From a reader of our Facebook page:

Article request.
A look at Michael Jackson’s pornography, his court cases, his obvious pedofilia (sic) and how still playing his music is acceptance of his behavior.
Why wasn’t he arrested for possession of some serious hardcore child pornography?”

The question of how we are to judge an artist and the art they produce is a topic that goes beyond the immediate issue of Mr. Jackson. As I address it, let’s first review a few facts that are easily confirmed from his trial on child molestation charges.

In the course of both the 1993 and the 2005 investigations, there were extensive searches of Jackson’s multiple homes and the FBI was extensively involved in forensic investigation of vhs tapes and computers. No child pornography was ever found. Indeed, no gay porn was found either. Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler magazines were found and I will leave it to each person’s own opinion on whether or not they are appropriate material to possess. They are legal publications.

Jackson was found not guilty at trial. This was not a surprising verdict for any person who followed the proceedings as the prosecution’s case was so weak as to be cringe-worthy. There was no circumstantial evidence (e.g. lack of any child porn) and the credibility of the complaining witnesses was so compromised as to make many observers question why the case was allowed to go forward.

Whether or not Jackson was, indeed, a pedophile is still little more than rumor and conjecture. That he was an eccentric and troubled man is not in dispute.

So let’s deal with his music. Does playing it or performing rise to being an endorsement of Jackson’s personal behavior? Even if you believe he was a pedophile, does that mean all the music he wrote should be shunned or even legally banned?

How much does a piece of art stand on its own merits and to what extent are we to judge it based on the artist?

I would propose that we keep the art and artist separate.

Yet, I realize this is difficult as we tend to judge the artist by their art. It is the curse of our celebrity-as-hero culture where the political or social opinions of people who are famous for what they do as a profession are eagerly accepted as authoritative.

However, this double-edged sword has come to mean that a work of art is to be judged by the artist’s personal beliefs or behavior.

Or, even more radical, we are now seeing that an artist’s “identity” as the measure of their artwork’s acceptability. From removing a portrait of Shakespeare because “white, heteronormative, cis-male” to male-shaming books, we are being lectured that we must look first at what identity groups the artist belongs to in order assess if they are socially acceptable before we even get to look at their novel, music, painting or sculpture.

Ironically, contemporary Hollywood still has a black-list – during the McCarthy era it was against Communists, now it’s against Conservatives.

My advice is to enjoy the music you like, read the stories that appeal to you, hang whatever painting you want in your living room and look at the art separated from the artist.

Don’t judge a work of art based on the identity of the artist and stop making artists “heroes” based merely on their art.