“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
He should have continued as an artist and stayed the hell out of politics.
I'm sure that if Germany's economy had cooperated, he probably would have.
By today's standards -- or lack thereof -- "Heidler" (his true name, I believe) was a competent-if-uninspired draftsman. Knowing the identity of this artist makes it impossible to look at his work with any degree of "objectivity." Because of the incessant brainwashing by the enemedia, we instantly associate Adolf with gruesome visions of aggression, persecution, sexual perversion, torture, and mass murder.From what I have seen Heidler produced few pictures of fellow human beings -- only buildings, empty landscapes and occasional flower pieces such as the one presented here today.Was he truly an artist as well as a monster? I wouldn't dare say, because the latter so overshadows the former it's impossible to make a sound judgment.One thing I will say about Hitler's art: It does not appear to have sufficient strength of character to be either provocative or offensive –– and certainly not inspiring.
Had the "victors' in WWI been given the gift of prophecy, and thus acted more wisely, kindly and judiciously when they enacted the Treaty of Versailles, Herr Heidler might have enjoyed a comfortable middle-class existence as a commercial artist. Who knows?
The ‘demonization’ [as “monsters”] of criminals, petty or industrial scale, serves only to draw an artificial distinction, a firewall, between ‘them’ and ‘us’. In reality these people are every bit as human as any of us. It’s THEIR humanity that makes their crimes so unforgivable and frightening. “Monsters”, after all, do as monsters are.Setting the Versailles Treaty apart for a minute, The Great Depression also strongly facilitated the Nazi rise to power. In the German election, May 1928 the Party achieved just 12 seats (2.6% of the vote) in the Reichstag (Wiki). In the next election that went up to 18.3 % (107 seats).
And shortly after Hitler seized power and abolished democracy altogether.
Otherness is a bit of a problem...
...formal human rights represent false freedom but are, nevertheless, the only avenue through which actual freedom can appear. So we have the formal form of the rights of man, which were initially restricted to wealthy male citizenry, but later went on to include women, children, black people, etc. because of the demand to be counted. Zizek claims all emancipatory movements, including Marxism, can be conceived in terms of a radicalization of human rights. What is universal in human rights is not a particular set of values, Western or otherwise, but the right to universality as such, the political subject’s right to seek and to formulate its own universality. Gilbert Leung, "Rights, Politics and Paradise: Notes on Zizek’s Silent Voice of a New Beginning"For homo sacer is the object of the discourse of the university...
Post a Comment