The age-old question of if the art can be separated from the artist produces its main consideration, whether art can be deeply critiqued without its artist. If we remove the artist from this evaluation, we also remove the general historical context from the evaluation (since the artist is necessarily a product of their contemporary context). This method is incredibly difficult and rare to achieve, since it would mean the absence of any knowledge of the time period and of any knowledge of similar works. Thus, the evaluation of art will always have its contemporary context. Further, to evaluate art with its artist is to consider the art in the context of the artist, what the artist intended for the art, and the influence of the larger contemporary context upon the artist and then upon the art. But what if the art is corrupted with the bad practices and immorality of the artist?
To erase someone and their work from the annals of history because they did something that we perceive as wrong in our current moral framework (because moral frameworks do change, as in, what is accepted and not accepted do change), implies that the work is corrupted by the artist’s immorality. This censoring is aimed to prevent the emulation of those bad actions. Beyond this, especially if there has been extensive time distance between the evaluation and the creation, creating differences in moral frameworks, it would not be fair to morally judge out of context.
The censoring approach is too “all-or-nothing,” implying that there is nothing positive about the work and that there is nothing to learn from the work (already good or to be made better). We can learn about those aspects while acknowledging the bad that we associate with the artist. Just as when we evaluate a work per se, we can discuss how it can be good in some aspects and bad in others, the same we can do with the art and artist combination.
It is all about utility. As architecture students, we can learn from works of architecture even if they were designed by questionable characters. Perhaps in that particular conversation, we only discuss the designer’s crimes or immorality, but that does not negate the design’s positives. Similarly, in another conversation, we only discuss the design’s positives, but that does not negate the designer’s immorality.