Nazis, Art, and Forgery – Philosophy Tube

1. 

   @gilormsplay

   February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

   WW2 was the biggest fool's errand in history and Winston Churchill the biggest fool. For 500 years, Europe was watchful of Russia's westward expansion. Good Old Winnie bankrupted Britain to facilitate it and seized on concentration camps to justify it. Following Stalin's Allies' victory over common sense, 'rights' racketeers ran amok with the racial 'equality' scam, open borders, criminalisation of free speech. . . and anyone objecting to this is A Nazi Who Wants To Gas Six Billion Jews, resulting in today's librul dystopia. Post-Gaza, instead of putting up with any more Poor Jews schtick, confront it with their part in slave trades, serfdom and Stalinism – the most murderous tyranny in recorded history, courtesy of Lazar Kaganovich, Jakub Berman, Ana Pauker, Salomon Morel, Béla Kun, Mátyás Rákosi, Lev Bronstein, Helena Wolińska-Brus, Grigory Zinoviev, Genrikh Yagoda, Rudolf Slánský et al.

2. 

   @Pobafett

   February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

   I find the financial value applied to art to be odd. Possibly even vulgar.

   Talking about art in any terms of its worth only serve the rich people who hold them as assets.

   The irony being that these assets can quickly depreciate in value if that work or the artist falls out of favour.
   As is the case here.

   I don’t know what my point is.
   Maybe we should spend more time looking at art and less time trading it.

3. 

   @andrewharrison8436

   February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

   So we have:
   aesthetic value
   historical value
   rarety value
   snob value
   They all get mixed up a bit but what is being exposed here is that a lot of the art world total value comes from the snob element. Although that's the one element they would claim doesn't exist.

4. 

   @sarahlusher5156

   February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

   I do think the composition of a piece of art contributes to its value. So if you make a perfect forgery of a piece of art, you may be able to claim that you had the same level of skill when it comes to technique. But you didn't come up with the composition, so you can't claim that. However, in the case of the completely original piece that was credited to Vermeer, clearly that was just a good work of art. How can they credibly claim it wasn't? It was an original composition made with a high degree of technical skill and people agreed that they found it aesthetically pleasing.

5. 

   @13Rats

   February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

   In my mind art's value is based on its meaningfulness. You can have technical skill but there's only so much value that a meaningless piece of art can hold. Aesthetics themselves are often a form of visual shorthand. Different aesthetics communicate different emotions and ideas things to an audience depending on what kind of aesthetic it is.

   If a thousand robots were to paint every color on some canvases at random it would eventually create a beautiful portrait, but that robot doesn't think or feel anything so how much meaning could it have. It could have some meaning to the individual if we used it as a chance for self-discovery, but that is us giving the art meaning that otherwise wouldn't exist.

   So whilst forgeries in general I don't enjoy as it usually means that the creator is greedy or attention-seeking, I think trolling Nazis is kind of poetic in its own way.

6. 

   @Wodospad_z_Deszczoskrzydlych

   February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

   UwU

7. 

   @teddymasters1347

   February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

   Oh god, I frogot boy abigail existed. I don't like it.

8. 

   @sethjacobson211

   February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

   Holy shit. I'm here a week after watching "Murder Among the Mormons" on Netflix. As a former member of that church, THIS VIDEO IS INSANE.

9. 

   @DelapierceD

   February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

   Personally, I would rather have a perfect forgery of the Mona Lisa in my room than the original. The story of the forgery is way more cool and meaningful to me than the story of the original

10. 

    @dinninfreeman2014

    February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

    It's a different skill to perfectly replicate a painting than to make it yourself, I'd say it's more technically challenging to make a convincing forgery but it's more creative to make it the first time

11. 

    @erinmcdonald7781

    February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

    Belated congratulations! Wish I had this earlier, would've been a great subject for my Creative Writing aka "I flunked English" class. They could sink their teeth into the odd and controversial. 😁

12. 

    @richardbeard9391

    February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

    woah my three favorite things

13. 

    @nellgwyn2723

    February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

    Though i agree mostly with Lessings position there are so many questions asked in this context that are incredibly hard to answer. Art and value are generally a difficult subject that can never fully be taken out of the various contexts it has been used in for so long and once you speak of aesthetic value one has to adress the question of objective beauty or cultural, contextual beauty – but within all that mess that does not lend itself to simple answers there is at least one i can address. If all this makes one of them the better artist. At least on a technical level anyone who has traded the modern comforts of painting for even just some historical techniques or made paint after historical recipes can appreciate the difficulty and struggle that went into producing these works of art. It is impossible outside of a well stocked university atelier to even try and even then some methods still remain a mystery. But all the philosophical questions are very interesting, especially when dismissing artistic value and focussing purely on the aesthetic.

14. 

    @thehighnoonsaloon7794

    February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

    nazi trolling intensifies

15. 

    @vynne3888

    February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

    I recently finished reading “The man in the High Castle”
    In it, a character shows a woman two lighters. One has belonged to, if I remember correctly, Lincoln, the other is a forgery if the original. The character knows which is which, but the woman doesn’t, and when asked to identify Lincoln’s lighter, she fails. The character then says that the value of an object is its historical value : one lighter is more valuable than the other because he has a certificate that proves it has a history, which makes it more valuable.

    Maybe when we consider the value of an object, we mix together aesthetic value and historical value, which explains why a forgery has less value than an original : it doesn’t have its historical value.

16. 

    @guyfriendo2917

    February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

    Man, Olly's American accent was fooling me until he pronounced Nazi "nah-zee" instead of "naht-tsee"

17. 

    @TheSpeep

    February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

    I'd say it depends on the kind of forgery, and the ideas behind the work.
    If you make a (near exact) copy of an existing work, then its aesthetic value may be the same, but the ideas behind it are not, so it shouldnt have the same value as the original, unless the act of copying it serves as some kind of critique in and of itself.
    If the forgery is basically an original work simply mimicking another artists style and falsely presented as theirs, then its value should be judged regardles of its creator.

18. 

    @Vortor

    February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

    Small criticism for your american transatlantic accent, although you might've gotten better at it already since it's been 5 years, and I doubt you'll read this, the people who used it had more of a clipped way of finishing sentences, you're kind of rounding them out. Like "Rather a lot of money" should have some kind of emphasis point, I'd think.

19. 

    @DarthAlphaTheGreat

    February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

    Aethetic value is not cheaper, but should be priced cheaper because copying is easier to produce than original contents. How much cheaper is decided by the market.
    You see the "value" doesn't matter in the end (sadly), only the "price" matters.

20. 

    @robinsparrow1618

    February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

    i find it a little funny that his response to people calling his art derivative was to make paintings people believed someone else made

21. 

    @aaronsmith1023

    February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

    In the sense that a forgery can be passed off as the original or an entirely new work of art, and people are willing to believe it is either the original or an entirely work of art, and willing to buy it, then yes, it is functionally, and ergo aesthetically the same.

22. 

    @shannonparkhill5557

    February 6, 2026 at 8:40 am

    Who says you can't sum the deaths and say 5 people suffering isn't more suffering than 1? I did watch that video, I don't get it.

Comments are closed.