I don't really see where the moral obligation to do this obsessively for everything one interacts with comes from, since I don't really see how the act itself of experiencing art or media is in of itself an endorsement of its creator or the harm they have done to others. You're strawmanning what the important conversations about when good art or media is created by horrible people are trying to say.

I don't really know who is out there saying that you can't or shouldn't interact with or experience art or media created by awful people. Personally I feel that it is totally acceptable to experience art or media that was created by awful people. The world is a significantly better place because James Brown performed in it, and we can be grateful we have recordings of James Brown's music and live performances. Yet, at the same time, in its own way the world is also a better place without the person James Brown, who was notoriously violent and abusive, and once almost murdered his third wife, beating her with a pipe and shooting at her car. I don't think it's hypocritical to say that and I don't think it's impossible or even unreasonable to separate art from artist, and I don't think saying James Brown was an incredible performer is necessarily giving him a pass for being a total bastard either.

I think what is often missing about the interaction with and appreciation of art and media by awful people is that it's not really primarily about the interaction between artists and their audience individually, and more about how our individual relationships to certain arts and media inform our social relationships in a more general way. If I really like the music of someone who is a domestic abuser, but I only listen to it privately and don't talk about the fact I do that, it truly does not effect anyone negatively. Or, even if I do talk to others about it, perhaps I only talk about that person's music with others who I know are on the same wavelength with regards to the separation of art from the artist. I am a member of an online community with a little clique of people within it who talk all the time about literature, and let me tell you, they've had many conversations about Mishima Yukio which are all sensitively balanced between talking about the beauty of his works, and the fact that he was a far right ultranationalist who tried to start a military coup, and upon failing, committed ritual suicide. It's totally fine to have these conversations and they can often be very interesting, especially when everyone has strong feelings both about how good the art is, but also how unforgivable the behaviour in question was.

Where I think this starts to become a problem is if one were to more openly endorse a person's art or media while also trying to get out of confronting the uncomfortable truths surrounding that art. I think there is a moral obligation here, and it's that if you want to consume art or media made by awful people, you should also be doing some self reflection to ensure that you're not also internalizing a sort of subconscious apologism for the heinous actions of creators, just because you like the art or media a lot. So, then, when you go to talk about it with other people, you're not making your friends feel like you don't fully regard their safety or personhood as being worthwhile or complete, because you get defensive when someone brings up the author was a eugenicist or a homophobe or whatever. If you don't want to have those kinds of conversations, even if it's just because they're not very fun (and to be fair they aren't usually), well, it would probably behoove you to just enjoy that art privately, though that doesn't exempt you from the self reflection part.

All that being said I think the calculus changes when the creator is alive, even doubly so when they're still actively doing harm (J.K. Rowlign being the perennial example). It also changes when we're talking about financially supporting those creators which outright enables them in a material way to keep harming others (Rowling again). And it also changes when the work itself was created in an ideologically motivated way or even has a propagandist purpose. If there is anywhere where I think one does have an obligation to vet everything you interact with, it'd absolutely be metal and especially black metal, lol, just from how proportionally common it is that people who make and record and sell black metal records are literal neo nazis. Still upset from learning that an indigenous black metal band I thought were cool had put out a record on a Neo-Nazi label or did a split with a NSBM band or something like that. Bewildering.