I'm not sure when I learned that Hitler had originally wanted to become an artist. I'm sure it's the same day when I contemplated what might have been different if he had succeeded. I particularly like this article put out a few years back by The New Yorker. To summarize it, basically Hitler went to Vienna with the dream of pursuing art. Twice he was rejected based on his "unsatisfactory" drawing skills. Often he slept on the streets, keeping company with Jews, which, at the time, he didn't not appear to have a problem with. Indeed, Hitler (the article suggests), picked up anti-Semitism in Vienna. He also was a fan of Wagner (who, we learned in Western Civ, was less than fond of Jews).
But, while residing in Vienna and absorbing the cities' politics (as well as incorporating them into his own) may have laid the ground work for Hitler's later life, the war made Hitler, well, Hitler. As we discussed in class, he was a war hero, awarded the Iron Cross twice (more information on the Iron Cross here).
Grace says:
Art typically serves as a free expression of oneself in which one attempts to depict a personal emotion, event or opinion--an artist's work ultimately defines him or her and serves as the thread that pieces the artists life together.
I would argue that the idea of this version of art didn't come about until the 19th century really, perhaps even the late 19th century. Previously art hadn't been focused on free expression, subjective opinion, or emotionality. I'd imagine that Hitler as a leader, led as he might have painted, communicating similar ideas of absolute power, an infatuation with the classical, and strains of anti-Semitism/anti-Communism. However, the effect that a painting might have is minute in comparison to Hitler wielding the power of an entire country.
To see some of Hitler's watercolors and postcards, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment