system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
To what extent is it immoral to appreciate a great artist's work after they've been exposed for atrocities in their personal life? (e.g. Louie CK, Spacey, and others to come)

I'm conflicted. Take Louie CK for example - outstanding comedian, regarded as one of the all time greats by other comedians such as Bill Burr, and Louie is now admitting to sexual harassment/assault. Is it immoral, as a fan of comedy, to watch his work and appreciate it? Could the same could be said for other cases: to watch OJ Simpson highlights as a football fan, Jon Jones for a UFC fan, etc?


One could argue the art to the public is separate from who they are as a person, but I disagree because art is an expression of very deep personal things. Is this valid?


How does viewing this person's art, with the atrocities in mind, change it? In some cases, now knowledgeable of the person's atrocities, does this somehow enhance the art in hindsight (e.g. how some people say Hitler paintings are more interesting after knowing he was so evil)? 


I don't have a lot of conviction in any beliefs I may have expressed, I'm just curious to see what others think about this topic as more and more celebrities get outed for atrocities. Thanks


EDIT: A user below brilliantly raises what I think is the central point to this entire situation: *Is the art the artist?* To what extent is the artist connected to the art? How does this vary by the art form, the personal wrongdoing/atrocity of the artist, or any other factors?
gpt
Do you mean on a financial level, like buying a ticket to a Woody Allen movie lines his pocket? Or do you mean on the level that you fear appreciating greatness in a field because of the character of the human that brought that greatness into being?