Dirt about artist diminishing the value of his/her work?

[Grimlock]

Okay I know that the headline isn,´t exactly great and if someone can come up with a better one by all means say so and it will be corrected, anyway on to the tropic.

Michael Jackson is dead 50 years old and as tradition bids it, there are a lot of dirt dug up about him how he supposedly molested children and so forth.
Whether it's true or not is for my part unimportant, but here,´s the question does the fact that Michael Jackson supposedly molested children in anyway diminish or increase the value of his work?

In a way it was the same with many an author C.S Lewis supposedly had a fondness for underage girls same with the author who wrote the Alice in wonderland books.
And I bet you anything that half of the now deceased great musicians out there might once or twice in their career have had an underage girl (below 18) in their bed.

The point is you can find dirt upon almost any famous artist out there be they musicians, authors or something else entirely.
But does this dirt in anyway diminish or increase the value of their work.

Would you think less or more about a book you liked before you found out that the author had been accused maybe even punished for pedophilia or something else?

I would say no, because when I listen to music, read a book, see a movie or look at a painting it,´s the work itself that matters not whether or not the ones who made it might have done something illegal or not.

What do you think does any dirt dug up upon an artist in anyway diminish or increase the value of his or her work?

 

[ebbixx]

Has anyone organized book burnings of Alice in Wonderland? There was a period in the late '70s and maybe early '80s when a lot of character assassination was being done (in lit crit circles) about Lewis Carroll. But to my knowledge, in both these cases the details and compelling evidence that there was any actual sexual activity going on remains a matter of what is probably now pointless speculation. Those who rejected Michael Jackson's work, supposedly based on their personal convictions that he was a pedophile have done so already, and are unlilkely to change their minds, no matter what facts may come out in the future. Likewise those who feel a need to defend his character will continue to do so, and the CDs will continue to sell. Or not.

OTOH, Fatty Arbuckle is much more a footnote in Hollywood history than he is someone with an ongoing and loyal fan base.

In other words, there's probably no clear correlation either way between "dirt" and "artistic reputations" unless it serves to sell tickets, CDs, posters and other ephemera.

 

[GoodKat]

If you're judging someone as an artist, your opinion should be based solely on their artwork. A man could be a repugnant, despicable human being, and a genius artist at the same time.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Dirt doesn't necessarily diminish artistic value, but it does often diminish the pleasure I take away from my experience of it. In many ways, a complicated and sometimes 'dirty' life story is part of the meaning of the art itself. In Michael's case, his screwed up life is incredibly meaningful in and of itself, completely apart from his body of work. However, you cannot separate the two - his crazy life influenced his art which influenced his crazy life. You can look at the art apart from all that and have your own experience of it, but a fuller meaning has to at some point reference back to the artist.

So, in short, dirt can increase artistic value by increasing meaning but often decreases the pleasure I take in it by reminding me how fragile and painful human life can be. But sometimes that is valuable in itself.