General Discussion

We appreaciate visual, auditory, and written art by the feelings and thoughts they invoke in us.

Art has inherent value -- apart from the artist, who may not fully embody or live up to the ideas in the art they created. Artists are human beings. As such they have flaws, and can change for "better or worse" (subjective judgments) during the course of their lives.

Which does not change the inherent value of the art they created.

In the art of music, I'm a big fan of The Kinks. I think Ray Davies is a genius, if such a term can be applied to a writer of popular songs. I've read that Ray could be a real jerk at times, an egotistical tyrant especially towards his own brother (a very underrated guitarist who created some great riffs that influenced the course of rock music).

Which does not change my fondness for The Kinks. Heck, I still like the instrumental "Hibernation" by Ted Nugent, whom I thoroughly despise as a person.

There is Art, and there is the Artist. They cannot be entirely separated, but it is possible to reject one and not the other.

What's my point?

Essentially, I'm agreeing with the OP. Artists don't always meet our expectations. Take what you like, discard the rest . Don't let their evolution (or devolution) burst your bubble.

It is not wise to reside inside a bubble.