29 November, 2008

More White Art

Posted by Socrates in art, Socrates, Western culture, White art/architecture at 11:15 pm | Permanent Link

Jacques-Louis David: [Here].

Jean-Honore Fragonard: [Here].

Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres: [Here].

William Bouguereau: [Here].

The Great Bouguereau Debate: [Here].

  1. Similar posts:

  2. 09/13/13 White Art 100% similar
  3. 08/28/19 White Art 100% similar
  4. 04/27/19 White Art 100% similar
  5. 11/03/14 White Art 100% similar
  6. 02/03/20 White Art 100% similar
  7. 23 Responses to “More White Art”

    1. Zarathustra Says:

      These painters represent the very pinnacle of artistic acheivement in the Western World. It took over 1000 years for Western Art to recover from the devastation of Roman Christianity and the Dark Ages. But our Civilization has been in rapid decline since WWI. Maybe that’s just part of the natural cycle, but it’s hard to imagine another Renaissance or Age of Reason coming anytime soon.

    2. Marwinsing Says:

      Ah… for the smell of linseed, turps and lavender oil (just to neutralise the odour) when I can top up with more airtime me’s gonna be clicking away on some jpegs there – thanks for those links Socrates! Beware: painting can get addictive.

    3. Susan Says:

      The differences between Whites and niggers are no more evident than in their respective artwork. Nigger “art” usually consists of some grade schoolish, folk art-y looking garbage that looks as if it had been at kindergarten.

      What’s really funny is when stupid Whites buy that crap and hang it on their walls. Bwahaha.

      And, yes, there are some Whites who do the folk art-y crap, too. I wouldn’t want their stuff on my walls either.

      For me, art is something that is first and foremost “uplifting” in some sense. But, it also must be visually attractive and the subject matter must be comforting and familiar on some level. And, yes, it must “pretty” in some sense, to me.

    4. Susan Says:

      *must be “pretty” in some sense, to me.

    5. Susan Says:

      *have been made at kindergarten. (I guess I shouldn’t have tried to post so early in the a.m.)

    6. Artsceptic Says:

      No, these artist are not the pinnacle of occidential art. The great Ttalian and Dutch Artists were. David was a jew, a bloodthirsty one at that. Ramsay writes in his classic “The Nameless war” about David´s role in the “French Revolution”:

      “There was David the painter, a leading member of the Committee of Public Security, which “tried” the victims. His voice was always raised calling for death. Sir Walter Scott writes that this fiend used to preface his “bloody work of the day with the professional phrase, ‘let us grind enough of the Red’.”

      Artrenewal is a false front of the jews. They hail painters, who a mediocre at best like Bouguereau. This is Victorian “schmaltz” ( a jewish term, I admid). Read what the the painter and essayst Miles Mathis (a mediocre artist as well and probably a jew, I admit) has to write about their editor Fred Ross (an obvious jew).


      I don´t think that a new renaissance will emerge in the new future, even after a white revolution. Spengler was right. The arts are dead, because they were nurtured by something, which is not there anymore. That is not an apology of the jewish modern “art”, we could produce decent mediocre art at least. The Nazis proved that. But Goebbels couldn´t produce a Duerer or a Beethoven. The best artist at that time was probably Wolfgang Willrich and I wouldn´t say he was great. Check him out here:


    7. Socrates Says:

      J. L. David was not a Jew.

      [Yes, sadly, David was involved in the French Revolution. In fact, he apparently saved Fragonard’s ass from the chopping block].

    8. Zarathustra Says:

      The “art sceptic” above is, I suspect, merely a contrarian for the sake of being contrary. If I had stated that Vermeer or Donatello were the greatest painters of Western Civilization, he would have said, “no, you Philistine, David and Ingres share that honor.”

      “The Oath of the Horatii” is so bold and dramatic in its treatment of a classical subject, it’s obviously a portent of the imminent French Revolution. I fully believe that Western Art reached its pinnacle in the 17th and 18th Centuries, became somewhat stale with the Academic artists of the 19th Century and a decadent, inside joke after that.

    9. gw Says:

      Artrenewal is a false front of the jews. They hail painters, who a mediocre at best like Bouguereau. This is Victorian “schmaltz” ( a jewish term, I admit). ”

      Artsceptic makes valid points. He knows more about art than I do, so I defer. I admit I was not familiar with Bougereau until now; but just look at his paintings! They were the Victorian equivalent of Playboy — lots of naked feminine flesh just carefully enough draped to titillate but not to reveal too much. They provided a little racy excitement for the rich who could afford them, while hiding behind the veil of classical allegories to make them “high-minded” and thus acceptable. Just soft porn posing as Greek myths.

