Purchasing Hitler's Watercolors

[brianleepainter]

My question deals with judging an artwork, be it a musical composure, an oil painting, or a literary novel,etc. I think that

you don't need a biography stapled to the back of the canvas in order to enjoy the painting. In so, not choosing whether

to be an evader, not taking in all the information provided and being guilty of context dropping, just enjoying the painting for

what it is, divorced from the artist, or not choosing to take in all the facts of reality and being able to enjoy the work of art in full context, knowing that you support both the artist(without which there would be no products) and the product of a man's mind; the painting.

Now, here is where the title of the thread merges with the statement; you can look at an architectural watercolor painting created

by Hilter, having been painted during his youth, unaware of the artist that created it, and enjoy it. At this time you can enjoy it

for what it is. Maybe it can be life affirming to an architectural student, or for a business man who walks the city streets that are depicted

in this medium. This is fine and all until you gain a wider body of knowledge and discover the artist who created it. Now when you

view the painting a rush of concretes should come to mind including the artist, Hitler, the one who created this and massacred

thousands.

When I look at a concrete, in this case a painting, I'm sometimes reminded of a time in place, of similarities that I can link to it.

I introspect and think of the emotions that I feel, and consequently what I value that is represented in a painting. This is why a painting

can be an affirmation of life for myself.

That being said, I would NOT purchase and choose to hang a painting by Hitler in my home, or by artists that I knew had killed others.

(Even though his paintings were created before the atrocities had begun). I think it would be immoral to do so. I think it would be a

sanction of evil, in place of that of the good.

Since an artwork is in a relationship between you, the perceiver, and the concrete itself, and this relationship entails all memories associated with it as a full experience, I don't think you can ignore and evade facts about the creator while reflecting on a work of art, and ultimately

gaining a life-affirming value from it.

Is this an appropriate and objective way to judge an artwork in relationship to the viewer/purchaser of Hitler's watercolors?

An artwork should stand alone for what it is, after all that is what it is intended to be, objectively.

Viewing a painting is encompassed in a full experience, which includes not only the environment around it(lighting,distractions,etc.)

but also any memories and rush of concretes that come to mind when viewing it. Therefore, any prior knowledge you have of the painting

and the artist will affect your experience of viewing the painting. Not of perceiving it mind you, but of reflecting on it and gaining

a life-affirming value.

Perhaps it was moral to purchase Hitlers watercolors when he was in his youth, before the horrors occurred, and immoral to purchase them now?

Moral to purchase them without knowledge of the artist's history, but immoral if you have knowledge of the full context?

I can see it it moral using a tool that was invented by a horrible man, in that the tool aids and brings usefulness to your everyday life.

But what of having a non-utilitarian product, one which the sole purpose of is to uplift man's soul that was created by a man such as Hitler?

[brian0918]

A rational person can create great works of art, and later in life, that same person can become irrational and commit atrocities. Being rational requires constant work. Creating the painting was (probably) rational, but committing the atrocities was (definitely) not. So I believe it could be moral to purchase and own such a painting, provided that you are not buying it from someone who was connected with Nazis, or who owned it for the reason that it was painted by Hitler. I would not knowingly give such a person my money in that context.

If instead he was a mass-murdering dictator first, and then became a painter later, I wouldn't buy his paintings, since they would have been the product of someone who lived off the destruction of others.

Edited September 21, 2010 by brian0918

[SapereAude]

A rational person can create great works of art, and later in life, that same person can become irrational and commit atrocities. Being rational requires constant work. Creating the painting was (probably) rational, but committing the atrocities was (definitely) not. So I believe it could be moral to purchase and own such a painting, provided that you are not buying it from someone who was connected with Nazis, or who owned it for the reason that it was painted by Hitler.

If instead he was a mass-murdering dictator first, and then became a painter later, I wouldn't buy his paintings, since they would have been the product of someone who lived off the destruction of others.

What if they were an immoral murderer who changed their ways and became rational?

Not a frequent occurrence, I grant you....

[brian0918]

What if they were an immoral murderer who changed their ways and became rational?

Not a frequent occurrence, I grant you....

As I said, I wouldn't buy his work, since his livelihood later in life was a result of his countless immoral actions earlier in life. I would not want to financially support such an individual, or anyone who financially supported him or his descendants (e.g. third party owners of his paintings).

He should not have even had a chance to do any painting later in life - he should have been executed.

