Ethical dilemmas degrading art

So I have thought about the question of Ethical dilemmas degrading what we think of the quality of art. I ask, is it possible to put aside all ethical considerations of a work of art just to consider it for art's sake? This leads me to another thought, is it right to ignore the ethical concerns brought up by the artist? For instance, I think that Russel Crowe is one of the best current actors, but I find his off-camera behavior reprehensible. In this case I was able to separate the artist from the art to appreciate the art. After all, Crowe is simply an ass. And while I think he is a great actor, his performances have little effect on my core emotions.
But I found it more difficult to separate the author Orson Scott Card, who wrote some books that were deeply important to me. I have a strong emotional attachment to his writing. But I am also strongly rooted in my belief that homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally normal and that all people are created equal.
Card however is an outspoken homophobe, and while that never came up in his writing, I find it hard to forget about it when I'm reading his work. Which makes me wonder if it's the right thing to do. I realize that this is more me asking questions than presenting a point, but it's something that I've been wondering about.
Question: Is it morally right to separate an artist from his work if we find the artist's own morals questionable?