Judging historical people on today's social standards. . .

[AussieMick]

I believe that 'beautiful works of art which move us and contribute to the fabric of our lives' exist in their own right. If the person who created them was flawed or corrupt or in any way despicable by our own standards then we can criticise their actions in that regard. But to ignore/criticise a great work of art because the author was fallible or weak or immoral (by the standards of the time or our own standards) in their daily life is nonsensical.

What type of a person was William Shakespeare? Was he anti-semitic? A misogynist? Was he faithful to his wife? Did he murder anybody? Did he plagiarize any works? We cannot be certain. Obviously though there are some historical figures who we know were immoral, or had (what most people would consider) twisted ideals, or committed criminal acts whilst also producing great works of art.

Richard Wagner 'wrote a violently antisemitic booklet in the 1850s called Das Judebthum in die Musik (Judaism in Music) insisting the Jews poisoned public taste in the arts. He founded the Bayreuth festival, which in the 1930s and 1940s was used by the Nazi party as a propaganda tool against the Jews.'
https://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/arts/musReich.htm

He also composed Der Ring des Nibelungen.

One of Britain's greatest poets was John Milton (Paradise Lost,"When I Consider How My Light is Spent" ). But he was a strong defender of Oliver Cromwell (who massacred many Irish) and held strong anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic views (IMO).

Charles Dickens has been criticised for his views on slavery and genocide ( Christopher Hitchens, The Dark Side of Dickens)