No problem! And I agree! They united some of the most talented modern artists in one building! The exhibition did so well that I can't help but think they failed miserably at trying to discredit modern art.

"We will gather all of this 'degenerate' art in one place and show people how bad it is" *exhibit is 6x more popular than the state-approved-art exhibition* "...well at least we got ticket sales..."

@@ForelliBoy and many were sold to foreign collectors to raise funds.

@@TheCanvasArtHistory Cope. Modern art is a negative force designed to do nothing but demoralize. The Germans did nothing wrong here.

I've seen at least one video that interviews a man who was an art student at the time. He said he and his friends were hugely inspired by the 'Entartete Kunst' exhibits. They seemed to use it as a starting point for a subculture of forward thinking artists. I loved that story

You know this quote is great but also ironic. As it was said in a animated film, something that is consider a art media in which many sees it as childish, and yet it holds more truth to the realworld than most adult films.

I think it's tragic how some people have so much talent yet go un-noticed because someone else is more shocking or controversial. It's the person who draws a red dot on a blank canvas, and sells it for 13 million dollars, and the artist who works 3 years on a piece and no one cares. I genuinely understand the resentment.

@@Ranstone yes, me too to a certain degree, but c'mon, is your frustration that big that you have to kill people for it? I think his decisions were taken based on other criteria, the art must of been a constant catalyst.

@@Ranstone In your hypothetical example, have you considered that the painter of the red dot could have also been making art for years and years without recognition, until after a long time, he found a style of art which he enjoyed creating and which galleries and audiences responded to? Modern art is a deep and complicated field, and no one is guaranteed success, just like all other forms of art. Whether you put three years into a work, thirty years, or thirty minutes, there is never any guarantee that your work will find an audience.

@@Narokkurai art is a business too. It's known that certain companies invest in acquisition of paintings for large sums of money so they can do some money laundering. What's one of the most frustrating things about certain artists, especially painters, they get recognition after they die. Their art suddenly becomes valuable after death, this is unfair. Now we have plenty of artists, mediums to promote them and a.i. to put everyone on their knees with what can be made.

@@oanaalexia Well really, when it comes to art as a profession, nothing beats advertising. Marketing and advertising is the number one most reliable way for artists to get their work seen by the masses and get paid for their work. Truth is, whether you're an abstract impressionist or a meticulous traditionalist, getting anything sold at a gallery is like winning the lottery.

"Degenerate" art is art that tries to replace skill with low-effort techniques, statements, or habits, that are intended to, or succeed in gaining the same attention but for "cheap shortcut" reasons. Chickbait is a perfect example of this. Another is art that in it'self means little, but was done in a way intended to shock or go against cultural norms, not to make a statement, but just to garnish attention. An example would be fecal art, which in the art-world, is the equivalent of walking into a crowded mall, and screaming the N word for attention and to shock people. Art is about communicating something. If you have nothing to say, and use culturally shocking, rebellions, vulgar or cheap shortcuts to gain attention, it is degenerate. P.S.It is important to note that many great forms of art are intended to shock, but the key word here is if you're using these techniques and _have nothing to say_ except "Look at meeee!"

I mean, if they're pumping out hundreds of these childrens crayon scrawlings out a year per artist... It might be low effort garbage and a way to launder money. It could be considered degeneration of art, and actively hostile toward the concept of beauty. We are not born without prejudice. If a deformed guy looks at a baby, that baby is likely to cry. If a person frowns at the baby, that baby will cry. We are born with in-built ideas of what beauty and kindness are. These aren't "societal constructs". They are the result of 3.5 billion years of evolution, and in many cases, those instincts are pretty accurate in protecting us from harm. If we recoil from things that look rotten, it may be because rot is contagious and lethal. We evolved to dislike puke green and black streaks. Even now, if you see black streaks in the wall, it means you or your landlord needs to buy some N100 masks and replace the dry wall and anything else tainted by the black mold.

That's not to say you can't depict ugliness. I love the Warhammer 40k aesthetic, and that includes some very horrific imagery. But, it's counter-balanced by beauty and symmetry. It's the concepts of humanity taken to its extreme. Anyway, I digress. Point is, I think there is an assault on masculinity, individualism, morals and beauty. I think the assault is intertwined and designed by conniving billionaires. I think Hitler saw this, but then took his ideas in a very wrong direction, and unfortunately, we steered away from his brand of extremism and toward another style of tyranny. We're entering a dark era, one with no identity and maximum oppression. This thing "they" are working on is something not even Mao and Stalin could accomplish in their lifetimes: complete erasure of the human past. Give it enough generations and people won't know anything. George Orwell warned us of this.

