Bobthebuilder

By the way, there are fifteen paintings shown here. Twelve of them are fakes--not by Hitler at all.

Oh per-lease. To start with his paintings are awful. Secondly, aesthetics is a values-set. If you buy into the look and feel of his paintings, how far away are you from admiring the buildings? The uniforms? How about those Nuremberg Rallies? They were really stirring weren't they? And I mean the notion of purity in ITSELF isn't bad is it? We all like pure coffee after all?
The point is, this is the DEFINITION of bad art. If you didn't know what bad art was before, look at this. Now you know. That's what it looks like. If you didn't know this was bad art, then you obviously didn't know dick. Art that aligns itself with an aesthetic that can kill 6 million people; that's bad. Okay? You want a definition of bad? That's it.
As for Churchill. He's the one person who inspired a nation to stand up to Hitler. His was the voice that inspired Britain to resist and to keep fighting, to keep open the platform that allowed America to enter the war and invade France. He is the very definition of a modern political hero. You want a definition of good art, go look at his. Now check out the differences because they are not to be found in the TECHNIQUE!!! (Heaven's Sake)

Too right Zayne. 'Heartless Animal' is an insensitive expression. Whereas 'dumb ass', why that's an eloquent phrase, well chosen and well placed.
You lot... you DESERVE George W Bush.

Wheeee! I thought Americans were STUPID. I didn't know HALF of it!!!

Nope, that'd be because he couldn't paint.

Definition of bad art: anything conforming to an aesthetic that also kills 6 million people. As in "I don't know about art, but I do know that bigotry kills"
If you do not think these paintings are bad, you are looking at them wrong.

Nice. Someone who actually knows something. Like knowing that 90% of paintings claimed to be by AH are fakes. He didn't paint still life for example.