medieval times, anything that wasn't made in the name of God could get you killed. It shows how there always will be a group of boomers trying to ruin everyone's time just cause they don't want to move their braincells and think "wow, it doesn't affect me, so I just might mind my business". It's just people trying to ruin someone's happiness. If not for modern art we wouldn't progress in technique and style, every painting would look like stick figures. So for every "bad" modern piece there's always something to be learned
@@sadpianist5846 Ironically though, it's modern art that ditched accurate anatomy. The Renaissance artists mastered it some 500 years ago, yet have you seen any modern mediums? Think of the corporate art style, or cartoons.
@@Braingore-de-Rais that statement doesnt really make much sense, modern art as a whole is so broad and portrayals of anatomy can be realistic or not but it completely depends. "corporate art style" is something that changes every decade or so, and its not like this is the first time the popular corporate artstyle uses exaggerated proportions
@@sadpianist5846 Why would we progress when it's taken us to the point we are at now, last thing we need is future generations to feel inspired/empowered by a statue of an overweight black woman. (First thing I ever saw in a prestigious "modern museum")
@@shazamnegroid7379 tl,dr: modern psychology and sociology say he and everyone who makes similar remarks is wrong and who would have thought that modern or daring art doesn't attract traditionalists there haven't been any peer reviewed studies suggesting that there's a causation of antisocial, immoral, criminal, violent, etc. behavior and abstract, disturbing, violent or otherwise provocative art. And of course most artists who produce such art will at least be center libs to outright left because right wingers just don't like that creativity. They don't like things like abstract or critical thinking, redefining or disregarding rules of how things are supposed to be done, expressing complex emotions and so on.
@@shazamnegroid7379 kinda, yeah. Everything is constantly changing and progressing forward. Language, ideas, art and so on. But for some reason there have always been people desperately clinging to the past, afraid of stuff changing, although they always have been losing because of where we are today. I suppose I don't have to tell you which one's which
Cartoons conveying a bunch of Metaphors = Highbrow Modern Art or "The Emperor's New Clothes". It's always more about the "cleverness" of the artist & explanations of superior insight that fawning sychophants can share others. In truth is merely represents the expression of Freud's "Will to Death" - which starts by tearing down the surrounding beautiful world & replacing it with the ugly.....everything "Rationalised" of course. Everyone finds a home among people who think exactly like them - even if it's a cult which is why it's best if a Modern Artist struggles with Depression, Alcoholism, Drugs, some Victimhood or Suicide
The one time I felt bad for Hitler. Putting in all that work just to be dismissed as postcard at best. That said it was horrible what he did to the art community
Modern art at its worst is forgetful depressing ,uninspiring, bleak, pretentious, exercise in soul sucking and is always a poor exercise in draughtsmanship
7:24 But that is just someone's bloody booger. There're some pretensious big fish that would call trash art. Yet Hitler's definition of art was very narrow and harmful.
@павле Not all of this just that of this particular picture at that time. But who knows maybe a child could come up with some more creative meaning. But knows if artists indeed did didn't have blood running from his nose that he cleaned with canva 🙂🙃.
"Madness becomes method"... So true. Ironic to learn of the genius artists who so offended the Nazi sense of purity and decorum: Kandinsky, Matisse, Chagall, Picasso, Klee. Tells you everything you need to know about totalitarian regimes and their world view.
When you kick out people in an art circle. They will do the same thing to you back if they had the chance. Its incredibly dark how society is with disgust and hate. We hate the hate. And it's doesn't make it love.
"if people are not given the tools and knowledge to appreciate it" assumption that people with tools and knowledge will appreciate it - as former Fine Art student I can say that some of it is really degenerate art and shouldn't be praised and put up on pedestal
Ironically he was right. At least, in the idea that it was a degeneration of previous standards. Post 1800's as Impressionism gained a foothold abstract art pushed limits and boundaries as to what can be viewed as art or what even qualifies. It was 'degenerate' in that it was a simplification and shattering of all established rules and norms of perception, coloring, geometry, etc.
is laying a new foundation for a new building that will be fully made in the future "degenerating" the other already completed buildings around it? weird logic
I respect “bad” art that tries something new and expanded humanity’s horizons of what art can be a hell of a lot more than I respect “good” art that just sentimentally tries to imitate better artists who get put on a pedestal by those who don’t understand it.
Maybe hitler, wanted to be accepted and for his art to be accepted since he likes drawing towns and cities. I think he was very sensitive to rejection so that got him mad and to quit art school. I never liked popularity or trends, thats the dark side of popularity and trends, they accept whats trending and not care about other old and new kinds of art. So i kinda do understand hitler's side.
This kind of art is supposed to provoke a reaction anyway, the Nazis reacting to it, so vitrologically means the art was more of a success than if the Nazis had ignored it
"This is why making modern art accessible is very important. If people are not given the tools and the knowledge to appreciate it, they may end up going at war against it" -------- - I think Your conclusion is wrong, Hitler was criminal, mass murderer and megalomaniac. It is much more important to prevent such ill persons to get the position of power than to try teach everybody such a complicated matters as those that modern art is dealing with... Progressive art is not for everyone, it require the will to learn, high level of sensitivity and freedom of thought. Most of people do not have those and teching them something above their ability can cause them to hate it even more' - exactly as it happend to Hitler....
''degenerates'' had to be put into desolation ..and that was according to the eugenics program, which still exists today ! Hitler was only a FRONT for that
It would be nice to have a similar series on what the communist thought about modern art. I know this video is 3 years old and alarms against facism are sounding (rightfully so), but I do think an analysis on the excess of communist regimes against art is needed.
Communists clamped down on degenerate art just as much as Nazis. However the Nazis promoted romantic art where as the communists enforced socialist realism art.
