[keiferski]

It means you're an adult, capable of simultaneously recognizing the merits of artistic works and complex ethical realities.

Are Caravaggio's paintings less beautiful because he killed someone? I think to suggest so is absurd. It doesn't mean you have to like the artist as a person, but to directly tie the value of a work of art to its creator is dangerously reductive.

[Angostura]

Serious question, though - how do you feel about performance art? Would you go to a concert by an excellent singer who beat up his wife, or was a convicted paedophile? Would you feel quite comfortable standing in the crowd and singing along with them? I'd suggest quite possibly not, even though the quality of their singing voice was undiminished.

I suspect that there is a spectrum here where some forms of art or expression are more directly tied to the nature of the creator than others.

[keiferski]

Both of your examples are about social / public acceptability of the artist as a person, not the evaluation of their artwork itself. Of course most people would be uncomfortable associating with such a person, but I don’t think that’s inherently relevant to their work.

Nowadays we are in a marketing-focused era where serious aesthetic thought is basically unknown to everyone but academics, so the natural result is that the identity of an artist is often more important than their work.

(Side note: performance art refers to a separate art field, e.g. Marina Abramović. Performing arts is the right term to use for music, singing, etc.)

But yes, of course there are various approaches to aesthetics and certainly some would say that the artist as individual plays more of a role in some genres than others.