Our attitude is supposed to be questioned and changed through analysis, it is the nature of developing a deeper perspective on any subject. It is natural for us to feel unsettled by the meaning of the artwork or what fueled it since it might be a new perspective and contrasts with our expectations.

To understand how the art was made requires to understand the artist behind it which includes with it all their values and past beliefs immoral or moral. If it is analyzed this way, it is impossible to separate the artwork from the artist.

Reminds me of people saying "You cannot hate it because of (insert person that represents some community)."

I see this happening in the game industry and it actually somewhat pains me a lot. There is an argument to be made though about values. I remember in one game (Genshin) there are regions essentially representative of real life cultures and there was backlash whenever the African/Latin American region had zero dark skinned characters. I think in that situation, it is justifiable since these are real people being represented here even if it fictional. In most cases though if the artwork was never good in the first place, it is difficult to justify inclusion.

I see this thrown around a lot and I can't help but question whether or not this is true. I remember being so happy seeing The Boy and the Heron winning the Oscars for Animated Film last year but it meant that Spiderman lost and let's just say there were some unhappy about it. I wonder if it was somewhat fueled by a moral obligation that they had to give the award since the film might be his last. On the other hand, it was the first hand drawn film in more than a decade to win and the first animated pg-13 film to win. It set a precedence for the power of animation to be more than just "kid's film." It is a difficult balance they are trying satisfy.