Edited September 21, 2010 by brian0918

[JayR]

As I said, I wouldn't buy his work, since his livelihood later in life was a result of his countless immoral actions earlier in life. I would not want to financially support such an individual, or anyone who financially supported him or his descendants (e.g. third party owners of his paintings).

Even if the work was so wonderfull that you would consider it an objective value to own it? Would you deny yourself that value? Or perhaps you mean that source of the artwork would assure that it could never be an objective value to you no matter what. Im not sure I can agree with that. As far as Hitler goes, I think we can all agree, he wont be making any royalties, and wont be considering his art (which is pretty bad) on my wall as a moral sanction. If you enjoy art for aesthetic purposes, whats the point of even considering the source if it brings you some form of enjoyment? And if you own it to impress others, that just second handed. I own a copy of the Stackpole (1st edition in english) Mein Kampf, I like 1st editions, the aesthetics of old books, the smell, the history, its all interesting to me, isnt that all that matters?

j..

[SapereAude]

I own a copy of the Stackpole (1st edition in english) Mein Kampf, I like 1st editions, the aesthetics of old books, the smell, the history, its all interesting to me, isnt that all that matters?

j..

Good question.

This from the OP's originial post:

"I can see it it moral using a tool that was invented by a horrible man, in that the tool aids and brings usefulness to your everyday life.

But what of having a non-utilitarian product, one which the sole purpose of is to uplift man's soul that was created by a man such as Hitler?"

We know that it is not immoral to own an immoral book. I own some of the works of Kant. "Know thine enemy" and all that.

Is art a seperate category? Are the rules different and if so why?

I won't watch anything by Polanski because I won't materially support a child rapist.

However I still listen to Ike and Tina and Ike was a notorious wife-beater.

Obviously raping a child is worse than hitting someone but still, I realise I'm being somewhat contradictory- although I realise that my choice is based in some part that Polanski is still alive to enjoy his royalties whereas Ike is not.

The morality of art consumption based not on the art, but on the morals of the artist is an interesting topic.

[Jake_Ellison]

Even if the work was so wonderfull that you would consider it an objective value to own it? Would you deny yourself that value? Or perhaps you mean that source of the artwork would assure that it could never be an objective value to you no matter what. Im not sure I can agree with that. As far as Hitler goes, I think we can all agree, he wont be making any royalties, and wont be considering his art (which is pretty bad) on my wall as a moral sanction. If you enjoy art for aesthetic purposes, whats the point of even considering the source if it brings you some form of enjoyment? And if you own it to impress others, that just second handed. I own a copy of the Stackpole (1st edition in english) Mein Kampf, I like 1st editions, the aesthetics of old books, the smell, the history, its all interesting to me, isnt that all that matters?

That wouldn't be all that matters to me. To me, what would matter most about any copy of Mein Kampf are the ideas in it and the author's actions. So I would get rid of it.

But I don't see anything wrong with your point of view. It certainly doesn't compromise your moral standing in any way that you like old books and are able to focus on a single aspect of the items in your collection. If I felt the same way, I would keep the book too, I see no moral issue with that.

I would of course have a problem with someone who collects Nazi memorabilia because it reminds him of the Nazis. Such a person has screwed up values.

Is art a seperate category? Are the rules different and if so why?

It can be, if the art is about the evil the author is guilty of. Otherwise no, art is just like any other product.

I won't watch anything by Polanski because I won't materially support a child rapist.

Well yes, but that's because he's alive and would profit from it, not because art is different than a practical invention. You also wouldn't buy a car from the guy, for the same reason you don't buy his films.

Edited September 21, 2010 by Jake_Ellison

[Eiuol]

I think the only question that really needs to be asked is where the money goes and why you value the painting in question. If the money I gave for a painting would go towards some skinhead group, I would not buy it, even if the painting is indeed beautiful. Still, I wouldn't even ask about how moral the artist is, since the trade in question is about a painting.

[JayR]

That wouldn't be all that matters to me. To me, what would matter most about any copy of Mein Kampf are the ideas in it and the author's actions. So I would get rid of it.

Take a less extreme example: "Critique of Pure Reason", is that something a person who values rationality and objectivity should shun or boycott?

I would of course have a problem with someone who collects Nazi memorabilia because it reminds him of the Nazis. Such a person has screwed up values.

I dont collect Nazi memorabilia, but Im not convinced there cant be a rational reason to do so.

j..

