(Debate) Could you seperate the art from the artist?

TW: Slight mentions of problematic media

(I honestly have no idea which category this belongs to.)

Ive been thinking about reading this webcomic called "sparklecare hospital" since its unique artstyle grabbed my interest, but due to its creator "kneeby" being problematic (*ahem* *ahem* the webcomic being an secret incest fetish) ive always wondered...

"Could you really seperate the art from the artist?"

Now, lets talk about the term "seperating the art from the artist", what does it mean? In my belief this term is used as a sorta "coping method" for when an artist, known for their amazing work is suddenly known for a darker reason when then gives them a bad reputation, leaving people to still wonder if their work can still be seen the same way before and if they can still follow their creation anymore, causing them to still support the work but not support the creators actions.This doesn't just apply to just art itself, it applies to all types of media such as music, games, movies/tv shows, ect.

Whats considered to be seperated or to be stuck with the artist?

While you can seperate the artist's actions from the art, should the art itself be proven "innocent "? Their are some problematic media (ex: Alfred's playhouse) that people do not tend to seperate the art from the artist and would rather leave the art stuck with the artist, but whats the line between acceptable and unacceptable? How problematic could a media be to no longer be saved?

(Id love to hear your opinions in the comment section, but i like to mention that everyone should respect everyone's opnions even if their different from your beliefs ^^)