Which I think is part of the issue raised when I managed to subvert this thread from its perfectly decent original purpose. The quality of Damien Hirst's work is open to debate, but his response to Cartrain indicates that irrespective of the that, he has some vile attitudes going on.

Curious how these ethical debates centre on writers, film-makers, painters, sculptors, musicians, whatever Damien Hirst is etc. We don't have quite the same concerns about houses, clothes, roads, food, trains and so on. If the pavement from my house to the shops was recently resurfaced by one of the most miserable bastards who ever lived, I don't think I'd consider another route, or worry too much about it. There are issues that are superficially similar e.g. avoiding clothes and shoes made by child workers on poverty wages, but the considerations are different.

You're right that we don't apply the same criterion to other pieces of work: perhaps it has to do with the romantic notion that when we buy a work of art, we are buying a little piece of the maker's soul. If other aspects of that soul are corrupt, maybe the creative product and the transaction are tainted, too?

Buying art is elective, personal and intimate. Maybe a better comparison is with politics and organised religion where we do subscribe with passion & conviction: and we also exert a similar judgmentalism when confronted with the moral fallibility of priests and politicians. Though even that is not a true comparison because career politicians and professional faith leaders trade to a great extent on their probity, whereas artists are expected, if anything, to be a bit wayward & louche.
 

"career politicians and professional faith leaders trade to a great extent on their probity"

 :-|

I wonder if any of these nasty people had anticipated Google and Twitter, they would have not done some things.

apparent probity, I should have said...