Submitted by kianworld t3_y3auk3 in television
Swabia t1_is99jhz wrote
Reply to comment by Mushroomer in Channel 4 buys painting by Hitler – and may let Jimmy Carr destroy it by kianworld
While I agree with upping the conversation and I also agree with, well, anything to do with shit talking Hitler I’m not sure how I feel about destroying art.
He was a bad artist, and we’d still have images if not the originals so it’s not like destroying statues.
It kind of seems like burning books or the taliban smashing temples to me just on the way less offensive part of that spectrum.
I’m conflicted. Fuck Hitler. Jimmy is hilarious. I’m sure he’ll convince me.
WhyWorryAboutThat t1_is9zoxo wrote
Burning books is evil because it restricts access to information and infringes on a right to speech. Destroying temples is bad because it restricts the right to assemble and worship freely. Not because all art is sacred and destroying it is a crime against intelligence. Unsold books get pulped and recycled and ancient statues lose their paint and look completely different than intended. Even if there was still some artistic merit to get from an original Hitler that we haven't found yet, the act of destroying it wil be performance art making a more powerful statement of its own. It's not preventing people from expressing or sharing ideas nor is its destruction a tool to oppress anyone.
Swabia t1_isjvina wrote
That I totally agree with. Had it been a culturally (positive) influential artist though I would not like to see that painting destroyed.
That said I’m not so conflicted on the loss of an original Hitler.
I also hope Jimmy takes the piss out of the British art system stealing all cultural art on the planet then defending it like it’s ok. That’s bolocks and I hope he roasts everyone.
EternalArchon t1_isb8oza wrote
Nazis took books, they put them on a pyre and burned them in a theatrical display. As you say it was a performance art to make a powerful statement. You can justify it however you like, but it reeks of the same dark impulse. And all you have to do is — not — burn artwork to ash.
WhyWorryAboutThat t1_isbd05x wrote
The nazis were burning history books about the groups they targeted, books of scientific research which contradicted their perceived superiority, and political books supporting platforms that went against their own. The loss of access to that information was devastating and the performance art of public burnings was in service of a nazi regime. Destroying Hitler's painting isn't keeping anyone from seeing the image and is performance art in opposition to nazis.
AlexandersWonder t1_isckyb6 wrote
Plus it’s just a real feel-good moment for a lot of people. Smashing up Hitler’s shit out of sheer spite 80 years after his death just sounds really cathartic to me.
EternalArchon t1_iscvkis wrote
Cathartic is a weird notion considering this is happening only after the people who fought nazis and survived the Holocaust are mostly all dying off
AlexandersWonder t1_iscx5ej wrote
Nah, tons of fascist dickheads still look up to him and ideologies he espoused are still alive and well. The legacy of the war he helped start is still felt to this day as well. Idk, he was a real dickhead. I think I would get a little kick out someone throwing a “Fuck Hitler Party” just to smash up some of his shit. There’ll always be a digital record anyways so it’s really more symbolic
EternalArchon t1_iscvhvj wrote
I understand Nazis burned books in accordance with their values, burning their own books would be absolute absurdism. Thats what dumb humans always do. Its what christians did to the pagans, what the pagans did to carthage, etc. They did so publicly because it appeals to the dark heart of man -- the craving to see your opponents works fall into ash.
> and is performance art in opposition to nazis
the Nazi regime fell 75 years ago. “Opposition” to the most hated and despised regime which ever existed is like performance art against cannibalism. We live in a world where people can’t even have a small mustache anymore.
AlexandersWonder t1_iscxp43 wrote
Nazi ideology is alive and well in this world, even if the OGs are all ashes and dust now.
WhyWorryAboutThat t1_isejf9m wrote
Oh, you're one of those people who thinks there are no more nazis since World War 2 ended. Well I had a nice discussion about whether it can ever be acceptable to destroy art with you. But now I just have to tell you that you're wrong. Nazis hold rallies and protests to this day in my country. They back politicians with bigoted platforms, radicalize young people online including in spaces that exist for my own hobbies, and occasionally try to kill people with a car or bomb or gun.
Losing a painting by a mediocre artist is a price worth paying to remind them their goals are not accepted. They've become far too emboldened in the last few years.
EternalArchon t1_ishvhqh wrote
> you're one of those people who thinks there are no more nazis since World War 2 ended
So you make up an impossible straw man -- there are zero nazis after WWII, then argue with that strawman.
My guess, you crave power, you love holding power over people. Burning a dead artist's work has nothing to do with any vitreous goal, but to feed a darkness in your soul you won't even acknowledge is there. You haven't, as social scientists describe 'integrated your shadow.'
Instead of destroying a piece of history, you could get mad that Jon Stewart gave a medal at Disney world to a Ukrainian Nazi with a black sun tattoo. Or that the USA is funding Ukrainian nazis like the Azov Battalion. 100% chance you won't care, there won't even be the tiniest fucking droplet of sincerity when it comes to this issue -- at all, if you can't even stop salivating over flamethrowing a painting, then killing Russians (an enemy tribe) is going to give you an erection the size of mount Everest.
WhyWorryAboutThat t1_isj9px4 wrote
I didn't mean for it to be a straw man, but if you know there are nazis, why did you say there aren't?
> My guess, you crave power, you love holding power over people.
Not only am I not the one destroying a painting, I don't even intend to watch it. Chill.
Describing Hitler as "an artist" and one of his paintings as "a piece of history" is a really bad look. He is regarded as an average artist at best, it was a hobby he wasn't good enough at to turn into a profession, and there's no special artistic or historic significance to this piece in particular. He's no more of an artist than me and this painting isn't history any more than my sketches.
AlexandersWonder t1_isckm44 wrote
Hitler’s been dead a long time, long before my lifetime, but I still enjoy a good postmortem “fuck you hitler.” I think it’s easier to convince me that smashing up Hitler’s shit out of sheer spite is cool than it would be to convince me of the same for any other artists I can think of
Swabia t1_iscnnhi wrote
Yea, I’m conflicted. I’m sure he’ll make me laugh one way or another.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments