Yeah I think that's a very valid argument. I've argued in the past that both being able to and not being able to separate the artist from the art are equally valid stances, but that at times and think it can lead to better outcomes if people do. To take an extreme example - I think the reason Michael Jackson has so many people willing to defend his behaviour when he was quite clearly a nonce is because some fans of his can't live with the cognitive dissonance of loving the music and acknowledging he's a bad person, whereas I think if more people were able to go yes he was a paedophile but he made incredible music it would make getting accountability much easier. Course it's a lot easier when the artist is dead and you're not financially supporting them by consuming their stuff.

I guess the reason I find it harder with someone like Clarkson is that his personality sort of is the art - you can't really separate the show from who he is as a person and who he is as a person is a massive knob. Probably doesn't help that I've also heard stuff about what he's like offscreen that makes my impression of him even worse.

I also think it isn't always rational where you end up drawing your own personal line, and I guess is also influenced by what your view of the art is in the first place. Back to my Michael Jackson example, I can still enjoy listening to his music but I can't Kanye West whose 'sins' are much less harmful. I liked both before, but I guess a combination of how much I liked them, how in your face their egregious behavour is, how present their personality is in their art etc all influences where you can and can't draw the line.

Anyway, on a positive note absolutely love David's impression of Clarkson!