Scope of discussion includes perceived merit of created things (artistic, economic, policy) in the context of the perceived merit of their creators. In situations where the creator is accused or believed to have committed a crime or other undesirable action, the discussion does NOT include debate as to whether this is true or not. However, this does not preclude observations based on beliefs about a creator, whether verified or not.
I have long been curious as to whether a creator can be entirely separated from a work. Once creation is finished, does that created thing then stand on its own merits, or must it always be viewed within the context of its creator? If you enjoy a book, and then discover that the author is a terrible person in your eyes, does that lessen your assessment of the book? If so, why?
More broadly, can horrible people create wonderful things? Can a hated politician be applauded for a worthy piece of legislation? Can we laud a work without lauding the creator?
I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Header Image Credit: https://www.deviantart.com/pixiecold