The art that does not define the artist

Last week's discussion brought me back to a class I previously took called Heroes & Anti-Heroes.  This course touched upon the ideas of certain heroes having a different background than what they represented.  If an artist's background or personal choices affect the perception and reception of their work.  I would like to say that it doesn't, (because it shouldn't) but art is such an emotional extension of one's body and mind that to disregard the artist as a person would change the art and the definition of art.  The definition of art has gotten rather blurred, so its not a concrete definition, but for those who make art for arts sake or just because it looks nice still has an emotion attached to it.  I wonder how many people reconsider how they perceive someone's art once they find out more about the artist?