People are human, they’re capable of great artistic works and depraved harassment of others. Why can’t we acknowledge the bad actions of the artist, and still appreciate the art that has nothing to do with those actions? Is the bad in Chuck Close’s life so terrible that it completely obscures his work, making it impossible to separate art and artist? Should only saints be allowed to make art?

My personal opinion is that Close's work is completely overrated. And I know for a fact he is a notorious asshole (these allegations aside).

But you can't merely segregate the art you want to experience by your worldview. Because then all you're left with will be vapid propaganda.

If an artist or creator is a shitty human being it's only relevant to their art if they directly profit from your consumption of their art.

You're supposed mohave opens about art and artists. And you can't form those in any meaningful way with out experiencing the art. As long as a venue is not suppressing the context of of the art or the artist, then show away.

"You're supposed mohave opens " = You're supposed to have opinions.

Jesus. Fucking autocorrect.

The man's in a wheel chair. Walk away.

I'll also add that, especially in the visual arts, if the work itself is great, then as time progresses, the work itself becomes paramount as the artist fades into the historical background, often disappearing completely.

Incidentally, if you do happen to want your name to live on through the ages and you have an artistic bent, my observation is that poetry is probably your best bet.