For me this has nothing to do with “good art”. I know perfectly well that horrible people can produce amazing artworks that shape the relevant artform for decades afterwards. Aesthetics, ability and morality are not co-related.

My point is this: Many people assume that consuming/appreciating the art of “problematic creators” is - on one hand - about the “goodness of their soul” and - on the other hand - about how creators benefit from the consumption of their art (that’s what the article is focussing on after all). But there is another layer and that is the message the consumer sends to the people around them.

Surely, in the case of Roald Dahl, nobody would assume that people would read Roald Dahl’s books because they approve of anti-semitism. If I see someone reading one of Dahl’s book, I do not assume they do so because they are an anti-semite.

But it’s an entirely different case in - let’s say - the case of the infamous black metal band Burzum. In that case everyone with even superficial knowledge of the band will assume that you are a neo-nazi, because the leader of the band is a neo-nazi who killed another black metal artist. Certainly, that is an extreme example, but it illustrates what I mean.

Even if someone is capable of separating art from artist, that does not mean that other people will do the same and therefore our choices will reflect on us, whether we want it or not.