Vanguard News Network

Hitler himself is called a bad artist. He was not, his work was nice and he loved his mother. That is why I do not believe the Holocaust nonsense. All anyone has to do is read his work, look at his art and his poem to his mother and one knows that the jews lie.

Thank you so much. A few years back I decided to take a look for myself at Germany and Hitler and was simply amazed……….

Hell, that Vermeer really does it for us! Seventeenth century high Dutch art aside, Hitler in his own way falls into that category of Great White Men like Leonardo da Vinci and many others in that they were not only artists, but thinkers, engineers, designers, politicians, men of war… they were versatile multi-taskers. As a painter myself, I admire both ‘good’ modern and traditional art; my point being, when one reads a work of art it communicates something back to you. The value of the message to you is the inherent worthiness of the artwork itself. Beauty’s in the eye of the beholder.

Socrates, thanks for the art posts. I think you may have put one up a while back as well. To make a long story short, I linked from your post to some place (forget the name) that sells fine art prints that are absolutely brilliant. I enjoy just browsing through the pictures on the site. As soon as my financial situation improves, I’m going to buy one of their prints. Just wanted to thank you again.

“why abstract art is primarily Jewish, and the religious origins of prohibitions against representations of human (or divine) figures.”

Could one speak more broadly, perhaps, of “Semitic” art?

“The Greeks, Romans, Egyptians (the ancient, non-Semitic types), Hindus, Sumerians, Buddhists, Celts……………They all represented human and divine forms in stone and wood. The Jews and Arabs never had any representational art because they are incapable of making it, not due to some cultural or religious prohibition against it.”

For the most part this is true, but the Moguls in India produced some good representations of the human form.

Justin Huber Says: “Socrates, thanks for the art posts. I think you may have put one up a while back as well. To make a long story short, I linked from your post to some place (forget the name) that sells fine art prints that are absolutely brilliant. I enjoy just browsing through the pictures on the site. As soon as my financial situation improves, I’m going to buy one of their prints. Just wanted to thank you again.”

My pleasure. I’m an art and architecture buff, so I enjoy it. To me, the visual parts of Western culture are among the most important. I think Hitler thought so as well, e.g., his grand designs for the Third Reich and his comments about those designs. If memory serves me right, Hitler once said that architecture (which is art that you live and work in) should make people stare in awe. It should impress the heck out of them from the moment they see it. A great example in America is the U.S. Supreme Court building – what a beautiful thing. A true work of art.

The Moghuls were Persian aristocrats who ruled India for centuries. It was a Moghul ruler who ordered the construction of the Taj Mahal. The Persians, of course, are not Semitic; they are, or were, Aryans. Hence the name Iran, which means Land of the Aryan.

Antagonistes, what great works of art have survived from the ancient Israelites? None, because they did not have any. All that can be found in archeological digs are the remains of small, wretched mud-brick huts and broken shards of crude pottery. The Jews were desert nomads and have a nomadic mentality still. Nomads do not produce any sublime works of art or literature. They lie, cheat and steal in order to survive in their cut-throat nomadic world.

The only “art” that Jews are capable of making is modern art, and that is what I call anti-art, or Entartete Kunst.

I must admit I’m not familiar with those artists you listed. I generally associate Jewish art with the likes of Pollock, Krasner, Rothko and Chagall. However, I think some purists would take issue with comparing illlustrators of paperback books to “real” artists.

[Re. Frazetta] It’s strongly reminescent of Maxfield Parish, in some ways.
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=maxfield+parish+pictures&btnG=Search+Images

Maxfield Parrish was also a commercial artist who did advertisements for magazines.

But now fine art museums show his work, and rightfully so, in my opinion.

I have seen originals of his work. Some of his paintings are so luminous they seem to be incandescent.

I also like the mystical nature of some of his paintings.