@@manictiger you are perfectly mirroring nazi propaganda, this is literally what was said at the time

​@@Ranstone Cultural norms? Federals do not allow cultural norms. If you fight with someone they put you in jail. They stomp and pulverize your cultural norms, turining them into feminized BS.

Who cares, he's American. Do you pronounce "English Muffin" w/a cockney accent?

@@dlarald ayo my name´s the same

I believe he pronounced it with a French accent, which isn't completely far-fetched.

and Dix.

He also messed up Mondriaan, both in spelling and pronunciation. Like he tried to make his name French instead of Dutch.

Wouldn't your comment be the very totalitarianism that you lament?

@@Lee-km7qq How so?

@@Lee-km7qq no it would not. your comment sounds like people who think that free speech means all speech. it does not. you cannot incite violence, abuse or murder of people and expect not to face consequences.

Art is a human word. Words have definitions. If your creation falls out of the verbal definition, it is not that idea. Art is a broad, broad spectrum, but there are limits. My favorite example, relevant to this video is the classic "Walking into a crowded mall, and screaming that you live nazis and hate (insert racial slur)" is definitely public expression, but it's not art. It's just using shock and rebellion for the exclusive purpose of gaining attention you normally wouldn't garnish. Similarly, fecal art is a perfect example. The artist had nothing to say; they just wanted to rally attention for behavior, as a shortcut instead of working hard. Could fecal art be art? I'm sure, but all the ones I've seen had nothing to say at all besides "I did something culture does not approve of". TLDR: Art is expression, but expression isn't necessarily art.

@@Ranstone thats why i said "x kind of art is not art" is simply an opinion and not fact, because when i for example say fecal art is not art, i am simply voicing an opinion, my opinion is not fact because of course as you said it can be art, not IS art, but it can be. Also if that opinion was fact for example in my group of artist friends, it wouldnt be art in other friend groups of other artists. Simply put saying that x kind of art is not art is as totalitarian as demeaning a culture because they eat a certain thing you would never touch (ex. French culture, Eastern Asian culture etc.)

William Shirer made up a good portion of his book. It's laughed at by any serious historian. The average German back then hated pretentious modern art as much as the average American hates it today.

@@JohnM-cd4ou wow I didn't know that. Thanks I'll look into it. Do you think he also made up what he claimed he witnessed himself?

Damn really? You would think if it was backfiring that bad Goebbels wouldn't have let it run for over 4 months, and then proceed to have many more exhibits in other cities around Germany until 1941.

"postcard CEO hitler can't hurt me, he isn't real..." postcard CEO hitler:

And he'd be remembered very well in Germany and perhaps his fame would spread to America too, but like how some historical figures were wildly racist yet influential, everytime you hear him you just can't forget how crazy he was about hating Jews and all sorts of minorities

Everyone should do physical exercises, but not everyone is an athlete. You can't show a lying person and tell me it's a form of athleticism.

If they have to intellectually understand their way into appreciating it then what is it that they are really appreciating if on the other hand those who simply engage with a fresh perspective tend not to like it?

@@retrocomputing Is it a fair analogy to compare art to a sports competition? Are you serious? "Oh my The Grande Odalisque is aesthetically pleasing and proper art done by a master, but oh her proportions are so weird, 80/100, 2nd place" Most art forms require both technical proficiency and imagination/ideas, athletics require just technique and physique, using for example the legs of an athlete as the main point in your comparison is building your argument about the medium, running with a crooked leg is like painting in a slashed canvas or playing with a 2 string guitar, the difference is the former makes the task impossible and the latter just makes the craft harder, with enough imagination you can make something excellent, there's no ideas in running or throwing things (except for Fosbury!), it's objective, you run fast, you jump high, you win, it's a competition, and even though art has formal analysis, "experts" don't agree with each other, I think Rafael transfiguration is a mess (I'm not an expert) just from a formal analysis point of view, but a lot of experts think it's a masterpiece, but that's beyond your point cause your horribly written analogy was aiming at the frauds of modern performance art, right? It doesn't make any sense, sorry

@@literalwho9017 I can rewrite it without comparing to a sports competition: Everyone can do anything they like, but not everyone is a master (or can become one). Let's say we have a craft category with established rules. A newcomer who ignores everything that this category is about can't be considered an equal to the masters just because you think art is subjective. That newcomer can create a new category and that's fine, but the categories aren't equal as well. There are objectively good and objectively bad, talentless performers. And some categories can be a fad or even a fraud.

