nimrod:
Have you ever seen Hitler's paintings?
Yes, I have. I've also been aware that critics universally pan his works. I think this is due to a bias against him as a person. If I didn't know the artist's name, I'd probably think they were okay.
You've given me food for thought. I'm not bothered by John's art selling but that's because I've always perceived John as an artist in the pre-Beatle days. I don't know - was Paul painting back then, too?
I'm also thinking about the tendency now to condemn an artist's works due to personal malfeasance in some way. Examples would be Woody Allen's movies; Harvey Weinstein productions; Fat Albert (Bill Cosby's comic character); Michael Jackson's musical legacy, etc.
So - maybe I shouldn't begrudge Paul a shot at success as an artist simply because he was a Beatle.