Bolding mine.
I don’t disagree with this. However, it won’t stop the discussion. 
But not “convicted,” apparently. He was acquitted on grounds of “justifiable homicide.”
I disagree. I came into this thread to mention Benvenuto Cellini, who immediately came to mind. But engineer comp geek beat me to it (and with more info than I had). Cellini is definitely an artist, and he actually killed more people than I realized. They were clearly planned in advance.
Yeah, looking over that Wikipedia article, Cellini seems like he unambiguously fits the bill.
OK, Cellini seems to be a good candidate. Revenge murders are the heart of murder mysteries, so you have to count them.
But not the examples given that postdate 1984, the year the book came out. Can’t fault him for not seeing the future.
Here’s another iffy case. William Burroughs, the writer, shot and killed his wife (common-law wife? partner?) in 1951. The story given out was that they were playing William Tell, she put a tumbler of water on her head, he was drunk and missed. Nevertheless, “Vollmer’s death was ruled a culpable homicide” by the Mexican police. I don’t think that’s technically first degree murder, though. Burroughs later changed his story numerous times and nobody outside his head knew whether he shot her deliberately. He appears to be quite serious in saying that the death turned him from a dabbler who wrote to an obsessive writer.
Van Gogh murdered himself with a revolver; though indirectly… An infection from the bullet left in him killed him about a day later.
I’ve read, though I don’t recall where and can’t provide a cite, that the thinking surrounding Van Gogh’s death is no longer that he committed suicide but was shot, possibly accidentally, by a local boy horsing around with a gun as a result of the popularity in Europe at that time of American Wild West Shows. The belief is that it was unlikely Van Gogh would decide to shoot himself in the side in order to commit suicide, that he was penniless and had no money to buy a gun, and no gun has ever been found. It’s thought that Van Gogh kept quiet about what happened because he didn’t want the boy to get into trouble.
It’s also possible he didn’t regard himself as that seriously hurt. The bullet hit no vital organs, and he, perhaps sensing that he wasn’t seriously injured, figured that with proper care he’d recover. The bullet itself didn’t kill him…at least not directly. He died due to an infection that was caused by the wound.
Y’know, given the relatively small sets of “artist” and “murderer”, and the number of counterexamples we’ve found in this thread, I’m beginning to wonder if maybe there are more murdering artists than one would expect.
In 1796, Mary Lamb fatally stabbed her mother in the chest. Supposedly this was in a fit of insanity (she did it in full view of her brother and aunt) but it also sounds like she was under intolerable strain. Mary was caregiver for her mother, her senile father and disabled aunt, and probably her brother John who was recovering from an accident, as well as partially supporting the family financially with her work as a seamstress. She was preparing dinner for the family and became impatient with her young apprentice and shoved her aside. Her mother screamed at her and scolded her loudly, which was when Mary snapped and stabbed her with the kitchen carving knife.
Mary was confined in a local private asylum run by a friend of her brother Charles, who returned home right after the murder, took the knife out of her hand and paid for the asylum. Her brother John, who witnessed the murder, had wanted Mary jailed or confined in the public asylum. The coroner returned a verdict of “lunacy” and with the help of friends, her brother Charles Lamb succeeded in obtaining his sister’s release from what would otherwise have been lifelong imprisonment. Earlier that year Charles himself had spent several weeks in a mental institution. In his own words, “I am got somewhat rational now, and don’t bite any one. But mad I was—and many a vagary my imagination played with me.”
Charles devoted himself to Mary’s care, and the two of them became famous for their literary work, Tales from Shakespeare, which retold the plays in language suitable for children and families and went through many editions, providing them with an income to supplement Charles’s small salary as a clerk. Mary also wrote a novel and a book of poems.
An old NEA study (creates a pdf download) found two million people who self-identified as artist. That’s about 1% of the work force. If you extrapolate that to the global work force, about 30 million are artists. Over world history, the number of artists must be over 100 million.
Even if you apply a much stricter definition, the total must be at least 10 million. And that 10 million tend to be far more famous than a random 10 million, meaning that their lives are scrutinized and their crimes reported and remembered.
Finding a few crimes in a population of 10 million is trivially expected.
He played the bass. He got paid to play it. That makes him a professional. I don’t think this thread requires that the artist in question be *good *at his or her art.
That said, you’re right. It’s by no means certain that he killed Nancy Spungen.
As has been pointed out, if you’re narrowing ‘poet, artist, or composer’ down only to people who successfully worked full-time in that field, who were respected for it in their own time and still today, and who’s work the ‘questioner’ likes, there are actually very few people who qualify. I mean, when you’re not counting Van Gogh as an artist or any of the Beatles as composers (they didn’t make a living composing, they made most of their money performing), you’ve made an already small group arbitrarily small. And if you’re defining premeditated murder so narrowly that Adolf Hitler or Charles Manson don’t qualify, there are also very few murders that meet the definition.
It’s the kind of claim that sounds really neat at first but really isn’t really saying much beyond ‘I am using two uselessly narrow definitions of words to say that these two things don’t happen together much’.
Well, if suicide counts, then we’ve got hundreds or thousands of artists to choose from.
Also, for the purpose of this discussion, would attempted murder count? After all, the claim is about having the psychological inclination to commit murder, not necessarily the physical ability. If that’s the case, then Van Gogh might qualify after all, if the account of his duel with Paul Gauguin (another painter, and therefore also arguably on the list) is true.
(Also, hi, first post. I’ve been lurking for a bit, but actually had something to say this time.)
Jack “The Poet Of Death” Unterweger arguably counts.
In terms of “quality of mind” the distinction between an attempted murderer and a murderer can be very fine.
The writer Valerie Solanas attempted to kill Andy Warhol. She seriously wounded him and another person. A third person was almost shot at what was said to be point blank range but the gun jammed.
I don’t think such a person has a different mental state merely because the gun jammed or a bullet went wide.
“Hah! ‘Attempted murder’? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?”
-Sideshow Bob
Mark Hofmann — who was charged with first-degree murder, and wound up pleading guilty to second-degree charges — was a skilled enough artist to make a good deal of money as a forger in general, with bonus points for getting the handwriting and the style and so on right when he set out to pen an ersatz Emily Dickinson poem, which was convincing enough to go for well over $20,000.
Not sure whether he counts, but figured that’s a talent worth mentioning.
Zwelethu Mthethwa: fifty-plus exhibitions in art galleries, one murder conviction.
Comic-book artist Len Lawson — what? He was a professional who earned a living at it, creating The Lone Avenger and The Hooded Rider — was found guilty of murder, and ultimately died in prison.
Ha, no real artist would ever commit a premeditated, first-degree murder without provocation, being within their right mind and all.