I mean, when you get right down to it, it seems like Hitler was just mad that his style of art wasn't in vogue.

Maybe they meant a "art student in renowned art school" It's kinda hard to define this word in that context. Hitlers paintings weren't that good even for the postcard standards, he lacked structure and consistency, it was just a pretty looking, polished turd, but a turd nonetheless. If you want to be looked at with respect by the art critics and other artists, you have to stand out with something that you master, either its theme, texture, composition or simply technical skill. Hitler lacked these things, and therefore his art was considered not that important, so he failed in their eyes. And yes, I was also rejected from art school so choose your next words very carefully...

@@sadpianist5846 how do you know if the works in the Entartete Kunst exhibition were good or not? Can you define them as unpolished turds?

@@retrocomputing These days you’re considered irrelevant if you DON’T make your art with turds.

@@sadpianist5846 Structure and consistency look like the exact skills he did have. Criticism would have to rest on other aspects you’d think. And sorry to hear that. You probably aren’t a complete wank-off and so they don’t want you around.

architectural art requires the ability to keep consistent perspective. He did not have the technical ability to draw what he set out to draw, and was not able to develop himself to create the kind of art he wanted to. In that regard, he was a failure.

They didn't say it's the responsibility of the artist. Listen to the closing statement again. There is nothing about the artists at all.

That's why we should make an effort to distinguish artists and people that are trying to poison the well by using art as a means of money laundering. Doesn't mean that modern art is worthless and anyone involved in it is dodging taxes.

Same lmao

​@@user-ck9ul4ic4kwhy are they beautiful?

@@user-ck9ul4ic4k I don't follow what you mean, sorry I'm not all that bright

@@user-ck9ul4ic4k what do you find beautiful about Adolf's paintings?

@@user-ck9ul4ic4k hey wanna smoke crack behind the 7/11 like last time?

Those are some very kind words! Thank you so much!

Modern "art" cope. Your degree is worthless. Cry about it.

Western art has changed and evolved over the course of its history. That's not the issue. The issue is that modern art "degenerates" or erodes at traditional values and throws Western culture out of the window in its entirety.

@@InternetVigilante and what, pray tell, is “western culture” even? Are we talking “European culture”? What even is that? Hell, every single country in Europe went to war with each other at least a handful of times. Are we gonna sit around and say that the Spanish are the same as the Irish or that Germans are the same as Italians? Are we going to sit around and say that Nordic gods are the same as Greek gods are the same as Celtic gods etc etc? How about architecture? You think the Parthenon and some Scottish castle are culturally the same? How about food? What is this singular “Western Culture” you speak of? This “Western Culture” nonsense is laughably asinine and demonstrates massive cultural and historical illiteracy at best and is a racist dogwhistle at worst as the literal only similarity amidst all the usual examples of “western culture” is that they were mainly white. This “Western Culture” isn’t going to erode over a few surreal paintings because it doesn’t even exist in the first place. Cry about it

@@KlutchRedefined It doesn't exist in your eyes because you haven't been exposed to it. That student loan debt hurts, doesn't it?

@@InternetVigilante I would put money on you not actually being European, or even having ever visited for more than a week, tops.

All you need to do is draw something that conveys meaning... weather that be a subject, idea, feeling, a combination therof, or all of the above is up to you. Make something beautiful.

Probably makes you more of an artist than the people that do.

@@neththom999 this comment is so silly lol

@@tsu08761e People who appreciate art from an authentic individual perspective and create it themselves are more properly artistic than those who merely mentally wank pseudo-profound (i.e., the great 'understanders' of art) with the ideas and in the manner that they have learned is agreeable to their peers. Person 1: Appreciates beauty, comes up with own interpretations, loves to draw, inspiration comes from within, knows how to create Person 2: "Understands" art. Educated into that understanding from without. Knows how to rearrange concepts. "The virtue in most request is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion. It loves not realities and creators, but names and customs. " -Emerson

You’re missing out big time

I think I found it! Is it "Kameraden" by Josef Thorak?

