Thoughts on Bias and the separation of Artist and Art

I’ve been reading a book on Frank Lloyd Wright for an internship I’m doin. ‘m not terribly knowledgeable about architecture, but I love the interior spaces he managed to create by “braking the box” as they say, as well as his use of natural light.  However, besides the fact that I enjoy his spaces, I’m liking him less and less with each page, it’s raised some interesting questions.  First is one on bias.  I’ve always heard that women are harder on other women but the writer of this biography seems excessive.  Granted, there does seem to be evidence that FLW’s mother wasn’t the nicest woman in the world, but where does one get off using words like “indescretion” and “breech of conduct” for the son’s innumberable affairs and humiliation of his various wives and “mad,” “cold and cruel,” and “unforgivable,” etc. for the mother?  It seems just plain biased.  But why?

The author also prefaces the book writing that it is easy to forget that the man is in the art when looking at FLW’s life,meaning that it is easy to want to dismiss him after learning about his various scandals and personal defects.  I believe the reverse.  It seems to me that people are always making absurd excuses for the behavior of geniuses which they wouldn’t dare make for anyone else.  However, I had to wonder how much we can separate the artist from the art?  Many of my English professors were trained in the Formalist school, which states that there is a text which one analyze, which lives on its own,in spite of and beyond its writer.  But even so I suppose that we do look at all information within the environment in which it was created and within our own current environment.  And the author of this biography seems to be suggesting that we look at FLW only through the lens of his architecture. But is that honest?

I should have taken more philosophy classes….