Art

Partly Sunny with Showers 7° London Hi 9°C / Lo 5°C

The art of Adolf Hitler (with a little help from the Chapman brothers)

By Arifa Akbar, Arts Correspondent


Teri Pengilley

Jake (left) and Dinos Chapman with their work Fucking Hell 2008, part of their exhibition If Hitler Had Been a Hippy How Happy Would We Be

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.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

[info]alexiuslr wrote:
Thursday, 17 September 2009 at 06:19 am (UTC)

Hitler's Defaced Art: an Art or an Offense?
Art is a means of expressing one’s self to the outside world, it does not matter if someone else feels it is “bland” or of low quality; that is not the point. The objective is to bring forth one’s internal feelings by creating an external media which expresses those inner thoughts to the outside world. Who are we as outsiders looking in to judge another’s art form? Yes, we all have our own opinions, but at what point do our opinions transform into standards? Discarding or defacing Hitler’s art is just like discarding or defacing a child for their looks. That is, how are we to set the standards of beauty when beauty in actuality is in the eyes of the beholder? Hitler’s art was created before he became a murder; therefore, it is entirely unfair for us to judge his art based on his actions after the fact. That is like putting a person in jail for breaking a law that was created after the person did what they did. Is that really fair? No one’s art should be defaced; it takes away from the originality and passion of the first artist.