That was one that the Nazis approved of; it wasn't labelled as degenerate. It strongly exemplifies Nazi values of masculinity, athleticism, and pride.

Perhaps Arno Breker, he made a lot of this type of statue

@@bert2522 No it's Joseph Thorak. The statue is called "Kameradeschaft," meaning "Comradery."

@@viztep5070 and there's something wrong with masculinity, athleticism, and pride?

This reminds me of an article I read on a Christian website about how video games, specifically RPGs, contributed to the rise of the alt-right and neo-Nazism. And the point wasn't so much that the violence in the games caused this, but rather the sense of achievement and power. Why would you want to live in the real world where you're some guy who works at a store or an office worker when you can be the hero of some fantasy land? And that translates to people trying to find that same sort of fantasy in the real world.

@@carlycrays2831 well, Discord did that, not games. Smart people started with them young because they're easier to manipulate.

It's curious to see an Objectivist like Peikoff appropriate an essentially communist critique of expressionism as insufficiently didactic. I suggest you do not take it too seriously-expressionism has long been the subject of ire from both ends of the political spectrum due to the expressionists' conspicious lack of concern for politics. Radicals make a business out of arguing for the suspension of neutrality within the public sphere; it is only natural the value of a work that does not concern itself with politics will remain entirely opaque to them (and, safe to say, there is nothing apolitical about fascism).

I'm a lot less on-board with this thought than I used to be. Most people I've seen mentioning how some art makes you a bad person, from my short time on earth, have been people who are already pushing bad ideas onto people, and are looking for a scapegoat. Christian Nationalists saying Harry Potter and Pokemon is Satanism, American Fascists saying Communism and the Gay Agenda exist in every show where a woman/queer/POC exists, and many more. I don't know if saying Nazi values arose from art is necessarily wrong, but I'm suspicious of the idea that art begets evil like this. Seeing as that's the mindset the Nazi's had, I don't like using that same mindset on them, it feels like we're saying they had a point when they were obviously delusional. Like, the bar for whether a group was ever "right" about something is so low someone dug down to hell and dropped the bar, and the Nazi's decided to limbo under it for bragging rights. There's literally no group we can be more sure was wrong about something than the Nazi's. If we ever agree with Nazi's on any point, that is about as red of a flag as we can have that we fucked up and got the answer wrong somewhere.

@Barbarossa Don't you have yet another pride event to (almost) disrupt?

You should buy the book "Kunst" from Ostara publications, it's an old Nazi pamphlet justifiably making fun of some of the worst art ever

omg you just saved my life i need these video snippets for my upcoming presentation thanks

Someone with a brain. You should teach the people instead of these ignorants.

That philosophy of nazi art sounds like nazi propaganda. The really wanted to hype up the massacre of their own people on ww2 by all the other nations lol.

Tradtional art was a form of art that was deeply rooted in the soul and psyche of the Eurppean peoples, that was 5000 years in the making. Today’s art perverts and destroys all healthy perceptions and the body is viewed on in the most grotesque and consumptive way rather than the beauty that it actually stands for.

I mean, Prager U is a far right American conservative mouthpiece, it shouldn't be very surprising that they'd share similar beliefs with Nazis.

Yeah, and Nazis were socialists and vegetarians. What's your point?

@@kacperfrontczak1257 "socialist" in the name "National Socialist Workers Party" had nothing to do with Communist socialism, as the Nazis considered the Bolsheviks to be butter enemies -- hence their using "Bolshevik" as a pejorative. As to vegetarianism: part of the propaganda about Hitler himself was that he was vegetarian, apparently as part of creating an image of him as a kind of austere, self-sacrificing spiritual leader. But research has shown that it was a scam: he heartily scarfed down sausages as much as any other German.

