Can you appreciate art created by a pervert?

This question was sparked after re-watching the deliciously dark and brooding movie 'Joker'.

For anyone that hasn't seen it yet, this is a masterclass performance by the ever-brilliant Joaquin Phoenix in the movie's title role. It charts his descent into mental instability and nihilism, that ultimately provides the spark for violent chaos on the streets of Gotham City.

In one of the movie's most memorable scenes, Phoenix emerges with a new-found self-confidence and swagger after killing for the first time. No longer is he Arthur Fleck, a failed clown and pitiful stand-up comedian. He has now transformed. Cavorting on-screen, as the Joker.

As he contorts and writhes on the cascading stone steps outside his apartment block, suitably attired in a vivid red suit and made-up facepaint, 'Rock and Roll (Part 2)' provides the soundtrack.

I was gripped by the power of the scene. I couldn't help being carried along by the energy of the track, tapping away to the thump of its bassy beat. It was only later that I realised the track was by the infamous Paul Francis Gadd, better known by his stage name?Gary Glitter.

The former glam rock singer?was disgraced after being convicted of a number of child sex offences, and jailed for 16 years.

As a dad of three, Glitter's crimes are utterly abhorrent to me. And yet, here I was humming along to one of his tracks. It struck me hard. By appreciating the track, was I in some roundabout way, lessening his crimes?

Glitter isn't the only one. Michael Jackson (Child abuse), R. Kelly (enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity), Alex O'Connor, aka Rex Orange County (sexual assault), and frontman Ian Watkins from Welsh alternative rock outfit 'Lostprohets' (sentenced to 35 years for disturbing sex crimes). Just some of the names on the roll call of shame.

But, would these odious crimes stop you attempting to moonwalk at the agency Christmas party to 'Smooth Criminal'?

After the sex abuse allegations surrounding Michael Jackson surfaced, a number of radio stations around the world, as well as Spotify,?took the moral highground and dropped the King of Pop from their playlists. But not the BBC.

They "consider each piece of music on its merits."

So, back to the question.

Can you appreciate art created by a pervert???

Whether it's a book, a painting, a song, or a movie, how do we feel about that art when it's created by people who sicken us?

Can we compartmentalise and choose to focus on appreciating the creative talent, while ignoring the tendencies?

Can the two ever be mutually exclusive?

Discuss.