Totalitarian statist communist state despite also has measures to censor art, still at its heart has leftist tendencies (thats not a pejorative, thats just the term). In a way that all art is celebrated regardless, and not bound by cultural or nation psyche (apart from obviously dissing the regime) Theres literally hundreds of modern artists from eastern blocks or China or anywhere, and by large they aren't persecuted UNTIL the country leaders (the Premier, Party leaders etc) became hard on senile, best examples is Kruschev who tries to ban some modern art, but he never made a decree since it would be an oxymoron to its socialist leftist tendencies
![[LIVE] นาทีนี้ต้องพี่ทนาย | ทนายแก้ว vs ทนายไพศาล | #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.47 (02/11/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HmquaO-PL_M/mqdefault.jpg)
This must have been one of the greatest exhibitions of modern art ironically. I had never seen the moving video footage of the exhibition, thank you for finding and posting that 😃
No problem! And I agree! They united some of the most talented modern artists in one building! The exhibition did so well that I can't help but think they failed miserably at trying to discredit modern art.
"We will gather all of this 'degenerate' art in one place and show people how bad it is"
*exhibit is 6x more popular than the state-approved-art exhibition*
"...well at least we got ticket sales..."
@@ForelliBoy and many were sold to foreign collectors to raise funds.
@@TheCanvasArtHistory Cope. Modern art is a negative force designed to do nothing but demoralize. The Germans did nothing wrong here.
I've seen at least one video that interviews a man who was an art student at the time. He said he and his friends were hugely inspired by the 'Entartete Kunst' exhibits. They seemed to use it as a starting point for a subculture of forward thinking artists. I loved that story
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: "Anyone can cook." But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more.”
― Anton Ego, from Disney Pixar's 'Ratatouille'
I do love this quote
You know this quote is great but also ironic. As it was said in a animated film, something that is consider a art media in which many sees it as childish, and yet it holds more truth to the realworld than most adult films.
i’ve always been interested in how the human brain processes art- and what we define as art or simply visual noise. i feel it’s important to revisit this conversation about what “degenerate art” really means- who’s saying that and why
"Degenerate" art is art that tries to replace skill with low-effort techniques, statements, or habits, that are intended to, or succeed in gaining the same attention but for "cheap shortcut" reasons.
Chickbait is a perfect example of this. Another is art that in it'self means little, but was done in a way intended to shock or go against cultural norms, not to make a statement, but just to garnish attention. An example would be fecal art, which in the art-world, is the equivalent of walking into a crowded mall, and screaming the N word for attention and to shock people.
Art is about communicating something. If you have nothing to say, and use culturally shocking, rebellions, vulgar or cheap shortcuts to gain attention, it is degenerate.
P.S.It is important to note that many great forms of art are intended to shock, but the key word here is if you're using these techniques and _have nothing to say_ except "Look at meeee!"
I mean, if they're pumping out hundreds of these childrens crayon scrawlings out a year per artist...
It might be low effort garbage and a way to launder money.
It could be considered degeneration of art, and actively hostile toward the concept of beauty.
We are not born without prejudice. If a deformed guy looks at a baby, that baby is likely to cry.
If a person frowns at the baby, that baby will cry.
We are born with in-built ideas of what beauty and kindness are. These aren't "societal constructs". They are the result of 3.5 billion years of evolution, and in many cases, those instincts are pretty accurate in protecting us from harm. If we recoil from things that look rotten, it may be because rot is contagious and lethal. We evolved to dislike puke green and black streaks. Even now, if you see black streaks in the wall, it means you or your landlord needs to buy some N100 masks and replace the dry wall and anything else tainted by the black mold.
That's not to say you can't depict ugliness. I love the Warhammer 40k aesthetic, and that includes some very horrific imagery. But, it's counter-balanced by beauty and symmetry. It's the concepts of humanity taken to its extreme. Anyway, I digress.
Point is, I think there is an assault on masculinity, individualism, morals and beauty. I think the assault is intertwined and designed by conniving billionaires. I think Hitler saw this, but then took his ideas in a very wrong direction, and unfortunately, we steered away from his brand of extremism and toward another style of tyranny.
We're entering a dark era, one with no identity and maximum oppression. This thing "they" are working on is something not even Mao and Stalin could accomplish in their lifetimes: complete erasure of the human past. Give it enough generations and people won't know anything. George Orwell warned us of this.
@@manictiger you are perfectly mirroring nazi propaganda, this is literally what was said at the time
@@Ranstone Cultural norms? Federals do not allow cultural norms. If you fight with someone they put you in jail. They stomp and pulverize your cultural norms, turining them into feminized BS.
6:44 Austria voted 90% to join Germany, officially. That was not a annexation, no matter how often English & US Americans repeat "annexation".
True. Some argue that voting was a bit manipulated as the space for "yes" was bigger than for "no". But Austrians did it because it was beneficial for Austria. And Austria was for Germany nothing but a burden
@@karolinakuc4783 Austria & Germany are the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. This Empire was destroyed by French,British & Spanish forces, the Reich collapsed in early 1800's and reformed about 60 years later as the German Reich 1871.
🙂 The Allied split Germany apart and every time the Germans want to unite, a British and US American has issues with it 🙂
This channel is so wonderful, so enlightening and presentation beautiful. I came upon it by chance just recently and have a lot of catching up to do now. Thank you very much. I am most grateful.
Hitler was so jealous it's funny. And the thing is, there was a use for his style. He really could have made a living with those paintings. The issue is that he didn't know how.
I think it's tragic how some people have so much talent yet go un-noticed because someone else is more shocking or controversial. It's the person who draws a red dot on a blank canvas, and sells it for 13 million dollars, and the artist who works 3 years on a piece and no one cares.
I genuinely understand the resentment.
@@Ranstone yes, me too to a certain degree, but c'mon, is your frustration that big that you have to kill people for it? I think his decisions were taken based on other criteria, the art must of been a constant catalyst.
@@Ranstone In your hypothetical example, have you considered that the painter of the red dot could have also been making art for years and years without recognition, until after a long time, he found a style of art which he enjoyed creating and which galleries and audiences responded to?
Modern art is a deep and complicated field, and no one is guaranteed success, just like all other forms of art. Whether you put three years into a work, thirty years, or thirty minutes, there is never any guarantee that your work will find an audience.
@@Narokkurai art is a business too. It's known that certain companies invest in acquisition of paintings for large sums of money so they can do some money laundering.
What's one of the most frustrating things about certain artists, especially painters, they get recognition after they die. Their art suddenly becomes valuable after death, this is unfair. Now we have plenty of artists, mediums to promote them and a.i. to put everyone on their knees with what can be made.
