22 November, 2008

Hitler’s Favorite Art

Posted by Socrates in art, Hitler, Socrates, Western culture, White art/architecture at 10:40 pm | Permanent Link

In addition to having Vermeer’s painting “An (or The) Artist in His Studio” hanging in his Berghof home, Adolf Hitler preferred works by Carl Spitzweg and Eduard von Grützner. His taste in art was, of course, generally conservative. Trivia: Goebbels favored rather modern art until Hitler steered him away from that aesthetic towards more traditional art. Goebbels later favored Dutch masters [1].

[1] see the book “Art As Politics in the Third Reich” by Jonathan Petropoulos, 1996


  1. Similar posts:

  2. 07/23/19 Donald Trump: Like Hitler, Only Taller 48% similar
  3. 09/05/07 Book Quote, re: Hitler’s Money System 37% similar
  4. 10/18/14 The Real Hitler 37% similar
  5. 01/05/15 Hitler Was At Fault? 37% similar
  6. 09/03/12 Jewish ‘Experts’ Analyzed Hitler for Allies 35% similar
  7. 21 Responses to “Hitler’s Favorite Art”

    1. A. Says:

      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.

    2. Howdy Doody Says:

      Thank you.

      The hate and murder /genocide has been committed by the one’s who have accused the White race of it.

    3. Karen Says:

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

    4. Zarathustra Says:

      Yes, the Fuhrer was very fond of his mother, of Nature, of animals, of children and of art and music. A truly great man!!!And he was no coward or shirker, either. His taste in paintings is a little too conservative for my liking, but when you consider the kind of nightmarish insanity that Jewish “artists” were painting at the time, it’s perfectly understandable that Hitler would wish to seek refuge and solace in those 19th Century Academic works.

    5. Marwinsing Says:

      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.

    6. Antagonistes Says:

      Hitler was a good artist, although he seemed to have excelled in technical aspects. It disgusts me that he was not accepted at the Art Academy in Vienna (if my memory is correct) because HIS FIGURES WERE OUT OF PROPORTION WITH THE BACKGROUND BUILDINGS AND TREES! The professors could have easily corrected this minor technical error!

      The book, On Being a Pagan, by Alain Benoist (be forewarned: this book is quite intellectual and I will have to re-read it, several times) explains why abstract art is primarily Jewish and the religious origins of prohibitions against representations of human (or divine) figures. The early Judeo-Christians seemed to adhere to this, also.
      The author paints Judaism and monotheism as being, to me, quite sterile and alienating.

      Of course, the Europeans took Judeo-Christianity and transformed it with their pagan spirit, and used it as an impetus to create all sorts of art. They even increased the number of gods to three.

      I can see why Hitler liked Spitzweg with his dramatic lights and darks.

    7. 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.

    8. gw Says:

      “The book, On Being a Pagan, by Alain Benoist … explains why abstract art is primarily Jewish, and the religious origins of prohibitions against representations of human (or divine) figures. The author paints Judaism and monotheism as being, to me, quite sterile and alienating.”

      As compared to the Greeks, what art did the Hebrews create?
      Any? Anything? Anything at all?

      (One could ask the same of the Khazars.)

    9. gw Says:

      “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?

    10. Zarathustra Says:

      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.

    11. N.B. Forrest Says:

      “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.

    12. gw Says:

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

      It is ENTIRELY true. India is not Semitic. Zarathustra did not say they were.
      Anyway, the Moghuls were just conquerors and not Indians. (But not Semites either.)

    13. Socrates Says:

      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.

    14. Antagonistes Says:

      The jews are incapable of making representational art?

      I don’t think that is true.

    15. Zarathustra Says:

      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.

    16. Antagonistes Says:

      Zarathustra, perhaps I misunderstood you.

      I thought you were including Jews today in your assessment. There are a very few who do indeed qualify as artists, in my opinion.

      In particular, I was thinking of the impressionist Pissarro, or (in modern times) the realist James Bama, who illustrated many of the “Doc Savage” paperback covers, and has since moved on to western art.

    17. Zarathustra Says:

      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.

    18. Antagonistes Says:

      Let the purists behold this paperback cover gem by Frank Frazetta:

      http://www.conan.com/invboard/index.php?showtopic=4891

      Fall to your knees, and humble yourselves, O haughty purists and pretentious, scribbling Jews!

    19. gw Says:

      [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

    20. Justin Huber Says:

      http://www.artrenewal.org or ARC is the web site that I was directed to by Socrates. The site is awesome and has an online art gallery that is exceptional. Somewhere in the online art gallery section of the site you can click on an article entitled “225 of History’s Most Popular Artists”. Lot of good stuff there too. I’d be interested in finding out if any of these top artists are Jews. Haven’t had time to research it myself. My guess is that there is not many to be found there.

    21. Antagonistes Says:

      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.