    10. Justin Huber Says:

      Another great post Socrates. It’s too bad that so many art galleries now concentrate on displaying “degenerate” art rather than these masterpieces. I don’t claim to know a lot about art, but is it possible that in this field that we’ve actually taken a step backward? Keep up the great work!

    11. gw Says:

      I have to wonder if “art renewal” is a jewish strategy akin to what “urban renewal” is in real estate. That is, they neglect a prooperty (or an artist) and let a neighborhood deteriorate until it has hit rock bottom; then they buy up the properties at firesale prices and begin the process of “renewal”, and thus make new fortunes all over again. And so the cycle continues. Same in the stock market, with its endless round of booms and busts.

      I’m thinking, for instance, of once-fashionable painters such as Sir Frederick Leighton. By the 1960s his most famous painting, “Flaming June”, couldn’t bring £50 . Now, he’s back in vogue again (deservedly so in my opinion). To us, art is about esthetics. To the Jews, “art” is all about money, nothing more.

      “in his time he was compared to Michelangelo.”

      “by the 1960s his most famous work, Flaming June, couldn’t fetch £50 at auction.”

      “Shortly before his death, Leighton was raised to the peerage — the first British artist ever to have received the honor. His rise to the highest echelons of Victorian society was subsequently mirrored by an almost catastrophic slide into obscurity. By the 1960s, “Flaming June” – arguably his most important work – had been consigned to a market trader’s stall in Chelsea. Later, it appeared in the window of a Polish frame-maker and could be had for £50.
      Fortunately, since the 1960s, the fortunes of Victorian art have seen a dramatic reversal. Leighton’s reputation has undergone its own renaissance. His paintings are once again celebrated. It is the transcience of fame which reverberates with our celebrity-obsessed 21st century culture.”


    12. Stronza Says:

      Bouguereau I kind of like, some of his paintings, anyway. gw’s point of view may be right, but it all boils down to opinion.

      But have a look at David’s Portrait of Monsieur Lavoisier and His Wife. It’s right corny & staged looking, and how about those Fisher Price colors!

    13. Justin Huber Says:

      In reference to gw’s comment above comparing the Jewish stratagems of “art renewal” and “urban renewal”, I would like to say that I think there is some truth to this. The reason I say so is that this same type of view was espoused in “Hitler’s Table Talk” by none other than Hitler himself. More than once, Hitler accuses the Jews of talking up degenerate, modern art so they could in turn buy up true masterpieces at “rock bottom” prices. Of course, later, they would then sell the decent art at a much higher price. Therefore, gw, I think you have a point.

    14. Sándor Pet?fi Says:

      I agree with Artsceptic for the most part. Jean-Honore Fragonard is the only arist amongst those worth mentioning.

    15. Artsceptic Says:

      Yes, Fragonard is better than the rest. But he suffers a bit under the stupidness of his “sujets” in wimpy pre-revolutionary France.

    16. gw Says:

      I did some checking on David … to see if there was at least some Jewish background. Couldn’t find a thing — neither one way nor the other. However, he was at the least, mentally disturbed, and suffered from mental problems all his life (his father had been killed in a fight and his mother abandoned him).

      He was, whatsmore, a terrible fanatic. Born into “a prosperous family”, he became totally dedicated to destroying the old order. He became part of the revolutionary government, allied with the most radical elements and he was personally responsible for sending about 300 people to their deaths at the guillotine. Among other things, he was the propaganda minister for the revolutionary government and organized large-scale public spectacles to rev up public support. His paintings were about the same thing – all about propaganda with little regard for truth (an idea whith which Napoleon agreed).

      As a member of the Committee of Public Safety, he contributed directly to the reign of Terror.The committee was severe. Portable guillotines killed failed generals, aristocrats, priests and perceived enemies. David soon earned a nickname “ferocious terrorist”. [Wiki]

      Eventually (as usually happens in such cases) he was imprisoned himself, but was saved by meeting the young Napoleon and buttering him up. Thus, this great advocate of the “equality” of Mankind , who had personally voted to condemn the last king (and queen) to their deaths, became a slavish supporter of the new emperor!!! Having learned where his bread was buttered, he remained devoted to Napoleon (and Napoleon supported him) until Napoleon’s downall. After that, he lived out his live in exile in Brussels. Having condenmed so many other people to death, he lived to a ripe old age himself, dying in exile at 77 years.

      On the whole, he seems to have been a most unsavory person! Even his wife (who brought him money and was herself a royalist) divorced him and re-married him off and on.

