What is art? 3

Some of these paintings are by Winston Churchill and some are by Adolf Hitler.

Some are signed, but of the rest can you tell which are by whom?

It should be easy.

Art critics have praised Churchill’s and slated Hitler’s.

But was that because they knew who the painter was in each case?

Which of these works are good and which are bad, and why?

Are the characters of the two men revealed in their painting?

If so, how?

Posted under Art by Jillian Becker on Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Tagged with ,

This post has 3 comments.

  • Kelly

    Fascinating question. For what it's worth, I found three of these vaguely disturbing in a way I can't explain. Then I did Google image searches for both Churchill's and Hitler's art and found all but one of them. Turns out at least 2 of the 3 that disturbed me are Hitler's, and I suspect the third one is as well. The remaining 3 I don't find especially compelling either way though they are nice enough. I'm no art critic, so any opinion I might have beyond this isn't worth much. I just found my “gut” reactions to the Hitler works interesting. (And I'm pretty sure I had never seen any of these before.)

  • JDBlues

    I'd never before seen paintings by either Churchill or Hitler so I had to do a little research. I would give a decided edge to Churchill in quality of composition and execution, but I agree with RandomIntent that the output of neither of the two should be considered fine art.

  • RandomIntent

    Neither are very good examples of fine art. But then 99% of painted flowers and landscapes are Sunday painter schlock. Dime a dozen on ebay. Just because you can sketch somewhat realistically doesn't mean you're making art. Art takes passion and at the least, a unique vision. Very very few “artists” have either. The few that do are what make art something grand.