You're missing the point

Whether the act could, under different circumstances, be considered art or not was not what I was driving at. It was that the acts he committed so transgresses the moral consensus (on more than one level) that no one will ever accept that as a reasonable defense. No one but a handful of MAPs, I mean. I wouldn't accept it, and I am both an artist myself and a strong proponent of an open, tolerant and vibrant art culture. But even I have my limits.