Edited September 21, 2010 by JayR

[SapereAude]

I dont collect Nazi memorabilia, but Im not convinced there cant be a rational reason to do so.

j..

Of course there's a rational reason. Collecting military or historical items is completely rational.

But if you're collecting the items out of admiration for the immoral person/persons/movement it becomes immoral.

[JayR]

Of course there's a rational reason. Collecting military or historical items is completely rational.

A painting done by Hitler would certainly be of historical signifigance, and collectible. At what point does the immorality of the artist trump your desire to own the art? I suppose it depends on your reasons for wanting to own it. As I said before, I like art for its aesthetic value, based on by own (probably subjective) taste, I dont think my conscience would wear at me for buying art created by satan himself if I found personal enjoyment in the piece. To answer your earlier question, art is not a separate category than books, or any other productive medium, imo. Its not immoral to find something you like, and make it your own.

j..

[brianleepainter]

Thanks for all the insightful responses on this subject.

I do like to think that a work of art should be treated like any other product, and traded for equal value between men.

Yes, why would an artist's morality come into question when the object of trade is a piece of artwork? Agreed.

Of course, this all presupposes that you have no former knowledge of the artists morality and the greater context.

What if this artist was an altruist who commonly preached the word of mystics, of God, and the greater good of the community.

Not only that, but advocating and even voting for issues that you are radically against.

Are you considered NOT immoral for purchasing a product from a man whose ideology are radically different from yours, while this

trade will result in monetary gain to this artist all the while having full knowledge of what you are doing?

Sometimes I find it difficult to discern the difference between product and creator where in the purchasing of something beautiful

will aid in the not-so-beautiful.

Maybe I'm not integrating ideas correctly, but as for an example I would never create a painting depicting a place of worship

in the hopes of bringing it to light, and omitting the negative. I would just omit it by not even choosing it as a subject matter.

Likewise, I would never create a portrait of a self-proclaimed mystic or altruist. Not only do I not want to show that it is important,

but I DON'T want to selfishly be known for ever bringing that to light. I've seen artists that I admire that seem to indiscriminately create

a portrait of an individual from any sector of life, be it an industrial titan or a figure head of some altruistic movement. I don't

understand why they don't discern the difference.

Perhaps this is seen most explicit in the musical arts, and more specifically still in those songs with lyrics where in you can

actually hear the sense of life direct from the artist themselves. If you hear degrading music that belittles human life then I'd

be surprised to see you purchase the album while ultimately supporting the artist's pursuits. But what of the painter, can you hear

their voice? No, they just skip a step and allow you to hear the idea in paint.

My question stems from something greater still that I can't quite get a hold of just yet. It feels like an intangible, like a fog,

that you can see sometimes but even through introspection I don't want to think it is true. To me, if feels like profits for an artist

are dependent on the morality of his customers.

[Eiuol]

Can you think of any examples of art that you would consider buying because it is art, but you know that the creator supports ideas explicitly against ideas you support? Otherwise, this is purely an abstract discussion without any referent. Really unless you know the artist gives monetary support to evil organizations, you shouldn't concern yourself with how moral the artist is. If you value some piece of art at the price it's being sold, you should buy it, because chances are the money will only be spent on producing art like that in the future.

[brianleepainter]

Can you think of any examples of art that you would consider buying because it is art, but you know that the creator supports ideas explicitly against ideas you support? Otherwise, this is purely an abstract discussion without any referent. Really unless you know the artist gives monetary support to evil organizations, you shouldn't concern yourself with how moral the artist is. If you value some piece of art at the price it's being sold, you should buy it, because chances are the money will only be spent on producing art like that in the future.

Eiuol, thank you for calling for referents that tie down any floating abstractions that I may be trying to suspend above reality.

I can think of and show examples of art which I find so very beautiful yet the artist which created it holds explicit views that are radically

different than my own. I would certainly still purchase the paintings that the artist(s) creates, these wonderfully beautiful products

of his mind, because they are of value to me and I also value productivity that yields beauty. So, I would want to aid in the monetary

gains of the artist and hope that they continue to produce.

I was having irrational ideas and misintegrating thoughts I had about compartmentalization.

[Cherring109]

I saw a you-tube video which was a slide show of Hitlers art work. Some of them where very good,actually. If only the man had staid on the path to become a architect or painter then the world would have been a better place, but fact is he didn't and we all know how that turned out.