Ask Lemmy

Eh, not really.

Now, there are some examples where I won't/can't actively seek out their work, and would never contribute to them by buying anything at all, ever.

Cosby falls into that category, just as an example.

But, I have a complete separation as far as the work itself being valid/good despite the origins. Using Cosby as the example again, if I'm somewhere and one of his performances is on, I'm not going to care enough to change a channel or leave, or even say anything.

That's pretty much anyone and everyone. I just don't have that thing where a given item, piece of work, whatever, is "tainted" just because the person that made it is a piece of shit. I don't form an association like that. It's that I choose to not seek out some things as a matter of principle.

But, as a general rule, if they're dead, I don't care at all. And, if the person in question is only one person involved in a group effort, that group effort is fine by me. Like, if the guitarist of a band is a piece of shit, but everyone else is not, why would their work be a bad thing?

Now, this isn't to say that I ignore any bad acts when interacting with a given work. Take van Gogh as an example. His excesses and disturbing behaviors are part of his work to an extent. It's a thing where knowing the person's flaws informs the interaction with the work. Kinda like "gee, I wonder how much of this work stems from the same root as the bad acts did?"

But, I can enjoy the work of people I personally despise with no issues. I just don't have whatever it is that other people have that makes a thing tainted based on the creator.

Part of that is knowing how shitty humans in general are, and how hard it is to find any artist that didn't/doesn't have massive flaws. In music and painting in particular, you run into a shit ton of artists that were abysmal people. If I did have that whatever it is that causes a connection between the art and the artist's flaws, I wouldn't be able to listen to much music at all.