Artists stumble, but does the art?

Regarding “Artists’ Actions Versus the Art” [Jan. 16]: I’ve often wondered if or how famous people ought to be judged in view of ever-changing, generational changes in political, cultural and ethical standards. It seems every famous person has had flaws and blind spots that make them “all too human.”

I came up with this, which seems fair and which works for any period of history, including our own: If these people were/are more enlightened than their generation or era (“ahead of their time,” as we say), they earn a grade of A or B. If they were/are on a par with or in sync with their generation or era, they get a C. And if they were/are less enlightened than their generation or era (“behind the times”), they deserve a D or an F.

Thanks for stepping back and taking a thoughtful, philosophical look at an issue of the day. We need more of that. Jim Picco Santa Monica

Mr. McNulty raises two very good points: the art is not synonymous with the artist and it lives beyond the artist, and artists are flawed human beings like the rest of us.

culture expects our leaders, no matter the field or discipline, to live up to unrealistic expectations. If this goes unexamined then we are bound for perpetual disappointment. Marc Gonzalez La Crescenta

Major league baseball has been struggling with this dilemma for years with Pete Rose. Scott O’Neil Ridgecrest