@@oanaalexia Well really, when it comes to art as a profession, nothing beats advertising. Marketing and advertising is the number one most reliable way for artists to get their work seen by the masses and get paid for their work. Truth is, whether you're an abstract impressionist or a meticulous traditionalist, getting anything sold at a gallery is like winning the lottery.
I disagree with the closing statement. It's not the responsibility of an artist to make their work accessable.
Artist are not entitled to success, and the public is not entitled to make demands of artist unless that artist is trying desperately to maintain public favor.
They didn't say it's the responsibility of the artist. Listen to the closing statement again. There is nothing about the artists at all.
I believe it is peoples lack of understanding of art history and artistic principles that expressly leads to their poorly informed admiration of classical works and hatred for modern. It also seems somewhat eurocentric. Art is a very broad concept. It's a very freeing thing. It's a form of expression, that requires no skill, and can be engaged with by anyone.
A lot of people, especially non artists who just like to admire and gatekeep, would like to place hard boundaries around what you can consider art and what you can't. People want a solid definition of art. Rules to follow to make it and interpret it. But the reality is art is simply human expression of emotion and ability. Everyone should make art. Its healthy for your mind.
Anyone who tries to think of reasons why certain art is art and certain art isnt... Is a terrible person.
Everyone should do physical exercises, but not everyone is an athlete. You can't show a lying person and tell me it's a form of athleticism.
If they have to intellectually understand their way into appreciating it then what is it that they are really appreciating if on the other hand those who simply engage with a fresh perspective tend not to like it?
@@retrocomputing Is it a fair analogy to compare art to a sports competition? Are you serious? "Oh my The Grande Odalisque is aesthetically pleasing and proper art done by a master, but oh her proportions are so weird, 80/100, 2nd place"
Most art forms require both technical proficiency and imagination/ideas, athletics require just technique and physique, using for example the legs of an athlete as the main point in your comparison is building your argument about the medium, running with a crooked leg is like painting in a slashed canvas or playing with a 2 string guitar, the difference is the former makes the task impossible and the latter just makes the craft harder, with enough imagination you can make something excellent, there's no ideas in running or throwing things (except for Fosbury!), it's objective, you run fast, you jump high, you win, it's a competition, and even though art has formal analysis, "experts" don't agree with each other, I think Rafael transfiguration is a mess (I'm not an expert) just from a formal analysis point of view, but a lot of experts think it's a masterpiece, but that's beyond your point cause your horribly written analogy was aiming at the frauds of modern performance art, right? It doesn't make any sense, sorry
@@literalwho9017 I can rewrite it without comparing to a sports competition:
Everyone can do anything they like, but not everyone is a master (or can become one). Let's say we have a craft category with established rules. A newcomer who ignores everything that this category is about can't be considered an equal to the masters just because you think art is subjective. That newcomer can create a new category and that's fine, but the categories aren't equal as well. There are objectively good and objectively bad, talentless performers. And some categories can be a fad or even a fraud.
I mean, when you get right down to it, it seems like Hitler was just mad that his style of art wasn't in vogue.
I love how you pronounce every artist's name perfectly, except Vincent van Gogh.
Who cares, he's American. Do you pronounce "English Muffin" w/a cockney accent?
@@dlarald ayo my name´s the same
I believe he pronounced it with a French accent, which isn't completely far-fetched.
and Dix.
He also messed up Mondriaan, both in spelling and pronunciation.
Like he tried to make his name French instead of Dutch.
Is it bad that I only recognised the Hitler painting?
Same lmao
@user-ck9ul4ic4kwhy are they beautiful?
@user-ck9ul4ic4k what do you find beautiful about Adolf's paintings?
@user-ck9ul4ic4k hey wanna smoke crack behind the 7/11 like last time?
He is far more famous and infamous so his style becomes too, that and personally speaking his art is a lot more complex and easier to spot.
Any of the commenters here saying "x kind of art isnt art" is simply voicing an opinion, but the ones thinking their opinion is fact, are completely out of it, as confining art to certain parameters set by any 1 individual or organization is inherently totalitarian, fascist maybe, but totalitarian at heart.
@Lee How so?
@Lee no it would not. your comment sounds like people who think that free speech means all speech. it does not. you cannot incite violence, abuse or murder of people and expect not to face consequences.
Art is a human word. Words have definitions. If your creation falls out of the verbal definition, it is not that idea.
Art is a broad, broad spectrum, but there are limits. My favorite example, relevant to this video is the classic "Walking into a crowded mall, and screaming that you live nazis and hate (insert racial slur)" is definitely public expression, but it's not art. It's just using shock and rebellion for the exclusive purpose of gaining attention you normally wouldn't garnish.
Similarly, fecal art is a perfect example. The artist had nothing to say; they just wanted to rally attention for behavior, as a shortcut instead of working hard. Could fecal art be art? I'm sure, but all the ones I've seen had nothing to say at all besides "I did something culture does not approve of".
TLDR: Art is expression, but expression isn't necessarily art.
@@Ranstone thats why i said "x kind of art is not art" is simply an opinion and not fact, because when i for example say fecal art is not art, i am simply voicing an opinion, my opinion is not fact because of course as you said it can be art, not IS art, but it can be. Also if that opinion was fact for example in my group of artist friends, it wouldnt be art in other friend groups of other artists. Simply put saying that x kind of art is not art is as totalitarian as demeaning a culture because they eat a certain thing you would never touch (ex. French culture, Eastern Asian culture etc.)
Conversely, saying that a painting with 1,000 hours put into it by a mastercraft artist, and a painting with 20 minutes put into it are the same, is highly degrading to the person who spent 1,000 hours on his. I would call that totalitarian.
I object to Art being used as a corporate tax dodge
That's why we should make an effort to distinguish artists and people that are trying to poison the well by using art as a means of money laundering. Doesn't mean that modern art is worthless and anyone involved in it is dodging taxes.
You really missed an opportunity at 2:39 to say that Hitler was “führer-ious,” but the video was excellent so I’ll allow it.
Ah, you're one of my new favourite TH-camrs, your videos are really entertaining and insightful. I stumbled onto your channel while looking into Barbara Kruger's work and I'm really glad I did!
