I wrote yesterday about the new documentary for Bloomberg Opinion. I have since heard from quite a few die-hard defenders of Jackson’s innocence. The arguments are more notable for their vehemence than their persuasiveness, I’m afraid.
My closing remarks, aided by the headline, have come in for criticism, too, much of it reasonable. To clarify: I’m not saying that art can never be appreciated when the artist shows serious moral failings. I’m saying that the opposite absolute statement — that a separation can always be achieved — is false. It seems to me that judgments have to be made, and the gravity of the evils the artist committed and the quality of the art he made both affect those judgments. Jackson’s monstrousness, as I note, makes it impossible for me to enjoy his music any more. But others will, of course, reach different conclusions.