No way this cancel thing could ever thrive outside of such a deeply neoliberal society where art is indistinguishable to entertainment. Disposable, tainted goods, cancel it, on to the next thing.
The ontological assumptions on art at work here are a bit Freudian. The notion that art is the expression of some psychological pathology of the artist. That all interpretaions of art are analysis of the artists' subconscious life. Art is part of the artist made visible, expressed in creative form.
Jung had an opposite view. Art can be an autonomous complex, a world in itself, created by workings of the collective unconscious channelled through the artist. He thought Freud's approach was stripping the artwork of its essential nature - the only thing that makes art interesting in the first place:
"The golden gleam of artistic creation - the original object of discussion - is extinguished as soon as we apply to it the same corrosive method which we use in analysing the fantasies of hysteria. The results are no doubt very interesting and may perhaps have the same kind of scientific value as , for instance, a post-mortem examination of the brain of Nietzsche, which might conceivably show us the particular atypical form of paralysis from which he died. But what would this have to do with Zarathustra?
I tend to fall somewhere in the middle. I dont think that art can't be seperated completely from the artist, as some spirit passing through your body as a means of creative manifestation. But people are complex, they're not one thing. The Miles Davis who played trumpet like that is not the same Miles Davis that beat his wife.