Interesting. I find the whole artist in him interesting in general, artists are often known for being open and more on the.. "humane" side of things. Is that picture something he painted? I thought he was rejected from schools because he was dreadful, but it seems he wasn't THAT bad then?

I had the initial thought of burning them, feels weird spending a lot of money on something that man made to.. what.. hang on the wall and admire..?
I don't know, separating the art from the artist. And history from the art, perhaps.
 

I would feel a little bit more than odd hanging some painting by that evil and morbid man; let alone admiring it.
 

a damn bad artist who has killed millions gets to have an art auction. What time do we live in??
 

Yeah it's a Hitler painting. Or it's sold as a Hitler painting anyway.

Theyre attributed to Hitler. Which could mean anything, but they say that the paper is of the right time, and the locations are close to where Hitler was based at that period.
 

I think Hitler is a above average painter. Churchill was probably a better painter but he made his best work after the war. I am sure Hitler would have got more respect for his paintings if he had painted in his 40:s (I guess he was buisy with something else). I believe highest paid for a Churchill is far over $100000. Its quite interesting to think that these genious of politics could have been really good friends under different circumstances.
 

the reason why Hitler was rejected from art school was because, as seen in that painting, he was too traditional in his painting style. The art school demanded a more modern way of painting, less realistic and expressionistic, which he hated. Which is why during the war when he was in power, Hitler banned and rejected all "new" artists from selling artwork or sabotajed their sales, while promoting the more traditional artists he grew up admiring.
 

Hitler's paintings sucked.
 

hitler was a amazing painter, but he was not a good person but his paintings are part of history and should be admired
 

Im an artist and Im not fanatic nazi person,but that guy was amazing painter, is kind sad those beautiful painting have relations with Hitler and is kind sad the school always reject to him, always is sad for artist be reject.. He had talent for art not any dude about that and I agree with the last comment
 

Besides just having a traditional style of painting, i believe Hitler also didn't make it into art school because he not only had to give examples of not only landscapes but also of people. As much as Hitler's Landscapes were great, his people...well...sucked...he wasn't able to draw or paint people well enough to meet the credentials for art school.
 

sozlog is a idiot. its not about what the man did or whether or not the painting is even good. who ever bought these paintings bought a piece of history.
 

altho i totally disagree on what Hitler did back then but the truth is what he did shaped us now. we can never understand the thoughts Hitler had and thats how it shall be left. No one can turn round and say that Hitler is a so and so cause the truth is if he hadnt we might not be here. I feel that although Hitlers paintings of people are a load or ... crud.. well the landscapes were brilliant. the way he could memorise the where abouts and the detail of each and every peice of architecture on a building is amazing. There fore i agree with whom ever said 'who ever brought the art work brought a peice of history'. and from what i know an auction is the selling of something antique or historical.
 

funny thing, isn't an art school supposed to teach it?? if only they had let him in, eh.