True. Some argue that voting was a bit manipulated as the space for "yes" was bigger than for "no". But Austrians did it because it was beneficial for Austria. And Austria was for Germany nothing but a burden

​@@karolinakuc4783 Austria & Germany are the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. This Empire was destroyed by French,British & Spanish forces, the Reich collapsed in early 1800's and reformed about 60 years later as the German Reich 1871. 🙂 The Allied split Germany apart and every time the Germans want to unite, a British and US American has issues with it 🙂

Yeah he wouldnt so mid if he just passed those exams

He spoke facts

Or he didn’t like degenerates

Muh Wikipedia

It's a French film called The Intouchables.

@@killamonjaromon Merci 🥂

Kinda missing the point here my dude. I’m sure he meant if an ideology were to limit such works because they thought these were “objectively bad” instead of the subjective way we all view art, that’s a gateway drug to pretty much restricting freedom of all kinds of art

@@TryinaD yea I would consider shit on a canvas to be decent. You have to be pretty skillfull to land the turd on it in the first place

​@@TryinaD There are objective measures. Time spent on painting * (learning speed * time spent learning) usually = quality of final product. Art is semi-subjective, but we're born knowing what's beautiful. A baby will cry at ugliness. Heck, a baby will cry at a simple frown! Did society teach it that? There is something measurable in art. When we hear someone shred on a guitar and get every little nuance correctly, we can hear the thousands of hours of practice. We can hear the effort. There's something a bit objective going on, something measurable in time spent.

Your "black dot at the centre" example is precisely why historical context is so important in art The painting you described is creatively called "black circle" and was made by Kazimir Malevich in 1915 along with several other similar works. As you correctly implied, such a painting is, by itself, completely unremarkable. That's where the context comes into play. At the start of 20th century was when the shift to more abstract art became a thing (abstract in the sense of cubism and such, don't mistake "abstract" for "skill-less" in this context), and with it the obvious push against it, to the point where certain institutions called for ban or social "war" on this art (which will later actually happen in several countries as discussed above). This made a decent portion of those artists understandably upset. One of those men was, by that time already established and somewhat well regarded Malevich. That's why he made the painting and suprematist movement as a whole - as a sort of "middle finger" to those people (not entirely accurate, but it get's the overall point across). Generally nobody would care about that, but as i said, Malevich wasn't exactly a nobody, so those "words" had some weight behind them. In other words, nobody argues that the "painting" black circle was good, what is good is black circle as an art piece - as a gesture, as a statement and as projection of the mind of Malevich

@@user-zz3sn8ky7z "Black square on canvas" is equally no-effort and that one wasn't made ironically. Modern art is pretentious garbo. If you need 5 paragraphs to explain why a picture is remarkable, then maybe it sucks. The story is neat, so put it in his biography and call that book "art". You could call it, "How a Non-artist Helped Progress Art".

All you did was read an Instagram post that said that.

And before you say anything, YES, I'm being paid to say this.

@@RetroAP paid mossad shill confirmed

@@kek105 J'aime Les Enfants is one of such examples of art world connected people who are no joke connected to art world only because its easy to launder money through it : )))

@@Owerus Hunter Biden is another example.

Which really demonstrates how the Nazis had zero understanding of the artists they idolized

@@morganalabeille5004 Are you talking about Picasso and Dali, or the ones that inspired them.

national socialist*

they didn't "decide" what was good and what was bad. They just managed to distinguish art that requires talent from "art" that requires none.

No, not exactly. There is no objectively good art. Claiming to hold the "objective truth" and silencing people with different opinions or visions of art is weak, pathetic and dangerous.

Why is modern art good exactly? Picasso and Munch I like, even Rothko, they evoke some kind of feeling from withing, but most of these dont, just like the nazis said, it needs to have pre-context, like a book, to tell you that it is good.

@@lw97nilslinuswhitewaterweb15 Picasso and Dali both showed a solid grasp of classical techniques.

Absolutely, and keep in mind that I deleted a lot of comments. Consider me pretty concerned as well

Lmao

cry about it

Cultural Marxists

@@TheCanvasArtHistory are you that afraid of nazis?? Dude, you only fear what you don't know

And it shows how some people still don't understand that we need it to progress and challange new ideas. Heck, back in the day even impressionistic art was considered something bad, not to mention in the medieval times, anything that wasn't made in the name of God could get you killed. It shows how there always will be a group of boomers trying to ruin everyone's time just cause they don't want to move their braincells and think "wow, it doesn't affect me, so I just might mind my business". It's just people trying to ruin someone's happiness. If not for modern art we wouldn't progress in technique and style, every painting would look like stick figures. So for every "bad" modern piece there's always something to be learned

@@sadpianist5846 Ironically though, it's modern art that ditched accurate anatomy. The Renaissance artists mastered it some 500 years ago, yet have you seen any modern mediums? Think of the corporate art style, or cartoons.

@@InternetVigilante that statement doesnt really make much sense, modern art as a whole is so broad and portrayals of anatomy can be realistic or not but it completely depends. "corporate art style" is something that changes every decade or so, and its not like this is the first time the popular corporate artstyle uses exaggerated proportions

@@sadpianist5846 Why would we progress when it's taken us to the point we are at now, last thing we need is future generations to feel inspired/empowered by a statue of an overweight black woman. (First thing I ever saw in a prestigious "modern museum")

People who don’t care about the art

Yeah shoes on the other foot I guess

Not by outrage though so its not the same, its more just ridicule so no its not the same

@павле Not all of this just that of this particular picture at that time. But who knows maybe a child could come up with some more creative meaning. But knows if artists indeed did didn't have blood running from his nose that he cleaned with canva 🙂🙃.

Communists clamped down on degenerate art just as much as Nazis. However the Nazis promoted romantic art where as the communists enforced socialist realism art.

Totalitarian statist communist state despite also has measures to censor art, still at its heart has leftist tendencies (thats not a pejorative, thats just the term). In a way that all art is celebrated regardless, and not bound by cultural or nation psyche (apart from obviously dissing the regime) Theres literally hundreds of modern artists from eastern blocks or China or anywhere, and by large they aren't persecuted UNTIL the country leaders (the Premier, Party leaders etc) became hard on senile, best examples is Kruschev who tries to ban some modern art, but he never made a decree since it would be an oxymoron to its socialist leftist tendencies

I'm happy you appreciate the content!! Thank you so much Marc!

It is not art. It is a scam, both financially, and socially.

@@cyberdragonzekrom6790 yikes you're sounding like a authoritarian my guy

@@bbbloodboy6121 Yes, and?

@@cyberdragonzekrom6790 right just noticed you're pfp . I don't care about you're fantasy's please go back to phub

How does that make u a fascist? It isn’t art all nor should it even be discussed

Just don't talk shit about Dali or Picasso...

It also won't stop me from hating Bauhaus

@@paulandreigillesania5359 What don't you like about the bauhaus?

When cheap imitations of those plastic tupperwares replace older architecture. They look horrible when they age and require more maintenance. Least in older buildings they look stunning when they age, but when buildings as new as Bauhaus age, they defy their promise of renewable and comfortable living

@@paulandreigillesania5359 the architect Vincent Sully said we once entered the city like God's now we scuttle in like rats. This was in response to how New York's Penn station was once a beautiful building and later destroyed to be some modern sludge

yes

yes

That is subjective and there are other criteria or reasons to enjoy or engage with art

You prove that point

Nah

Ah i remember that sonic fetish art 😂 good times...

And what about it at its best?

You can literally say that about any genre of art

more like this Hitler: I wanted too

It had nothing to do with what they didn't like. It was destroying their culture

@@TonyFontaine1988 Must have been a pretty lame culture if it was being destroyed by a painting.

@@brigadierharsh1948 Every time you utter the word "degenerate", God rends the heavens to kill a few dozen kittens.

@@azazel166 How about thousands of paintings? And pornography? And books, magazines and movies?

Whoa

''degenerates'' had to be put into desolation ..and that was according to the eugenics program, which still exists today ! Hitler was only a FRONT for that

He was nothing of what you said.

Freak

Jack Roberts

Unbased

Hitler also drank water... Do you drink water too?

@@user-fg8ux8zo6w Hello brother

well they did succeed in one thing there. We enjoy cheap trash products that were never meant to last so we have to keep buying said trash to replace the trash before it *cough* mass produced Chinese made trash worth pennies and dimes. Why not make "art" worth as much? Here, lets lets just stick this cheap piece of Chinese plastic to a canvas and call it "art". Paintbrush? What's a paintbrush?

Nothing prevented Hitler from using his art work to pursue architecture

Because fascism will happily put their own supporters under the bus if they don’t perfectly emulate their idea of what society should be. His paintings didn’t fall exactly in like with fascist ideas, so he is labeled as a degenerate. It says “see, even our own can be degenerates because they didn’t fall in line, don’t be them and conform to our ideas.”

