I think it might be part of confusing a person's talent with their moral worth. If somebody produces a great work of art, then they can't be bad. Otherwise, you would feel guilty for appreciating the work. People do this with Heidegger all the time, but in the other direction (Heidegger did bad things, therefore the products of his talent must be bad).
I blame the idea (that starts with, or at least around, Kant as far as I know) that the Genius is some kind of singular individual whose work stems from his or her essence. So, bad people can't produce good works.
--- On Tue, 9/29/09, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
> From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Polanski
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 6:25 PM
>
> On Sep 29, 2009, at 5:31 PM, Dennis Claxton wrote:
>
> > There's nothing so-called about it. Polanski
> pleaded guilty and the facts are hardly in dispute.
>
> I don't get the cultural elite's reaction. So it's not
> under dispute that the guy drugged and raped a 13-year-old
> girl, right? Call me a hardass, but that sort of thing
> deserves some serious time. Running off to Paris for 35
> years is hardly a substitute. Am I wrong?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>