The Art vs. the Artist

This weekend, I saw a play-Dutchman. I went into it essentially blind, not knowing anything about it, except that Dule Hill from The West Wing was in it and it had something to do with race relations.

It was ... interesting. And I'm not writing that because I thought it was bad. I'm writing that because I don't know what I thought of it. It was fast and violent and controversial.

After the play, the playwright--Amiri Baraka--spoke. He had some interesting, umm communist, views. Afterwards, I found the NY Times review of the play, which contained some more information about the playwright. Among other things, he has been accused of anti-Semitism. He's the one that wrote that poem about how the Jews knew about September 11th and so didn't show up to work that day.

And I'm not sure if that should change the way I viewed the play itself (which I'm still trying to digest). Does the playwright matter in the ultimate manifestation of the play? Should you think of the artist when you look at a painting? The author when you read a book? If he made some valid points about racism in his play and if he is a good writer, then his art should stand by itself, right?

Right?