���챬��

Whether we can separate the art from the artist is an age-old conundrum. Each time a celebrity is accused of a horrific personal deed, such as the recent claims around J.K. Rowling, Sean “Diddy” Combs and Woody Allen, the discussions may get more heated — but conclusions are few.

Yahoo News recently examined this concept and spoke with James Harold, Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Philosophy at ���챬��. Harold’s most recent book, explores whether it is possible to morally evaluate art, and what this might mean for the value of an artwork.

“If a person does something that I find to be really repugnant, morally speaking, then I will have an unconscious sense that close, intimate contact with things they’ve created may affect or corrupt me in some vague, hard-to-specify manner,” he said.

According to Harold, our reactions are also a reflection of how we see ourselves.

“Much of separating the art from the artist is expressive behavior,” he continued. “It has to do with a person’s self-conception, who they think they are. ... We associate art as expressing something about the humanity of the person who made it, and so then you don’t want to be affiliated with that human being.”