This video is incredibly made and made me think about the question: "Does the actions of the artist affect the art?". Well i don't know a specific answer on to where to draw the line, i know that there is a point in which the art can be tainted by the actions of the artist. I remember seeing a meme showing an old, classic oil painting of the streets of a European countryside, and the caption read "Do you think the painting is good?" Or something along those lines, and i agreed they did look somewhat good, until the meme revealed that it was drawn by Hitler, to which i promptly felt a disliking to the sight of the art. I don't think yourself or any others would agree with you wholeheartedly if you say that Hitler's art is great. They'd probably feel a bit nauseous or uneasy by that statement. So yes, i believe there is a certian point in which the artist affects the art. Along with the ending, when you remarked that Dr. Suess day is mostly celebrating his creations and rarely if ever Dr. Suess himself. That reminded me of a quote i heard online saying "Never trust your heros or the celebrities at first. With the power of the camera and some simple editing, they can knly show you what they want you to see. You will never be able to completely know the person, as all the bad can simply just be not recorded. You only love who they want you to love, and never themselves entirely." Idk what that contributes but take that as what you will
A lot of idyllic statements like this are never really fully true, with either the artist not representing what they are saying or not living up to the image the public has presented about them. I think public image is almost inherently fake. So it's no surprise to me that Dr. Seuss was a douchebag in real life, the world is just that dark and messed up, but who knows. I believe someone like Mr. Rogers was a genuinely kind human being.
