An Australian newspaper has an article on a popular TV show using a Gary Glitter song.

Plenty of complaints but interestingly a poll they ran says 58% of readers think it's ok.

Should art be judged according to it's creator?

Should Hitler's paintings be burnt? (They should have been from an artistic point of view but that's not what I'm talking about).

Article

At the time of their creative lives Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo were both living lives that even today could be regarded as sinful.

Dante Gabriel Rossetti similarly went against the mores of his time, as did Byron, Shelley and a host of others. Picasso was a well-known satyr.

Should we condemn the work, because of the man?

If we did the world would indeed be a drab place.

While I condemn the lifestyle of these and many other people, I admire the ouevre they left behind for our further enlightenment.

Edit:

However in the particular question of this GG piece played in a soap that I abhor, I would say that the producer / director are to be condemned for selecting a second-rate piece of pop (that was not even a great hit when it was written) when there are dozens, if not hundreds, of just-as-suitable puff pieces around. Probably solely because of the furore that it would cause, thus gaining some publicity for a show that should be off any entertainment channel in any TV cable/satellite bouquet.

Of course art should not be judged by it's creator....unless the message of the art is despicable also.

It's a simmilar question that has been raised recently in NZ....a convicted paedopjile was refused entry onto a kidney donor list. Unbelievable that it is even a topic of debate,,,,what has the man's morals/actions/beliefs go to do with his kidney or his art??