Creativity entails a degree of sensitivity. Art is not solely born of learned skills and intense study. There is a natural element too, something ingrained in one's being--the combination of perception and translation. Not to negate craft, which is as instrumentally important to creative development. But if one appears gifted in this realm, it is likely because of an awareness that was in turn nurtured. This is as rudimentary as the nature Vs. nurture argument.
But can we continue to support these public figures (because that is what they have become by being entertainers, and by putting their art into view), when we hear of their involvement with misdemeanors, addiction, abuses, misogyny, corruption etc. As moral citizens and consumers, can we reward or promote these people, when they have so clearly partaken in bad behavior? Of course, there is media spin that must be taken into account. But what about when we know these people on a personal level, as well? And we've seen them in action---both as the figurehead and the homebody. What if we know so much of who they are that we lose appreciation for the work they produce, the talent they possess. Can we be both fan and friend, after we have witnessed the gratuitous details, and seen the artist/entertainer/public persona in a negative light?
Don't we in some way want the idol to look up to? The total package. The nice guy or girl, and the accomplished individual. Don't we want art to remain in our minds, as something pure, untouchable, and possibly transcending?
In how many ways do the flaws of man, pervert and pollute the true nature of things? And how much of this, is all a matter of perception?