RIP in 2009

[Disneyphile]

Vincent Van Gogh lobbed off his own ear to show his love for a prostitute.

Yet, his works are highly revered and people speak of his talents, rather than discussing what a crazy mother****er he really was. Sadly, the press wasn't around to sensationalize it in those days.

And, quite frankly, I'm tired of the hype given to ugly paintings throughout the centuries. Hell, I wouldn't even hang them in my bathroom. Why the hell should they deserve being displayed in a museum when they're painted by crazy-ass mofos?

Crazy people shouldn't be admired, even if they've created good works.

Sorry... just channeling some of the "logic" I've heard today in various forums.

I'd really like someone to point out an artist who didn't do some kind of wacky **** in their lifetime.

Or, better yet, would everyone who likes to point fingers at the wrongdoings of celebs still look "perfectly sane and normal" if virtually every action they perform was caught on tape? I know damn well that some people would be repulsed at knowing about some fetishes/desires/thoughts that "normal" people keep under wraps.

I think CP makes a good point. Yes, he was a troubled man, mostly by product of his environment. But, to hear people flat out call him a pedophile, freak, etc. based on media hype is just crass and ignorant.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

Yet, his works are highly revered and people speak of his talents, rather than discussing what a crazy mother****er he really was.

I don't think this is a good example. The only reason most people know who Van Gogh is, is because he took off the ear. Seriously, people who couldn't pick out one of his paintings in a lineup with cereal boxes will be able to tell you what a crazy mother****er he was.

That said, I never considered him a freak because of the bleaching and plastic surgery. All indications were the he was severely emotionally crippled in various ways and certainly was eccentric (and I suspect he wasn't necessarily aware that he was eccentric) but I never cared what he did to his body. But then, even though my two first musical memories involve him, I remained indifferent to his brand of fame so he was just a curiosity that occasionally came up.

[Chernabog]

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

I think CP makes a good point. Yes, he was a troubled man, mostly by product of his environment. But, to hear people flat out call him a pedophile, freak, etc. based on media hype is just crass and ignorant.

I would like to point out, as others have done, that OJ was convicted in the civil trial, but not the criminal trial. There was only a criminal trial for MJ, which has an elevated burden of proof. Would your opinion have changed if he was convicted in a civil suit?

In his later years (i.e. the last 15ish), he was seriously mentally disturbed and creepy as all getout. When I said that many people (me included) would most remember him as such isn't all that surprising -- as Morrigoon pointed out, we lived through it. There were tons of mentally disturbed people that we revere today as creative geniuses, but we didn't have to live through their particular insanity. If you lived in the same city as crazy alcoholic/drug addicted Edgar Allan Poe, I'd venture to guess that the crazy alcoholic/drug addict behaviour that you observed would overshadow the genius that later generations have viewed him as.

So I think that yes, the next generation will mostly "remember" MJ as an innovative musical genius. But not by the people that through half their lives, MJ was a crazy freakin mofo.

That's just my 2 cents about the matter, but my opinion is not always "correct" either

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Chernabog

I would like to point out, as others have done, that OJ was convicted in the civil trial, but not the criminal trial. There was only a criminal trial for MJ, which has an elevated burden of proof. Would your opinion have changed if he was convicted in a civil suit?

Especially considering that the $22 million payoff in 1994 was all but a civil suit conviction. One that meant the family would not testify in the criminal trial that was going on and had to be scrapped for lack of evidence (i.e., the family not testifying). The only criminal trial that went to jury was in 2005, well after the initial accusations, accusations that, were they baseless, probably wouldn't have required $22 million go make go away.