I would mostly agree with this with the caveat that the art itself shouldn’t reflect the bad things the person did. Also, there is a matter of degree. If Hitler was a gifted artist, would I pay for his work? Eeew, I don’t think so.
Haven’t seen the doc yet. But I watched a lot of interviews with Jackson and people who knew him (e. g. Brooke Shields) over the last few days and my impression is that he was a deeply damaged person by his father and his upbringing as a whole who got emotionally stuck at level of a child. I personally doubt he was abusing those kids sexually, but not dismissing it. It is not impossible. Everything about him and this situation is heartbreaking though, whether he was an abuser or not.
Watch the doc, it will probably change your mind.
I could only stomach a short section of the documentary, but to me the “sexual abuse” wasn’t what was most damaging to the kids-- it was the creation of a primary, pair-bond pseudo-romantic relationship with them when they weren’t ready for it. That’s got to really fuck you up. And there’s no denying that he is guilty of that.
Yeah I plan to.
Depends on what you mean. Is there any question that he at a minimum showed porn to young kids? That’s sexual abuse in its own right.
If he did that (can you link source?) then I agree. That alone would be fucked up already.
I believe it was referenced upthread. Including finding the kids fingerprints on his pornstash.
Hitler is certainly on the far end of the scale.
However, if his paintings looked like this, it might present more of a dilemma.
Though I would like to think a person capable of such creations is not also capable of genocide. Whoops, there I go conflating the art and the artist. :-/