Those are some very kind words! Thank you so much!
There is an alternate universe somewhere in which Hitler, to one up the stuffy art world, created a powerhouse postcard company and became wildly successful.
"postcard CEO hitler can't hurt me, he isn't real..."
postcard CEO hitler:
And he'd be remembered very well in Germany and perhaps his fame would spread to America too, but like how some historical figures were wildly racist yet influential, everytime you hear him you just can't forget how crazy he was about hating Jews and all sorts of minorities
Shirer, who visited both exhibitions at the time, wrote that the degenerate one was extremely popular and people were very excited to see all of their favorite artists. And Goebbels had to shut it down because it backfired
William Shirer made up a good portion of his book. It's laughed at by any serious historian. The average German back then hated pretentious modern art as much as the average American hates it today.
@@JohnM-cd4ou wow I didn't know that. Thanks I'll look into it. Do you think he also made up what he claimed he witnessed himself?
Damn really? You would think if it was backfiring that bad Goebbels wouldn't have let it run for over 4 months, and then proceed to have many more exhibits in other cities around Germany until 1941.
Hitler in his youth was an artist himself but not a successful one . The philosophy of nazis art was similar to Roman and Greek, that venerataed the glory of humans body . Then there were a number of styles in arhitecture named "empire" style . There were famous in 19 th century after the Pompey was discovered but as a style at fist time it was formed in under the rule of Napoleon in France - style of glory and victory of the empire .The same stylie we can see in Stalin buldings . The symvolism of victory in every detail . Hitler had an idea of perfect race with perfect bodies without humility . One time I thought that for "G" in gamma cross( Hakenkreuz) could mean "Gloria gratia gens Germanika"
That philosophy of nazi art sounds like nazi propaganda. The really wanted to hype up the massacre of their own people on ww2 by all the other nations lol.
Tradtional art was a form of art that was deeply rooted in the soul and psyche of the Eurppean peoples, that was 5000 years in the making. Today’s art perverts and destroys all healthy perceptions and the body is viewed on in the most grotesque and consumptive way rather than the beauty that it actually stands for.
I've been reading "The Ominous Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff. One of his theses is that Expressionism and other similar artistic movements in Weimar Germany were actually precursors to Nazism, in that their rejection of rationality in favor of emotions was a form of world-hating nihilism that prepared the country to submit irrationally to Nazi collectivism. I'm not sure what to make of either Peikoff's thesis or the thesis presented here. And I don't know how to reconcile them.
This reminds me of an article I read on a Christian website about how video games, specifically RPGs, contributed to the rise of the alt-right and neo-Nazism. And the point wasn't so much that the violence in the games caused this, but rather the sense of achievement and power. Why would you want to live in the real world where you're some guy who works at a store or an office worker when you can be the hero of some fantasy land?
And that translates to people trying to find that same sort of fantasy in the real world.
@@rosesweetcharlotte well, Discord did that, not games. Smart people started with them young because they're easier to manipulate.
It's curious to see an Objectivist like Peikoff appropriate an essentially communist critique of expressionism as insufficiently didactic. I suggest you do not take it too seriously-expressionism has long been the subject of ire from both ends of the political spectrum due to the expressionists' conspicious lack of concern for politics. Radicals make a business out of arguing for the suspension of neutrality within the public sphere; it is only natural the value of a work that does not concern itself with politics will remain entirely opaque to them (and, safe to say, there is nothing apolitical about fascism).
I'm a lot less on-board with this thought than I used to be. Most people I've seen mentioning how some art makes you a bad person, from my short time on earth, have been people who are already pushing bad ideas onto people, and are looking for a scapegoat. Christian Nationalists saying Harry Potter and Pokemon is Satanism, American Fascists saying Communism and the Gay Agenda exist in every show where a woman/queer/POC exists, and many more.
I don't know if saying Nazi values arose from art is necessarily wrong, but I'm suspicious of the idea that art begets evil like this. Seeing as that's the mindset the Nazi's had, I don't like using that same mindset on them, it feels like we're saying they had a point when they were obviously delusional.
Like, the bar for whether a group was ever "right" about something is so low someone dug down to hell and dropped the bar, and the Nazi's decided to limbo under it for bragging rights. There's literally no group we can be more sure was wrong about something than the Nazi's. If we ever agree with Nazi's on any point, that is about as red of a flag as we can have that we fucked up and got the answer wrong somewhere.
I don't understand art. I don't end up with my own interpretation of art works. Sometimes I just look at its beauty. I want to become one because I love drawing. That's all.
All you need to do is draw something that conveys meaning... weather that be a subject, idea, feeling, a combination therof, or all of the above is up to you.
Make something beautiful.
Probably makes you more of an artist than the people that do.
@@neththom999 this comment is so silly lol
@@tsu08761e People who appreciate art from an authentic individual perspective and create it themselves are more properly artistic than those who merely mentally wank pseudo-profound (i.e., the great 'understanders' of art) with the ideas and in the manner that they have learned is agreeable to their peers.
Person 1: Appreciates beauty, comes up with own interpretations, loves to draw, inspiration comes from within, knows how to create
Person 2: "Understands" art. Educated into that understanding from without. Knows how to rearrange concepts.
"The virtue in most request is
conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs. " -Emerson
You’re missing out big time
How can someone "fail" at being an artist? Sounds like a double-standard being applied
Maybe they meant a "art student in renowned art school"
It's kinda hard to define this word in that context. Hitlers paintings weren't that good even for the postcard standards, he lacked structure and consistency, it was just a pretty looking, polished turd, but a turd nonetheless. If you want to be looked at with respect by the art critics and other artists, you have to stand out with something that you master, either its theme, texture, composition or simply technical skill. Hitler lacked these things, and therefore his art was considered not that important, so he failed in their eyes.
And yes, I was also rejected from art school so choose your next words very carefully...
@@sadpianist5846 how do you know if the works in the Entartete Kunst exhibition were good or not? Can you define them as unpolished turds?
@@retrocomputing These days you’re considered irrelevant if you DON’T make your art with turds.
