I gotta say, this is working out to be a fascinating discussion. But before I go any further, I have to tell Robomatic that I think Mel Gibson movies are really creepy in their fixation on violence.

I suppose I could find Wagner creepy, too. I remember visiting one of the palaces of Mad King Ludwig II of Bavaria, hearing about the King's fixation on Wagner and the King's subsequent suicide, and something about half-naked servants pulling him through the water in a shell-shaped boat. But there's a bombastic extravagance in Wagner's music that I enjoy despite myself. I find I take wicked pleasure in a number of things that my idealistic self says I shouldn't enjoy. But then I say, what the hell? And I like what I like, and don't get too moralistic about it. And when I find myself getting moralistic, I know the best response is to laugh at myself.

But that brings up a much wider question about art and moral turpitude. It seems that society has a constant urge to suppress the artistic works of those who have violated the current mores of society. The kerfuffle around the #MeToo movement is the current example of this. Is it wrong for us to enjoy the artistic output of people who have violated the mores of society? If a person is immoral, does that mean that he/she cannot product any work that is of value?

I have known and liked people who were later accused of molesting children. How do I deal with that? Is the good that happened in my relationship with that person invalid? Does their horrible crime invalidate all the good they have done?

I had a Music professor who wouldn't perform the works of any composer he disagreed with. I disliked the professor, so of course I thought he was full of shit. But was he?

-Joe-