Does art take precedence over the artist? This question became prevalent during Sunday’s Academy Awards.

People need to be thinking more about if a person’s reputation outweighs his or her art. Woody Allen has faced allegations he molested his daughter, Dylan Farrow, more than 20 years ago. Meanwhile, his film, “Blue Jasmine,” was a Best Original Screenplay nominee.

Even though he didn’t win the award, the buzz around Allen couldn’t be ignored. Throughout Allen’s 50-plus years in film, he has been no stranger to controversy. But that hasn’t stopped him from receiving four Oscars throughout his career.

While Allen has not been convicted of molesting his daughter, his controversial situation leaves people wondering how far they can separate the artist and his work.

Viewers dig into the past and judge a director by his or her life instead of his or her work. This notion of art vs. the artist encourages people to discuss if they feel each painting, film, story or poem should be judged by its merit alone or by the reputation of its creator.

A withering reputation puts fans and movie judges in a tough situation: Giving any troubled person a golden statue would signify a form of approval for their actions, yet an award doesn’t pacify the people a troubled artist may have hurt.

Does an artist’s shaky reputation mean we should condemn the art from being celebrated? Do you think art and the artist are the same?

Discuss the interesting subject of art vs. the artist with friends and other movie-lovers.