Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
Well, we can well discuss the details of Hitler's own confusion of what is "German", see his obsession with Roman architecture and aesthetics, he became quite obsessed with supplanting German expression with a Roman foundation. Imho, the 1937 exhibition already shows how Hitler went way too far, starting to sort out indeed German artists not complying to his very narrow view in that respect.
How many times do I have to point out that his obsession was Grecian, not Roman? Greek maxims, Greek beliefs, Greek teachings, Greek ideals, and Greek architecture. The only meaningful thing Hitler took from the Romans was their education system and authoritarianism. NS is not fascism (attempt to resurrect Roman empire). NS is Spartan (attempt to resurrect Sparta). Otto Strasser's testimony of a "Spartan" Germany perfectly corresponds with Hitler's view of the "natural order" in his table talks.

Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
While Himmler really wanted to recreate "German" culture, art, architecture etc., Hitler was obsessed with everything Roman and made fun of Himmler (notwithstanding the fact that Himmler still had unlimited resources and free hand to do as he saw fit), even though Rosenberg had watered down his original idea to that what he wrote down in Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts, he still received no "approval" and so on. There were good reasons for Stauffenberg to try to stop Hitler at some point, but that's an entirely different discussion.
Heinz Linge recounts Himmler proposing a nobility system for the SS that blatantly disregarded hereditary/race, of course Hitler would have shot that down! He was arguably even more racially conscious than the historically conscious Himmler. Both were realists, but the one was also a practical idealist.

The historian Peter Padfield made a case for Himmler's actual views being Spartan, citing SS-Hauptsturmführer Schubert of the Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Nationhood (RKF):

‘The Germans, he declared, must have the position of the Spartans, the existing middle class of the Lithuanians, Estonians and the like the position of the Perioeci [‘Periöken’ was handwritten in a space left in the typed report], the Russians on the other hand the position of the helots.’
Padfield points out how:

The Prussian elite who had ruled Bismarck’s Reich had adopted the ideals of Sparta; Nietzsche had drawn much from the same source. If Himmler read and spoke more of the ancient Indian warriors of the Kshatriya caste and the Vedic scriptures, nevertheless he had absorbed the spirit of Sparta through his pores from earliest boyhood.
Later concluding that:

This analogy drawn at the conference by Schubert of Himmler’s RKF is useful, therefore, in showing a direct link – or more properly a rationalisation – from Sparta to the SS eastern colonisation policy.
Rosenberg was likewise attached to ancient Greek notions, aside from his foolish condemnation of the Pythagoreans (he praises Plato but condemns Pythagoras whose ideas were the basis for Plato's teachings), based on obvious misinterpretation of Heraclitus' and Aristotle's statements on the matter.

Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
In essense, however, from the basic idea, he was right to remove foreign and/or "undesireable" art from public display, and to a degree, one must assess whether something is "art" to begin with or not.
Yes.

Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
While, say, comic strips or cartoons require certain skills and can have a meaning or even "speak to people", are they art in the sense of "art"? Should they be regarded as art, or are they "merely" craftmenship? What makes art "art"?
Imho, the latter question is much more difficult to answer.
If you compare Batman #67, which is completely devoid of exposition and let's the action chase scenes do the talking, with the rest of the rubbish Tom King has been putting out in his series, I think it's made clear that art should not be made to depend on writing too much.
As for me being an avid reader of comics, I'm constantly on the lookout for Jewish qualities. Luther's advice was: always keep a mental picture of a Jew in front of you.

Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
The overabundance of colour is no criteria, imho.
Goethe and Kant, both considered great men of Germany, called out degenerate art for it's emphasis on color.

In The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche agreed with my view that art is not merely an imitation of nature, but was conceived to surpass nature (although it's often quoted out of context on quote sites):

To say that in life things really do turn out so tragically would be the least satisfactory explanation of the emergence of an art form, if art is not merely an imitation of the reality of nature, but rather a metaphysical supplement to the reality of nature, set alongside it for the purpose of overcoming it.
On the other hand, Nietzsche has something in The Genealogy of Morals that might resonate with your viewpoint:

On the old problem: ‘What is German?’ – Add up for yourself the actual achievement of philosophical thought that can be attributed to Germans: can they, in any legitimate sense, also be attributed to the whole race? May we say: they are simultaneously the work of the ‘German soul’, at least a symptom of the latter in the sense in which we are used to taking Plato’s ideomania, his almost religious mania for the forms, at once an event and testimony of the ‘Greek soul’? Or would the reverse be true?
I think I'll be reading this book some more, has good insight! I will also, however, caution that unlike Schopenhauer (who built on Kant's philosophy), Nietzsche never arrived at a foundation for his ideas (the Jewish biographer Oscar Levy observes similarly in his book). Hence the manifold contradictions and inconsistencies in his views. He started off as a Greek professor and a Greek idealist, but went off-the-rails, distanced himself too much from his starting point, and mounted on assault on nature herself (despite originally allying with it) with his attack on everything associated with ethics.
Here we have an validation of the maxim which says those whom the gods wish to destroy they first strike with blindness.

Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
Everyday furniture looked like this until around 1900 and even beyond:
What exactly is the title of this work?

Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
Hitler would have called that Kitch or probably even degenerate because of its motley appearance, but in fact this was common in everyone's house, it was cultural expression.
I think that's a radical conclusion to draw. It depicts no human caricatures and is basically symmetrical, rather harmless compared to the others.

Quote Originally Posted by velvet View Post
It is not "our" culture to reduce everything to only "clear" lines, and when the play-y, curvy, motley "kitch" went out of "fashion", we ended up with Jugendstil, which was still play-y, curvy, motley, but a bit less so than before. This obsession with "reduced" or even removed style and replacement with "useability" or reduction to function alone is a fairly recent phenomenon.
Germans can boast of possessing their own culture when Germany has eclipsed the ancient Greeks. It has not done so yet, therefore it must continue building upon the ancient Greek style until it develops it's own unique style (which is not drawn from sentimental longing for the past. Rediscovery of the German soul is not found in attachment to outdated modes of worship. Modern paganism places too much emphasis on the hollow shell of religion. Jewry has always had an advantage over pagans since they know why they practice their rites).

Of course Nietzsche is justified in arguing that the Grecian/Roman form was not meant to last forever so eventually the German people will have to dispense with it for their own original form of art, but the time is not yet ripe for it.