I had a conversation with someone close to me about "separating art from the artist"…

He had an interesting perspective.

He was saying that even if he had been convinced that Michael Jackson was guilty of wrongdoing, enjoying his music after his death would not be the same as listening while he was still alive—none of the money spent now would be contributing to his personal comfort.

"So you don’t have to boycott Wagner, "he continued, "even though he was said to be a miserable human being. Nothing you spend to see or listen to his music performed is going into his pockets now."

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Pretzel · 70-79, M

I see both takes as valid.

I have artists that I can't abide and their personality/crimes taint their work for me.

But I can watch Errol Flynn movies - even though he had sex with underage females. Or really any artist - as many are entititled and insufferable - it's just that if they are alive - or only recently deceased the taint is there for me.

Who know's MJ's work was very good - and it may stand that test of time. Is so, then there's no harm or foul.