Hitler's artwork modified with rainbows and hearts

motivez · 05-31-2008, 10:15 PM

When the artists Jake and Dinos Chapman bought a series of paintings by Adolf Hitler for £115,000, many questioned the morality of paying for works produced by one of history's most brutal dictators.

Yesterday, the brothers unveiled 13 of the watercolours, on which they had added psychedelic rainbows, stars and love hearts, and placed them back on the market for £685,000.

The Chapmans denied that the paintings, which are selling as a single work, sought to "redeem" Hitler, and classed the original watercolours as "bland" and lacking in talent. "The idea of redeeming Hitler is bad, the idea of redeeming his work is a staggering work of genius," said Jake.

He hoped the defacement of Hitler's work, which includes landscapes, vistas of Roman ruins and still life, which the dictator painted when he was young, would have him "spinning". The changes they had added meant it was no longer Hitler's work, he added.

"If hell exists and Hitler exists in it, he would be spinning if he saw these. It's not his work any more. It's our work," he said.

Following concerns that the work could be bought by Nazi sympathisers, White Cube Gallery in London, where it is showing, has stated that it will be extremely careful about who it sells to.

Dinos Chapman said the work, entitled If Hitler had been a Hippy How Happy Would We Be, was a rumination of what might have been had Hitler not been refused entry to Vienna's art school. He added they showed a "blankness" rather than any hint of the deadly pathology that he would later demonstrate.

"He tried to get into art school with these. They are bland and show no presentiment of the genocide to come. They represent the husk of a man who would be filled up with bitterness and hatred. They are identical to thousands of drawings in junk shops. All they demonstrate is that they are a terrible work of art, not that the person behind them will become a tyrant," he said.

This is not the first time the brothers have defaced artwork. They offended some Spanish critics when they reworked 80 etchings by Goya, Disasters of War, adding funny faces and clowns heads.

The Chapmans also unveiled a swastika-shaped sculpture of epic scale, based on Hell, a work destroyed in the Momart fire in east London in 2004 which was bought by Charles Saatchi for a reported £500,000. This new version, Fucking Hell, sold for £7.5m.

The critically-acclaimed original installation depicted thousands of miniature Nazi soldiers carrying out acts of mass torture and cadavers hanging off trees. It was the centrepiece of the Royal Academy's Apocalypse exhibition in 2000. When the fire destroyed the work, the brothers announ-ced they would recreate it. "As an event, we couldn't fail to see something funny about hell being on fire. We couldn't imagine a world without hell and we wanted to rescue the work from the sentimentality that some clothed it in after it was burned. There was an affection for the work that did not exist when it was there as an object before the fire," said Jake Chapman.

Eighteenth and nineteenth century-style aristocratic portraits which the Chapmans doctored to incorporate ghoulish masks, and deformations, entitled One Day You Will No Longer Be Loved, is also on show.

The art of Adolf Hitler (with a little help from the Chapman brothers) - News, Art & Architecture - The Independent

Part of me is very

and the other part of me is kinda

about it as well.

I mean, I don't give a rats ass about any artistic merit of Hitlers paintings, he'll never be remembered for them.. so aside from the fact that they were painted by one of the most horrible people to ever live, they have no real meaning.

On the other hand, they are a part of history, and I like to see history preserved instead of messed with by a couple of jackasses who are doing it just to make a name for themselves..

Here's another example of their "art" from 2003, titled "Death":

NWS?: http://uploads.libertylounge.net/fil...ers._Death.jpg

On the

end of things, the racists over at Stormfront aren't happy at all: Hitler's artwork defaced - Stormfront White Nationalist Community .. you can read some of their angry rants if you're interested

Dumpy Dooby · 06-02-2008, 05:46 AM

For those that don't click links:

Ardentfrost · 06-02-2008, 07:04 AM

The artistic term for that is appropriation

Appropriation (art) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stupid art history class information taking up brain space

TankRizzo · 06-02-2008, 10:36 AM

bunch of no talent, ass clowns. Attention whores like that give artists a bad name. IMO they've just destroyed a piece of history in a vain attempt to become famous. Tomorrow, nobody will remember these guys.

Ardentfrost · 06-02-2008, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

bunch of no talent, ass clowns. Attention whores like that give artists a bad name. IMO they've just destroyed a piece of history in a vain attempt to become famous. Tomorrow, nobody will remember these guys.

I dunno dude, DuChamp is pretty famous and this is the shit he did.

TankRizzo · 06-02-2008, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I dunno dude, DuChamp is pretty famous and this is the shit he did.

