With the recent release of Polanski's latest thriller The Ghost Writer, one of the oldest debates in art has been dragged into the 21st century with a sharp edge - can and should you separate a work of art from its creator?

Polanski's long-gestating now headline court case is the reason for his notoriety. But should reviews of his work, both printed and personal, be affected by his private actions or views?

My favourite case of this kind is the underrated British poet Philip Larkin. A genuine master of lyrical honesty and dark humour, he was a misanthrope with a host of crappy views - racist, misogynist, and a pretty pathetic man. But reading his masterpiece High Windows, I'm not thinking about his anti-Semitism, I'm engulfed by the beauty of the words.

Likewise with The Ghost Writer - my critical reaction was not affected by any views on his misdemeanours. The film stands on its own as a competent thriller with some splashes of Polanski's genius, but many more workmanlike elements drag it down to the "nothing special category".

Ultimately the fervour surrounding the release here has been limited - the film's limited release is the main explanation. But it ought open a greater debate about how we separate art from artists.