Michael Jackson’s death and the subsequent revival of allegations of child abuse against him, has just brought up some uncomfortable thoughts. It seems like most geniuses we know were/are eccentric. The stereotype of a genius perpetuates that relation too - so much so that we go looking for chinks in the armor of anyone who is acclaimed as genius. But what about those who were truly evil? Like Eric Gill? The full extent of what he put his family through didn't come out until 40 years after his death. His work, though, was exemplary. His typefaces are still alive and widely used. Is it possible to separate the art from the person? Would he have produced such artwork if he was punished when he was alive? Would he have been able to create such art if he didn't have that evil streak in him? Is art so important that we ignore basic moral tenets of humanity? Could we tolerate a serial killer artist (Phil Spector comes close)? Interestingly, MJ and Phil Spector were not convicted in their first court trials.

Don’t we presume those who inspire us can do no wrong? But at the same time, why do we relish any information we discover about their imperfections? When do you draw the line?

Is it possible that the very qualities that make a person make art that has never been done before, has them do the same in real life?