@@sadpianist5846 Structure and consistency look like the exact skills he did have. Criticism would have to rest on other aspects you’d think. And sorry to hear that. You probably aren’t a complete wank-off and so they don’t want you around.
architectural art requires the ability to keep consistent perspective. He did not have the technical ability to draw what he set out to draw, and was not able to develop himself to create the kind of art he wanted to. In that regard, he was a failure.
Please don't stop making videos. I follow you since your first video. Thank you so much for doing them. Greetings from Moscow!
the modern art world is a money laundering scheme, were what is expensive and "good taste art" is what the critics want, the modern art business has became a shadow of what once used to be, what is considered good or bad art should be decided by the audience and not by snobbish critics who don't even care about beauty
All you did was read an Instagram post that said that.
And before you say anything, YES, I'm being paid to say this.
@@RetroAP paid mossad shill confirmed
@@kek105 J'aime Les Enfants is one of such examples of art world connected people who are no joke connected to art world only because its easy to launder money through it : )))
@@Owerus Hunter Biden is another example.
I'm arriving at bit late to the party, but there is a terrific documentary available here on TH-cam that explores the 'Entartete Kunst' exhibition. It's called 'Degenerate Art - 1993, the Nazis vs. Expressionism'. It's well-worth the watch, and I thank you for bringing this subject to attention. :)
@Barbarossa Don't you have yet another pride event to (almost) disrupt?
You should buy the book "Kunst" from Ostara publications, it's an old Nazi pamphlet justifiably making fun of some of the worst art ever
omg you just saved my life i need these video snippets for my upcoming presentation thanks
Do you know the name of the artist who made the statue of the two naked men holding hands and the name of the piece (minute 5:44)? I'm not finding it anywhere and I'd really love to know. Thank you, and thanks for this video. Those pieces of "degenerate" art deserve to be known.
I think I found it! Is it "Kameraden" by Josef Thorak?
That was one that the Nazis approved of; it wasn't labelled as degenerate. It strongly exemplifies Nazi values of masculinity, athleticism, and pride.
Perhaps Arno Breker, he made a lot of this type of statue
@@bert2522 No it's Joseph Thorak. The statue is called "Kameradeschaft," meaning "Comradery."
@@viztep5070 and there's something wrong with masculinity, athleticism, and pride?
This is extreme oversimplification. Nazis didn't ban expressionism because they didn't understand it, or because Hitler was jealous. They banned it because they believed in a totalitarian ideology with strict image of what German culture is and should always be. Existence of art that went against this "German culture" was an insult - not to mention dangerous propaganda-wise and something that led German culture on a different path than the Nazis wanted it to go. You always do this; you always recite facts without understanding them. DON'T do that with Nazism.
Someone with a brain. You should teach the people instead of these ignorants.
I'd honestly, as a part of your Fascist Art analysis, would love for you to cover Jorge Luis Borges; he seemed to do that hiding behind "I'm politically blind" kind of shit and constantly pretended to play the "enlightened centrist" and even just his Wikipedia page makes anyone suspect of him.
Everyone has their standards when it comes to art. As for me? I'm sorry, but if you have a completely empty room with a single slice of pickle nailed on the far wall. I just cannot call this "art"
And when I hear about someone spending millions of dollars for a canvas with a single black dot at its center, I have to laugh at them then wonder if this is some money laundering scheme.
Good modern art is on the level of Picasso who at least put some legitimate thought and effort into his pieces.
And if anyone disagrees with me. Again, I say to each their own. I'm still going to point and laugh at pretentious gullibility.
Kinda missing the point here my dude. I’m sure he meant if an ideology were to limit such works because they thought these were “objectively bad” instead of the subjective way we all view art, that’s a gateway drug to pretty much restricting freedom of all kinds of art
@@TryinaD yea I would consider shit on a canvas to be decent. You have to be pretty skillfull to land the turd on it in the first place
@@TryinaD
There are objective measures. Time spent on painting * (learning speed * time spent learning) usually = quality of final product. Art is semi-subjective, but we're born knowing what's beautiful. A baby will cry at ugliness. Heck, a baby will cry at a simple frown! Did society teach it that?
There is something measurable in art. When we hear someone shred on a guitar and get every little nuance correctly, we can hear the thousands of hours of practice. We can hear the effort. There's something a bit objective going on, something measurable in time spent.
Your "black dot at the centre" example is precisely why historical context is so important in art
The painting you described is creatively called "black circle" and was made by Kazimir Malevich in 1915 along with several other similar works. As you correctly implied, such a painting is, by itself, completely unremarkable. That's where the context comes into play. At the start of 20th century was when the shift to more abstract art became a thing (abstract in the sense of cubism and such, don't mistake "abstract" for "skill-less" in this context), and with it the obvious push against it, to the point where certain institutions called for ban or social "war" on this art (which will later actually happen in several countries as discussed above). This made a decent portion of those artists understandably upset. One of those men was, by that time already established and somewhat well regarded Malevich. That's why he made the painting and suprematist movement as a whole - as a sort of "middle finger" to those people (not entirely accurate, but it get's the overall point across). Generally nobody would care about that, but as i said, Malevich wasn't exactly a nobody, so those "words" had some weight behind them.
In other words, nobody argues that the "painting" black circle was good, what is good is black circle as an art piece - as a gesture, as a statement and as projection of the mind of Malevich
@@user-zz3sn8ky7z
"Black square on canvas" is equally no-effort and that one wasn't made ironically. Modern art is pretentious garbo. If you need 5 paragraphs to explain why a picture is remarkable, then maybe it sucks. The story is neat, so put it in his biography and call that book "art". You could call it, "How a Non-artist Helped Progress Art".
4:57 looks like a cool album cover. I'd listen to that.
I share Hitler's aesthetic sensibilities, but censorship of this kind is distasteful.
Thanks. Good one. Short and sweet.
Pretty based of Austrian painter
yes
yes
Just shows that even a broken clock is right twice a day!
its concerning how many neo-nazis are in the comments
Absolutely, and keep in mind that I deleted a lot of comments. Consider me pretty concerned as well
Lmao
cry about it
Cultural Marxists
@@TheCanvasArtHistory are you that afraid of nazis?? Dude, you only fear what you don't know
I don't understand how so many people struggle to understand that classic art has been popular since it's rise. It's played out in the mainstream. Art is about creativity, not creating art pieces in the same style under the same rules over and over because that's what "good art" looks like.
