Perhaps he gets seen like a modern Keats, with artists wondering what he would have done had he lived longer.
...
Now I want to read a timeline where John Keats becomes a genocidal dictator.
More seriously, was Hitler ever an accomplished enough artist (either in quality or quantity) that a romanticist art movement would consider him a great star?
I know he had some ability and did do some painting, but I'm not sure it would have been that impressive.
Hard to say of course, and art is particularly subjective, just musing on how he compares to any roughly similar examples of "seen as a nobody until after their death".
Now I want to read a timeline where John Keats becomes a genocidal dictator.
He was told by members of the art establishment in Vienna that his stuff was not particularly good, and that he should focus on architecture, where he apparently had some talent.
Apparently most of his work consisted of street scenes: views of buildings, parks, and the like. I'll support that general sentiment that his talents were said to be architectural rather than representational. There's one for you: suppose he had somehow gotten apprenticed to/hired on as an architectural designer by a firm in Vienna, Salzburg, Munich, or another major German-speaking city? Had that happened, chances are the name "Adolf Hitler" would be lost in obscurity save for appearances on century-old architectural renderings and drawings.