Every work has the author's stank all over it, it can't not. It's seen through their eyes and spoken through their lips (or fingers I guess).

Once you know what it is, it will - and should - colour your perception. If it turns out to be something toxic, then you're allowed to be viscerally repelled by it. It's okay. It's not intellectual dishonesty to have an emotional-based opinion on art ffs.

Now if you let your opinions on engineering get affected by emotion, that'd be another matter. When deciding whether a bridge is safe to carry traffic, you absolutely should not let your personal feelings about the architect factor into the decision.

But this is art we're talking about. Entertainment. Works designed specifically for emotional impact, with no value outside of that. How you feel about them is the only valid criterion.

If a work squicks you out because the author is a piece of shit, that's a genuine, valid and authentic opinion - it's pretending otherwise that would be dishonest.

And in my experience, the ones shouting the loudest about the intellectual integrity angle tend to be fanbois with a huge emotional attachment to the work from their adolescence. Buncha simps, in other words.

Which fine, feelings are valid - but they should damn well own it. If nostalgia > victims, then have the balls to just say it, don't try to well-ackchewally it into some lofty principle, because it isn't.