It's a debate that can never truly be decided. Some of us, prefer to keep the personal influence away from the at. It leaves us with full-range freedom to interpret and personally relate to on our own terms. Others (like me), like to study the history behind the piece and find out who the creator was, and why he did it. It gives us a better understanding behind the true meaning of the piece. The "piece" you see, is art. Movie, music, a painting, a photograph, doesn't matter. It's all just a matter of who's perspective you choose to have.
And it isn't just the matter of what you see, but what you associate it with.
Let me give you an example: My screenwriting professor (the one who first brought this concept into my mind) can't stand to watch any Roman Polanski films. Despite how brilliant they might be, story and or visually, my professor just couldn't see past Polanski's infamous sexual abuse case against thirteen year old, Samantha Gailey. Now see, last year I watched the film "The Pianist" for the first time, and fell madly in love with it. I had no knowledge of the director Polanski's background. Now, if I had, would I have even watched the film? Who knows. But now that I have seen the film, I refuse to let my personal prejudices against Polanski affect my view on his marvelous film. The movie is incredible, even if Polanski himself, is not. It's all a matter of personal preference.
Now, on the other hand, I can vouch for the opposite side of the story. I am a fan of a lot of music, generally in the rock/metal/pop/punk genres. Well, there is a pop-punk band called 'The Story so Far.' I never really listened to them a lot, but I could have named you a few good jams by them. Then one day, this video of the vocalist, Parker Canon, kicking a young female fan off his stage for taking a selfie. I don't mean metaphorically kicking, I mean he physically jumped up and kicked her center of the back and knocked her off the stage, into the crowd. There was a lot of debate like "well she shouldn't have gotten on the stage in the first place" or "she shouldn't waste time trying to take a selfie" which, may be true. But she was also a teenage fan who was probably having the time of her life and simply wanted to capture the moment. This incident led me to lose any and all respect for Parker Canon and his band. Because let's face it, it can be pretty upsetting when you find out the creator of something you love (music or movies) turns out to be a gigantic asshole, or in Polanski's case, a possible rapist.
I'm so flip-floppy on this whole thing. I personally LOVE to find out the history behind my favorite creators, and often times even meet them. I mean, there is nothing like being a fan of a musician, and then meeting them and seeing that they are just as good of a person as they are an artist. Or (and this has happened to me before too) being a fan and then meeting the artists to discover they are actually just rotten people. After that incident, I stopped being a fan.
ANOTHER point of this conversation is just on personal moral values. It's one thing if an artist you admire turns out to be a rapist or a killer. But what about Tom Cruise and his Scientology? Or Clint Eastwood in his (in my opinion unfavorable) political views? Do those things matter? To me, no. I am no republican, but I still admire and firmly believe Clint Eastwood is one of the most iconic actors in the history of film. Hell, I'm not even a 100% sure what Scientology is. The other day I discovered the actor Chris Pratt is a christian. Though I personally am not one, does that stop Pratt form being constantly hysterical on my favorite show 'Parks & Rec'? No. No, it doesn't. But for a lot of others, it does.
I could go either way honestly. I guess it ultimately just depends what we discover first: the art or the artist. Specifically the artists reputation.
What do you guys think? Is it better to just focus on the art and not focus on the creators? Or is it better to find out who the creator is first and what their intentions are?