Modern "art" cope.
Your degree is worthless. Cry about it.
Western art has changed and evolved over the course of its history. That's not the issue. The issue is that modern art "degenerates" or erodes at traditional values and throws Western culture out of the window in its entirety.
@@Braingore-de-Rais and what, pray tell, is “western culture” even?
Are we talking “European culture”? What even is that? Hell, every single country in Europe went to war with each other at least a handful of times. Are we gonna sit around and say that the Spanish are the same as the Irish or that Germans are the same as Italians? Are we going to sit around and say that Nordic gods are the same as Greek gods are the same as Celtic gods etc etc? How about architecture? You think the Parthenon and some Scottish castle are culturally the same? How about food? What is this singular “Western Culture” you speak of?
This “Western Culture” nonsense is laughably asinine and demonstrates massive cultural and historical illiteracy at best and is a racist dogwhistle at worst as the literal only similarity amidst all the usual examples of “western culture” is that they were mainly white.
This “Western Culture” isn’t going to erode over a few surreal paintings because it doesn’t even exist in the first place. Cry about it
@@KlutchRedefined It doesn't exist in your eyes because you haven't been exposed to it. That student loan debt hurts, doesn't it?
@@Braingore-de-Rais I would put money on you not actually being European, or even having ever visited for more than a week, tops.
Awesome video my man!
One would faction in art was trying to do a few months ago was so much worse, as they were trying to take people's originals ( which by the way just means the original canvas they were painted on, I'm not interested in a "debate" on what is original ) and burn them in garbage cans. Stuff like that will never be OK.
Luckily I made it abundantly clear that such vandals would be treated as trespassers if they stole my stuff, and for now that got the message across.
You lost me with the closing lines. I'm with Tolstoy on art interpretation. If you need to be told how to understand a piece of art to appreciate it, then it's not good art. I'm open to appreciating something more with more information, but if it doesn't make me feel anything other than confusion on first viewing then I have no interest in squinting to see whatever it is I'm supposed to see.
Art does not destroy reality, but interprets it.
(1) in a long video documentary about the Nazi "Degenerate Art" exhibition, it was noted that, while all the artists therein were branded "Bolsheviks" and "Jews," in reality only a tiny proportion of them were either. (2) there's a Prager University TH-cam video about beauty in art, which puts forth an ideology which is uncannily similar to that of Nazism concerning art.
I mean, Prager U is a far right American conservative mouthpiece, it shouldn't be very surprising that they'd share similar beliefs with Nazis.
@@kacperfrontczak1257 "socialist" in the name "National Socialist Workers Party" had nothing to do with Communist socialism, as the Nazis considered the Bolsheviks to be butter enemies -- hence their using "Bolshevik" as a pejorative. As to vegetarianism: part of the propaganda about Hitler himself was that he was vegetarian, apparently as part of creating an image of him as a kind of austere, self-sacrificing spiritual leader. But research has shown that it was a scam: he heartily scarfed down sausages as much as any other German.
plain simple, when it's ugly it's ugly.
That is subjective and there are other criteria or reasons to enjoy or engage with art
You prove that point
I never knew artists were so important
Who let the garage thrive in the first place
Who owns the Hitler paintings now?
People who don’t care about the art
Fun fact, I think this fact was even mentioned on this channel in another video, but Hitler had a very poor understanding of perspective, a meh-understanding of shading and color theory, and an absolutely shite knowledge of how to draw humans and other living subjects. He actually drew, mediocrely, in a really common style for hobbyists and amateur artists. He was notably not-very-good, all things considered.
Essentially, that means that Hitler was the 1900's Painting equivalent of a millennial who covers Jason Mraz songs on ukulele and tells all his friends "Music is my passion, I'm gonna go to school and become the next Luciano Pavarotti :P" Which I find hilarious, terrible tragedies aside. Like, it's cool to like the d*ckhead's art if you think it's alright, but it's also ok to clown on him for being so mid-tier, he was literally the worst person ever. If you were ever allowed to bully someone, Hitler is that guy. Normalize Bullying Hitler, I say.
Yeah he wouldnt so mid if he just passed those exams
Modern art does look bad.
Hard to believe Hitler was only a year older than Egon Schiele and they were born in the same country.
When art is relativized in a society, so are all the traditional norms of morality and goodness, which leads to societal decay, as it was in the degenerate Weimar
This will not stop me from hating jackson Pollock
Just don't talk shit about Dali or Picasso...
It also won't stop me from hating Bauhaus
@@paulandreigillesania5359 What don't you like about the bauhaus?
When cheap imitations of those plastic tupperwares replace older architecture. They look horrible when they age and require more maintenance. Least in older buildings they look stunning when they age, but when buildings as new as Bauhaus age, they defy their promise of renewable and comfortable living
@@paulandreigillesania5359 the architect Vincent Sully said we once entered the city like God's now we scuttle in like rats. This was in response to how New York's Penn station was once a beautiful building and later destroyed to be some modern sludge
It is still a struggle to persuade people that modern art is real art, and that looking at it will not harm them. I was introduced to it I suppose at a Blue-Rider exhibition in the '60s and have enjoyed both abstract and representative art since. However, I am not sure that we are not being conditioned by curators these days. They may not be fascists or nazis, but many of today's galleries and exhibitions are arranged and captioned to persuade us of some, often spurious, political relevance and we have to be aware of who is in control.
Interesting how art that was essentially anti-human was rejected by people who were essentially anti-human.
You are making Hitler look good lol
I knew Hitler tried to study art, but I never actually looked at one of his paintings. Tbh, I found them quite beautiful. Its not the bold and lose style of the expressionists, but they feel calm, relaxing and balanced. Unexpected, but I guess it makes sense.
He wasn't wrong, though, was he?
He wasnt wrong? It depends, i guess. Do you think prohibiting art is a good thing?
Are you talking about the art? Many people are starting to ask that question.