Exactly. Amazing that an artist who can't even draw hands would be celebrated, almost as if he is celebrated FOR his lack of ability

is laying a new foundation for a new building that will be fully made in the future "degenerating" the other already completed buildings around it? weird logic

Fucked logic.

I respect “bad” art that tries something new and expanded humanity’s horizons of what art can be a hell of a lot more than I respect “good” art that just sentimentally tries to imitate better artists who get put on a pedestal by those who don’t understand it.

@@josedorsaith5261 I think you missed the point if the comment

Maybe. Do you know any others (not just artists) who are so bitter and envious that they not only attack other artists, but start wars to destroy other cultures and ethnic groups, slaughter millions of people, and attempt to annex neighboring countries? Do you think he would still not turn out to be so horrendous? There were plenty of other factors that seemed to be involved in his emnity. The fact that many other Germans got involved in his nationalism and the resulting death and destruction. Many Germans at time shared his beliefs in nationalism and "purity" even when they didn't have similar experiences as Hitler.

@@taraxacum I was speaking strictly of his dealings with the art community. Not his nationalist regime, the war, or the holocaust.

@@sparrowprince3432 Nothing of what you said is true

Nope fuck commies and degeneration of culture

why?

@@abelabel3664 Because i believe art need skill I think it’s fine to do art even if you don’t have skill but I have a problem with it being considered the best Art

@@avus-kw2f213 In what definition of "art" is skill implied? Is there a universal scale gauging what the "best" art is?

@@abelabel3664 sorry I should’ve said professional art

@@avus-kw2f213 And how do you define skill...? And you do not agree with Hitler...he literally ordered art to be burnt and artist persecuted, not that artists did not get any money from their art.

Your calling Jesus ugly

@@willfakaroni5808 No, im a Christian. I know how the Art should look. This Jesus looks "sick"...deformed...so what im saying, Jesus was not Ugly and that in Germany there is a "standard" of "art". Modern Art is ugly & dark. It gives a weird, dark, cold feeling. There is now a Monument out of Bronze, its a pile of Crap. Bronze was formed in to a Human pile of crap. There are more and more ugly Monuments and Statues coming up... really ugly , meaningless, weird and strange monuments and statues. - At the same time, works of art which are 1.000 years old get removed. - So you are saying Jesus is ugly. Jesus deserves more , doesnt he? You want a "Ugly" Jesus? - I prefer the classic Jesus.

@@willfakaroni5808 Germany was leading in Art. After 1945-48 , after Germany was destroyed and plundered, it changed. Over half of German art, relics, artifacts are missing. The Paintings, the Monuments ect, it was destroyed and plundered. And the people who destroyed and plundered it, they implement this "Modern Art". There you go. In Germany, usually, Jesus is good looking, handsome. Im saying: This is "Ugly" and does not accord to the handsome guy described in the Bible. - UNESCO lists a aprox number of German literature destroyed by Britain, USA and Soviets. Germany was the larges library on Earth until 1945, correct? Multiple tens of Millions of different Books of all types of categorys, scripts ect...all gone... Now we have weird Sexualization Books and really morbid art. - Its more accepted to wear a Satans-Star as a Christian Cross. Correct? - Some TattooArtists would not tattoo a Swastika, but Satanic symbols all day. - So , the "Ugly" became beautiful and the beautyful became the ugly, correct? - You like Ugly Jesus? Put that Jesus beside a perfect Statue of Handsome Jesus... who is calling Jesus ugly? ...are you? 🙂

@@ksgermania6159 ugliness means nothing, it’s what’s inside that counts, if you can’t see past looks that shows you lack of understanding in the faith

@@willfakaroni5808 You may degrade the figure of Christ, make Jesus ugly. You can create a cartoonish, ugly Christ, or you can create a Handsome Christ . Anyone can make a ugly Jesus, not everyone can make Christ look so humble as the European Artists have done 500 years ago. You can turn it around on me, but that would make you the devils tongue. - So you want a ugly, retarded looking Jesus instead of "Art". I would say, the ugly Jesus does not stand up to the image of Jesus and does not deserve to be portrayed this ugly and retarded looking, wouldnt you agree?