This is a ghoulish exploitation of a sad man's disturbed life, with art parasites abusing his memories and life work for personal profit. This type of fame and those who glorify it should all rot in hell.
Why do you say that? Is there wild speculation or editorializing going on since he died so young and can't refute? I thought it was a raw and interesting biography of a largely unknown artist.
One of the things artists hope for is that their legacy will live on after their death, and this seems to have happened here.
This article offends me, a lot, but I personally feel that art auctions (I presume that the brokers of which are your target here) are, for the most part, okay, though I do wish the artist, or their family, would get a cut.
Considering that art that sells for a lot of money will probably be taken care of and upheld for time to come, what do you think about auctioning? Is there a difference between alive and dead painters? Does the fame / influence a living artist gains from a high-profile sale between third parties matter?