@@moriwaldmensch culturally discouraging it is good
@@moriwaldmensch what art? all I saw was trash
@@moriwaldmensch yes if it is degenerate
I agree with the funny moustache man
why?
@@abelabel3664 Because i believe art need skill
I think it’s fine to do art even if you don’t have skill but I have a problem with it being considered the best Art
@@avus-kw2f213 In what definition of "art" is skill implied? Is there a universal scale gauging what the "best" art is?
@@abelabel3664 sorry I should’ve said professional art
@@avus-kw2f213 And how do you define skill...? And you do not agree with Hitler...he literally ordered art to be burnt and artist persecuted, not that artists did not get any money from their art.
I actually like Picasso and Dali, precisely because their work shows a solid grasp of classical techniques.
Which really demonstrates how the Nazis had zero understanding of the artists they idolized
@@morganalabeille5004 Are you talking about Picasso and Dali, or the ones that inspired them.
When I once did a political art project it got cancelled for having Hitler in it.
I remember when I was in school we had to do an art project about the topic "nothing". We were free to decide how and many drew pictures or made sculptures. I did an audio, because I wanted to cut something. I put politicians in there all in one saying nothing. Most of them current ruling German politicians from the Ampel government. My point was "politicians are saying nothing". Even though this was just a part of a whole exhibition, everything we did was a good example of "modern art". Also what I did. But I did also put Hitler in my project and the school didn't allow it. That was not only representative of what is probably accociates with modern art it still got cancelled for having both the chancellor Olaf Scholz, some green activist politician and Hitler in the same fucking audio. It was not meant that way. I just caught all of them blabbering nothing.
But also it speaks more to the nazi mentality in general like "we will decide what is good and dictate what is good". Historically if Hitler was into modern art he would declare war on more representative art.
national socialist*
they didn't "decide" what was good and what was bad. They just managed to distinguish art that requires talent from "art" that requires none.
No, not exactly. There is no objectively good art. Claiming to hold the "objective truth" and silencing people with different opinions or visions of art is weak, pathetic and dangerous.
Why is modern art good exactly? Picasso and Munch I like, even Rothko, they evoke some kind of feeling from withing, but most of these dont, just like the nazis said, it needs to have pre-context, like a book, to tell you that it is good.
@@lw97nilslinuswhitewaterweb15 Picasso and Dali both showed a solid grasp of classical techniques.
Modern art back then was not even close of how “degenerate” art nowdays is.
And it shows how some people still don't understand that we need it to progress and challange new ideas. Heck, back in the day even impressionistic art was considered something bad, not to mention in the medieval times, anything that wasn't made in the name of God could get you killed. It shows how there always will be a group of boomers trying to ruin everyone's time just cause they don't want to move their braincells and think "wow, it doesn't affect me, so I just might mind my business". It's just people trying to ruin someone's happiness.
If not for modern art we wouldn't progress in technique and style, every painting would look like stick figures. So for every "bad" modern piece there's always something to be learned
@@sadpianist5846 Ironically though, it's modern art that ditched accurate anatomy. The Renaissance artists mastered it some 500 years ago, yet have you seen any modern mediums? Think of the corporate art style, or cartoons.
@@Braingore-de-Rais that statement doesnt really make much sense, modern art as a whole is so broad and portrayals of anatomy can be realistic or not but it completely depends. "corporate art style" is something that changes every decade or so, and its not like this is the first time the popular corporate artstyle uses exaggerated proportions
@@sadpianist5846 Why would we progress when it's taken us to the point we are at now, last thing we need is future generations to feel inspired/empowered by a statue of an overweight black woman. (First thing I ever saw in a prestigious "modern museum")
Keep going with your videos don't give up they are really good!!
Perhaps they were correct. Corrupt art corrupts thinking corrupting morality.
Actual scientists would like to disagree with you.
I would like to ask what tf is wrong with you
@@shazamnegroid7379 tl,dr: modern psychology and sociology say he and everyone who makes similar remarks is wrong
and who would have thought that modern or daring art doesn't attract traditionalists
there haven't been any peer reviewed studies suggesting that there's a causation of antisocial, immoral, criminal, violent, etc. behavior and abstract, disturbing, violent or otherwise provocative art.
And of course most artists who produce such art will at least be center libs to outright left because right wingers just don't like that creativity. They don't like things like abstract or critical thinking, redefining or disregarding rules of how things are supposed to be done, expressing complex emotions and so on.
@@shazamnegroid7379 kinda, yeah. Everything is constantly changing and progressing forward. Language, ideas, art and so on. But for some reason there have always been people desperately clinging to the past, afraid of stuff changing, although they always have been losing because of where we are today. I suppose I don't have to tell you which one's which
@@nopizzawithoutpineapple i dont need a study to see degens associate with degeneracy
@@nopizzawithoutpineapple I don't care about that, because actual *science* agrees with National socialism. Who cares about scientists.
Modern art sucks.
Cartoons conveying a bunch of Metaphors = Highbrow Modern Art or "The Emperor's New Clothes". It's always more about the "cleverness" of the artist & explanations of superior insight that fawning sychophants can share others. In truth is merely represents the expression of Freud's "Will to Death" - which starts by tearing down the surrounding beautiful world & replacing it with the ugly.....everything "Rationalised" of course. Everyone finds a home among people who think exactly like them - even if it's a cult which is why it's best if a Modern Artist struggles with Depression, Alcoholism, Drugs, some Victimhood or Suicide
Fucking sucks that now you can't ever criticise modern art without somebody saying that you are using nazi talking points
Hitler also drank water...
Do you drink water too?
@@user-fg8ux8zo6w Hello brother
The one time I felt bad for Hitler. Putting in all that work just to be dismissed as postcard at best. That said it was horrible what he did to the art community
Modern art at its worst is forgetful depressing ,uninspiring, bleak, pretentious, exercise in soul sucking and is always a poor exercise in draughtsmanship
And what about it at its best?
You can literally say that about any genre of art
7:24 But that is just someone's bloody booger. There're some pretensious big fish that would call trash art. Yet Hitler's definition of art was very narrow and harmful.
@павле Not all of this just that of this particular picture at that time. But who knows maybe a child could come up with some more creative meaning. But knows if artists indeed did didn't have blood running from his nose that he cleaned with canva 🙂🙃.
