This is a big point of discussion right now, moreso than it ever has been, what with the ideas of whether or not people should have "trigger warnings" or discussions over if a piece of a art is "problematic" or not. Usually these discussions are framed in a hyperbolic/strawman kind or way over whether or not these pieces of art should be censored. I wholly object censorship, but I don't think that should let an artist off the hook for any kind of piece of work. They should still be open to criticism if there is morally objectionable aspects to their creation. Read the spoiler if you need context for this discussion:
(I truly believe that a film like MOTHER! does get a pass for how bombastically stylistic it is despite it being, at its core, morally objectionable. But that's just one film - please don't turn this poll into a discussion over that film - I am stating the specific reason behind this poll just for context as to why it's being posted at all. This is just something I've mulled over a long time.)
Personally, I believe some pieces of art can be morally objectionable and that that's as important part of criticism as the ideas of style, if not more important, if only because it tells me more where the person belongs on a moral spectrum in relation to mine. Anyone can appreciate an assured, precise style, not everyone can interpret where a film morally lies for them.