Yeah, there's been a lot of talk lately about the willful cognitive dissonance we ascribe to our favorite artists. In the wake of Bowie's death a lot of people were posting that he was a rapist because he took the virginity if a 14 year old groupie back when he was an emerging Rock god. Can we still enjoy his music and know this? Artists like Roman Polanski and Woody Allen come to mind too. Their work doesn't exist in a vacuum. -or does it? If I saw a painting and thought it was the most beautiful thing I had ever seen, only to find out it was painted by Hitler, would it be wrong of me to continue to enjoy it? Would it be wrong of me to be a fan of his painting and abhor him in all other respects?
Think this somewhat mirrors a discussion around here from way back. Personally? I can draw a clear, comfortable line between artist and product. There's a reason we're compelled in school to address narrative intent rather than authorial intent. Once released into the world, the product has a life of its own, and a will that may defy its creator. As a critic, you address the character of the work, and leave that of the author to the biographers. Lucky for us, Hitler's paintings were mall-grade trash, so we don't have to worry too much about it. But if his shit popped? Why not appreciate it on its own grounds?
I don't think I've ever checked out his paintings before, or if I did I have forgotten them. A quick search and I find that they're not awful, but they aren't anything special either.