Is the art independent of the artist?

[Buddy Christ]

I brought this up in a class a year or so ago and I'm still mulling it over. I defended the side that art is a separate entity, unaffected by who made it or their lifestyle. Such as: regardless of what Michael Jackson did or didn't do, his music still remains the same quality, same as with Elton John. Much to the disappointment of the homophobes, being gay does not make your music any less complex or beautiful. It is what it is. This all sounds correct until you try to defend the counterparts.

Example being the paintings done by Hitler. Few people will openly admit that Hitler's paintings were a work of art or beautiful. But I believe that his paintings are still the same quality as if done by any other artist. However we as a society choose to reject to acknowledge the quality, thus denying artistic satisfaction to a person deemed morally corrupt. The art quality still remains the same, but we simply turn a blind eye in the spirit of rewarding only those who deserve it.

But this thinking doesn't seem to work on the flip side. If the story or artist behind the painting is positive or intriguing, the painting seems to become "better" in terms of art. Would Guernica have received so much attention if it wasn't backed by a name like Picasso? Or if a terrible painting of a flower rivaling that of a four year old was discovered, only it was signed Jesus of Nazareth and was dated roughly 1950 years ago... suddenly this piece of crap would be considered the most perfect painting ever created.

Anyways, thoughts? Painting and artist separate with benefits or intermingled by the very nature of art?