An aesthetic evaluation of art is not the same as a moral evaluation of the artist. The author's case for not separating the artist from the art is entirely unconvincing. Your example of Bill Cosby is excellent. Unless you fixate upon the writer and performer as the immoral creature that he is, his performances range from hilarious in his stand-up to convincing in his dramatic roles. This does not make him a good person, any more than a bad artistic performance by anyone else makes them a bad person. His moral imperfections do not make his performances bad. There are many examples of persons whose vile behavior was only discovered after their death. They were evil, but this does not diminish their performance or their creations. If you want to refrain from purchasing their artistic contributions, I would not disagree with you. If Mr. Cosby's planned stand-up tour happens, I will not be attending, but that does not mean the performances he gives will be poor nor that his humor will be inadequate. I would never condemn anyone who said they cannot make the separation practically, but I do not see that the separation is logically impossible.

Well stated