>The answer to the art-artist conundrum is deeply personal. There is no way to produce a collective moral standard to arrive at a conclusive distinction between art and the artist.

This is a reasonable, but not practical, conclusion. This issue derives from the larger "ethical consumption" debate. The answer does not lie with art or artist, or an analyses of either, but majority consensus on ethical implications.

In other words, this debate only gains teeth when imposed on society, removing personal choice from a minority of the population.

For example, Russian sanctions are an example of society rejecting consumption. While boycotting most artists (and their art) is an example of society embracing consumption, by leaving the decision up to the individual.

Similarly, companies choosing to distance themselves from artists are an example of society banning consumption. This last example usually leaves a significant amount of consumers angry, which is why the art-artist and "cancelling" debates are so popular.

I have a cynical perspective on this issue: most people don't care, and those who do, shouldn't. It does not matter if you separate art from artist. What matters is if you should, or if you are allowed to, consume the art.

If you can't consume the art unless it is separated from the artist, for whatever reason, then you should not consume it.

TLDR: Should you separate art from artist? No.