Horrible people - good artists? Moral dilemma

Although I really found it a good movie and appreciated having seen it, I also find it quite frustrating to witness how horible Dali and Bunuel were. I used to appreciate their art without having the background about their lives, excepts for the part about the Surrealist movement, which also made me appreciate them. Now it changes my point of view about their art as well and leaves me confused. I have a moral conflict about liking their art and also find it devaluated in a way because I can't justify what they did and how they were to Lorca, which must be reflected on their art, otherwise it's like they aren't true to what they were doing, like for instance Bunuel, who is criticising bourgoeisie, but himself and also Dali are acting quite rude and having some principles and some rude ways of acting (permitting themselves everything, acting quite elitist) that aren't that anarchist and are actualy more bourgeois if you look at it from that point of view. And also the Andalusian dog was supposed to be a surrealist movie, meaning that it wasn't infused with some message or meaning, but the images being free associations coming from their subconsciouss, whereas it seems like the title is there on purpose, refering directly to Lorca as being the Andalusean dog. How do you look at this? Does it change the image you have of one's art if you discover it wasn't compatible with who they were as a person or you separate the two and don't care?