"Madness becomes method"... So true. Ironic to learn of the genius artists who so offended the Nazi sense of purity and decorum: Kandinsky, Matisse, Chagall, Picasso, Klee. Tells you everything you need to know about totalitarian regimes and their world view.
Well you know what they say. "Payback is a Bxtch"
Fantastic video! There are so many more of yours I haven't seen yet. I really appreciate these as I expand my appreciation of art.
I'm happy you appreciate the content!! Thank you so much Marc!
Boy, you really had to leave a lot of history out on this one.
Hitler hating modern art just makes me like it more
Freak
Jack Roberts
Unbased
Painter: I just want to paint, pal.
Hitler: Yes, but you're painting things I don't like.
more like this
Hitler: I wanted too
It had nothing to do with what they didn't like. It was destroying their culture
@@TonyFontaine1988 Must have been a pretty lame culture if it was being destroyed by a painting.
@@brigadierharsh1948 Every time you utter the word "degenerate", God rends the heavens to kill a few dozen kittens.
@@azazel166 How about thousands of paintings? And pornography? And books, magazines and movies?
When you kick out people in an art circle. They will do the same thing to you back if they had the chance.
Its incredibly dark how society is with disgust and hate. We hate the hate. And it's doesn't make it love.
Nothing prevented Hitler from using his art work to pursue architecture
modern art is absolutely disgusting though. it really should never be made again.
What kind of art do you like?
@@Kranker_ possibly lolicon and other shit like that
Awesome. Modern art is degenerate
He was Fuhrer-ious
DAMN he literally went troll on the modern artists thats messed up
Let's be real; Hitler was just being salty about not getting into art school
He spoke facts
Or he didn’t like degenerates
Great video
Modern art is not real art.
not Beksinski?
It is trash.
2:39 - Would you go so far as to say that he was "führious"?
Getting labeled a degenerate sounds a lot like cancelled today
Yeah shoes on the other foot I guess
Not by outrage though so its not the same, its more just ridicule so no its not the same
"if people are not given the tools and knowledge to appreciate it"
assumption that people with tools and knowledge will appreciate it - as former Fine Art student I can say that some of it is really degenerate art and shouldn't be praised and put up on pedestal
Ironically he was right. At least, in the idea that it was a degeneration of previous standards. Post 1800's as Impressionism gained a foothold abstract art pushed limits and boundaries as to what can be viewed as art or what even qualifies. It was 'degenerate' in that it was a simplification and shattering of all established rules and norms of perception, coloring, geometry, etc.
Exactly. Amazing that an artist who can't even draw hands would be celebrated, almost as if he is celebrated FOR his lack of ability
is laying a new foundation for a new building that will be fully made in the future "degenerating" the other already completed buildings around it? weird logic
Fucked logic.
I respect “bad” art that tries something new and expanded humanity’s horizons of what art can be a hell of a lot more than I respect “good” art that just sentimentally tries to imitate better artists who get put on a pedestal by those who don’t understand it.
@@josedorsaith5261 I think you missed the point if the comment
Maybe hitler, wanted to be accepted and for his art to be accepted since he likes drawing towns and cities. I think he was very sensitive to rejection so that got him mad and to quit art school. I never liked popularity or trends, thats the dark side of popularity and trends, they accept whats trending and not care about other old and new kinds of art. So i kinda do understand hitler's side.
Mad respect for Germany
Never seen so many shit takes in my life. This comment section is more of a spectacle than the exhibition itself
modern art does suck though
Somone with an anime profile picture saying Modern art sucks the irony
@@TheHouseAlwaysWins20 you don't see anime pictures in museums...... yet
@@JordiumZ Araki was in the Louvre
@@martinthedrainedsedlak touché
@@TheHouseAlwaysWins20Japanese art is superior to western modern art.
if I were a deviantart artist making " sonic foot fetish art" , probably you would be want to censor my art as degenerate too nowadays.
Nah
Ah i remember that sonic fetish art 😂 good times...
1:32
Woah.
That escelated quickly.
Whoa
This kind of art is supposed to provoke a reaction anyway, the Nazis reacting to it, so vitrologically means the art was more of a success than if the Nazis had ignored it
I mean he's not wrong
About art I mean
But how does one pronounce Entartete Kunst?
"This is why making modern art accessible is very important. If people are not given the tools and the knowledge to appreciate it, they may end up going at war against it" -------- - I think Your conclusion is wrong, Hitler was criminal, mass murderer and megalomaniac. It is much more important to prevent such ill persons to get the position of power than to try teach everybody such a complicated matters as those that modern art is dealing with... Progressive art is not for everyone, it require the will to learn, high level of sensitivity and freedom of thought. Most of people do not have those and teching them something above their ability can cause them to hate it even more' - exactly as it happend to Hitler....
''degenerates'' had to be put into desolation ..and that was according to the eugenics program, which still exists today ! Hitler was only a FRONT for that
He was nothing of what you said.
It would be nice to have a similar series on what the communist thought about modern art. I know this video is 3 years old and alarms against facism are sounding (rightfully so), but I do think an analysis on the excess of communist regimes against art is needed.
Communists clamped down on degenerate art just as much as Nazis. However the Nazis promoted romantic art where as the communists enforced socialist realism art.
Totalitarian statist communist state despite also has measures to censor art, still at its heart has leftist tendencies (thats not a pejorative, thats just the term). In a way that all art is celebrated regardless, and not bound by cultural or nation psyche (apart from obviously dissing the regime)
Theres literally hundreds of modern artists from eastern blocks or China or anywhere, and by large they aren't persecuted UNTIL the country leaders (the Premier, Party leaders etc) became hard on senile, best examples is Kruschev who tries to ban some modern art, but he never made a decree since it would be an oxymoron to its socialist leftist tendencies
so your saying not everything he did was bad
Sounds familar to how people in the US who has embraced nationalism has treated works of art and free expression in the last couple of years.
Read Hitler's Table Talks for more of his commentary on art, culture geopolitics and war....also dogs.
The degenerate art Musuem still had more visitors than the "regular" one
thats very kosher of you
SHUT IT DOWN!