Sorry, it's been close to 10 years since I've been in an art history class, I only remember the fountain and nude descending a stairwell. I don't remember him doing anything like this, what are the works he appropriated?

Ardentfrost · 06-02-2008, 02:49 PM

The one where he drew a mustache on the Mona Lisa. He did quite a few like that. There was a genre of visual artists who did this, and I can't remember what they call the genre (I was surprised I remembered what the act was called in post 3). DuChamp's Mona Lisa is a critique on the importance of the original work (obviously he doesn't think it's as important as others).

TankRizzo · 06-02-2008, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The one where he drew a mustache on the Mona Lisa. He did quite a few like that. There was a genre of visual artists who did this, and I can't remember what they call the genre (I was surprised I remembered what the act was called in post 3). DuChamp's Mona Lisa is a critique on the importance of the original work (obviously he doesn't think it's as important as others).

Yeah, but he didn't actually draw a mustache on THE mona lisa, it was a postcard.

motivez · 06-02-2008, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The one where he drew a mustache on the Mona Lisa. He did quite a few like that. There was a genre of visual artists who did this, and I can't remember what they call the genre (I was surprised I remembered what the act was called in post 3). DuChamp's Mona Lisa is a critique on the importance of the original work (obviously he doesn't think it's as important as others).

That's quite different than doing it to the original

I mean, I don't want to be seen as praising Hitler's artwork, but the bottom line is that it is a piece of history, and seeing people do something that can't be undone to a historical piece of art really bugs me

Ardentfrost · 06-02-2008, 03:09 PM

Oh, I thought they had taken prints like DuChamp did. I didn't read close enough.

That's very interesting. I'm surprised they were even allowed to do that.

motivez · 06-02-2008, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Oh, I thought they had taken prints like DuChamp did. I didn't read close enough.

That's very interesting. I'm surprised they were even allowed to do that.

They legally bought them so I'm not sure who'd be able to stop them, but I doubt the people selling them thought this is what would happen

TankRizzo · 06-02-2008, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

That's quite different than doing it to the original

I mean, I don't want to be seen as praising Hitler's artwork, but the bottom line is that it is a piece of history, and seeing people do something that can't be undone to a historical piece of art really bugs me

The paintings had historical importance and now they're ruined. Hitler was an evil man, but as far as history goes, he's one of the biggies and I don't like the thought of things like this being destroyed.

kombayn · 06-02-2008, 05:45 PM

Honestly, FUCK Hitler! He deserves no respect to keep his artwork in tip-top shape, he should only be remembered for creating one of the most horrible forms of Socialism in World History. I can understand from a historian stand-point why people would be irked by modifying his paintings. But in my opinion, fuck him and everything he stood for. If I was a allowed, I would take a giant shit on his artwork, I don't take kindly to tyranny.

jimeigh · 06-03-2008, 11:49 AM

yea, because preserving his paintings is the most important thing to do, to remember the historical importance of Hitler. yes. without those paintings, everyone would forget.

they bought them, they own them. they can do whatever they want with those paintings. be it drawing silly rainbows or jerking off onto them. i dont really give half of a shit.

Ardentfrost · 06-03-2008, 12:30 PM

This has actually happened in the past hasn't it? I seem to remember something about the church (back when the church was pretty powerful) adding shit on top of famous paintings.

But wtf do I know about art

Dumpy Dooby · 06-04-2008, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

This has actually happened in the past hasn't it? I seem to remember something about the church (back when the church was pretty powerful) adding shit on top of famous paintings.

But wtf do I know about art

I think maybe the Romans might have done something sorta kinda like that when they conquered the Greeks.

motivez · 06-04-2008, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by jimeigh

yea, because preserving his paintings is the most important thing to do, to remember the historical importance of Hitler. yes. without those paintings, everyone would forget.

That overlooks the point though. They're still part of history.

jimeigh · 06-04-2008, 06:06 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

That overlooks the point though. They're still part of history.

so? history will remember that hitler made some paintings. history will now also remember that hitlers paintings got painted on.

why do you give a shit?

jimeigh · 06-04-2008, 06:09 PM

far as im concerned if someone wants to fork over enough money, they can buy king tuts mask from whoever owns it, and take a dump on it.

kombayn · 06-05-2008, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by jimeigh

so? history will remember that hitler made some paintings. history will now also remember that hitlers paintings got painted on.

why do you give a shit?

I think Hitler will be remembered for his sociopath-tendencies that started a real shitty war. What does this teach you kids? Socialism/Fascism=Evil