    17. Artsceptic Says:

      Gw, thank you for your research. I thought David was a jew, since he appeared in Ramsay´s chapter of “The Nameless War”, which tried to show in a very concise manner that the “French” Revolution was in fact a jewish production. It would make make no sense for Ramsay to mention David within the few pages of his chapter if he wasn´t convinced that David was in fact a crypto-jew. I wonder whether Scott´s “The life of Napoleon”, which seems to be the major source of Ramsay, elaborates on David´s ethnic background.

      The facts of his life you mention make me still suspicious that David was a crypto-jew. The most suspicious facts is of course his position as propaganda minister! This is always the most important position in the jewish strategy of subjugation a nation, and it is almost always staffed with jews. Think of Ehrenburg in Stalin´s Russia! If the French revolution was indeed a jewish production (I am convinced of that after reading Ramsay´s “The nameless war”, Lina´s “In the sign of the scorpion”, Drumont´s “La france juif”, Lemann´s “Les Juifs dans la Revolution francaise”, all books can be found easily as pdf-files on the internet) then it would be crucial to staff the position with a jew. The jews have always seen the arts as a mere tool of propaganda. This is an endless subject if youl study the European art history. Unfortunately most art historians are jews. So you are pretty much alone in the woods when you ask certain question. For me it is revealing that David, who had from a purely artistic point of view only modest talent, is hailed in the art world, which is firmly controlled by the jews, as a great artist even today. I think his major talent was in the field of propaganda. And the jews are grateful for his effort, so he is hailed as a great artist.

      That David comes from a wealthy background as well as his wife, who looks like an ugly jewess in one of David´s clumsy portaits increase my suspicion. It is revealing as well that David was such a turncoat. For a jew this opportunism is no problem since he knews that everything is only a move in a very complicated chessgame against the goyim. “Egalité” was only a slogan to lure the goyims to kill their own natural leaders. After the king and the queen (of German origin) were killed, it was time for a 180 degree turn in order to export the “gains” of the revolution (“emancipation” of the jews!) to other countries. Even Napoleon was only a temporary tool in the hands of the jews. After he did some useful work for the jews he was disposed of. It is natural that David could survive amid all the bloodbaths if he had the protection of the jewish organizers who would regognize him as one of their own.

      I admit that I am speculating a bit. But it is foolish to wait for a jewish stamp of approval when it comes to the question whether a person is a jew or not. Crypto-jews are a crucial part in the jewish strategy, so we can´t expect that the jewish media (and almost all media are controlled by the tribe) are the arbiter of truth in those matters. I admit that there is a thin red line around my position that would be transgressed if I would call everybody whom I don´t like, a jew. But hey, nobody said it would be easy to be an awakend gentile.

      Best wishes

    18. Artsceptic Says:

      Btw, I sometimes wonder, if the artists in pre-revolutionary France (Watteau, Boucher, Fragonard) did the work of the jews, who had an interest to “wimpify” the male gentiles, in order to faciliate their revolution. I think the jewish angle in art history has been overlooked so far, because even the most intelligent, jew-wise Europeans are so proud of “their” culture that they block the question, whether they or their most noble ancestors had been manipulated through beauty. Italy and Holland had been strongholds of the jews, when the best European artists ever worked. And look who wrote the librettos of our most famous opera composers (da Ponte, Sue etc.)! I think we should begin to ask uncomfortable questions concerning our past. And even Nazi-Germany should not be excluded, when uneasy questions are posed.

    19. gw Says:

      Artsceptic Says: ” Gw, thank you for your research.”

      Thank YOU for your most interesting response! Your comments, I thought, were even better. And very perspicacious. You have raised a whole list of red flags – all of which point in one direction. I could even add some more. As you say, you are only speculating, true, but all the hints seem to be there, and I am fully in agreement with your suspicions.

      I tried to be brief, so I left a lot out; and my “research” – such as it was – was not deep and thorough. But, as I said, I could find nothing casting elucidation on the subject – either one way or the other. That leaves a whole lot open; and in absence of conclusive information, rather than mere speculation, I intended it that way.

    20. Marwinsing Says:

      My favourite Ingres


      and detail


    21. Zarathustra Says:

      Marwinsing, that painting looks as if it should be hanging on the wall of a bordello in Constantinople.

    22. Artsceptic Says:

      Glorification of white slavery itz.

    23. Fr. John Says:

      “t took over 1000 years for Western Art to recover from the devastation of Roman Christianity and the Dark Ages.”

      Zara, what ARE you smoking?

      Without Christendom, you wouldn’t even BE here, your parents more likely than not underfed, dying in infancy, you illiterate without Western Civ, which is, above all things, eminently, unabashedly Christian.

      Even these painters would not have done the work they did, without a Christian heritage and underpinning of their respective civilizations.