CAN YOU SEPARATE ART FROM THE ARTIST?

WHAT IF THE ARTIST IS A TWISTED GENIUS WHO IS ALLEGED TO HAVE ABHORRENT DEEDS? Our culture wants to throw out an artists work because of alleged or actual personal pathologies. (#rkelly #michaeljackson music taken off the air, #billcosby shows not shown, for example). If we are consistent with this, there goes a huge chunk of art throughout history, as many books detail many creatives having issues with addiction, mental illness, bipolar, sexual problems, breakdowns, bad behavior, etc...(Reference "Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament" by Dr. Kay Redfield Jamison, a psychiatrist specializing in the study of artists through the ages, and the biographies of artists you like).

Some want to go after Elvis next, because his wife was 14 when they met. Is trial by media sufficient to decide which artists can be played on the radio? Appear on TV? Is Internet now a way to beat media censorship because it could become the only way to hear banned artists and entertainers? Can you separate art and artist? Will you not watch a film by someone accused of a heinous act like Woody Allen or Roman Polanski? What if the allegations are only "anecdotal evidence" of stories presented in interviews from one point of view without corroborating evidence that has been legally vetted? Are there some times you can separate it because you like an artist, and other artists in which you can no longer enjoy their work?
THOUGHTS???