Is it moral to display supervillain art?

[FaxModem1]

In a Batman story I read years ago, an art museum director in Gotham city showcases several of the various props, memorabilia, and other art pieces created by Gotham's villains, as well as stuff inspired by them over the years. This causes protests and concerns by city officials, including Commissioner Gordon over what kind of feedback this will cause in the city.

If you have supervillains, is it okay to display creative work that they either made or was made about them? Even if said villains don't approve, or it causes them to feel validated and commit more crimes?

For instance, if a museum acquired access to drawings and paintings of one Dr. Hannibal Lecter, should the museum show it, or prevent the pieces from being exhibited due to how the art was made? Or what it was made from?

If that's okay, are serial killer 'trophies' art that can be allowed to be displayed?

Where's the line? Is there one?

Discuss.

[Gandalf]

Properly contextualised, I fail to see the problem?

[Broomstick]

You mean.... the way people used to buy/view John Wayne Gacy's clown paintings? Actually, they still do.

Or people who still buy books by Marion Zimmer Bradley despite evidence coming to light she was emotionally and sexually abusive towards her kids? Or listen to/buy music by Gary Glitter?

People who collect Nazi memorabilia?

It's always going to be controversial, but there will also always be people who want the art, either because they think it's good art or because they get off on the notoriety.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hell, for 50 years (in fact, up until about a month ago) a museum in Natick, Massachusetts had a display of Adolf Hitler's surviving paintings. It, along with a number of other personal items of his, was contextualized as part of a larger (and quite comprehensive) World War II narrative. If it had been instead part of some sort of neo-Nazi shrine, I could see the problem, but I would say there's a decently clear difference between something being presented as a historical or artistic curiosity versus being presented as a fetish (in the older sense of the word) of some kind.

[Lord Revan]

I'd say it depends on context, after all no mortal being is 100% evil no matter what their political leaning or personality is. A shrine to glorify a serial killer or other supervillain would be an issue, but I see less issue if it's displayed in a way that doesn't glorify the criminal responsible for the art is question.

Also it obviously depends on the art peice in question.

[Elheru Aran]

It's not that much different from Nazi artwork if you think about it. There's a right way and a wrong way to display that kind of thing, and if it can be done, there's no reason it can't be done for supervillain art.

[Raw Shark]

My grandad on my Mom's side turned out to have a freakin' huge collection of Nazi stuff that nobody knew about until we cleaned out his attic. Nothing in his personality or life actions suggested any sympathy; he fought against them in the big war. I think he just collected the shit and didn't talk about it. Some freaky stuff in there, though. Lots of potato-masher grenades, the bomb squad got called.

[mr friendly guy]

I have just discovered there is something sort of like this in real life, where the art of serial killers is displayed. Its the Museum of Death in LA.

https://www.tripadvisor.com.au/Attracti ... ornia.html

I am going that most people don't have any moral objection to that if its displayed in its proper context, at least those who review on tripadvisor don't object anyway.