I see the argument. How bout this scenario: We uncover that Hitler (hello Godwin's law) was a master sculptor, absolutely unparalleled. His art speaks volumes, especially to those unbeknownst of its origins. How do you see the art being viewed then? On one hand, he has the legacy of attempting genocide, but on the other hand his art is amazing. What are the morality guidelines behind this sort of predicament?
Does humanity keep it on display in a museum and continue his legacy in the vicinity of works such as Rembrandt's? Even though it would undoubtedly offend millions? Does the fact that it's great art outweigh the social negativity surrounding the whole predicament?
Sure - I did consider a hypothetical Hitler as artist argument.
So, the boring rejoinder is that, yes, his work ought to be recognized on its merits. Sculpture as a discipline shouldn't be punished for Hitler's sins.
Hung next to Rembrandt? Probably not, but then again how much do we know about Rembrandt? There are plenty of great artists whose personal life we know little about (see Shakespeare for instance. We don't know where he went to school or what he looked like!) If we found out tomorrow he peeped on women in the bathroom should we burn all our copies of Hamlet?
Anyway, regarding Hitler, a more interesting answer (to me) is that I'm not convinced great art and the will to extinguish an entire people really exist in the same soul. We know Hitler to be a failed artist. I wonder if good art requires a sensitivity to the world that sociopaths simply do not possess.
>Anyway, regarding Hitler, a more interesting answer (to me) is that I'm not convinced great art and the will to extinguish an entire people really exist in the same soul. We know Hitler to be a failed artist. I wonder if good art requires a sensitivity to the world that sociopaths simply do not possess.
This is somewhat different from what you were discussing, but it genuinely is interesting looking at his paintings. There is a penchant to read into them as coming from the mind of one of humanities worst, but I am intrigued by the fact that they are almost all paintings of architecture with some landscapes mixed in. Any human that is depicted is just happenstance. There is also the fact that Hitler's signature seems to be different in every painting that I have ever seen of his. Do these facts suggest the painter is a man that never identified with other people and constantly was in search of his own consistent identity? Who knows. But it is at least a worthy discussion.
I doubt Hitler was a sociopath. A psychopath, probably, but definitely not a manipulative empathy lacking sociopath. He was sensitive to the world, just in a perverse way...his hatred was real, not just an act of manipulation.
Does humanity keep it on display in a museum and continue his legacy in the vicinity of works such as Rembrandt's? Even though it would undoubtedly offend millions? Does the fact that it's great art outweigh the social negativity surrounding the whole predicament?