For me it's the same: Mark the human being comes first, and his music is of course the result of it. I know I may be opening a can of worms here, but all art is imho directly connected to its creator and the circumstances it was created in. The more you know about the background, the more interesting a piece of art will become. So, as soon as the creator is forgotten, the art will lose a lot of its meaning (with the exception, maybe, of instrumental music and abstract art). I mean, if you look at a 3000-year-old Greek statue, you may think it's beautiful but it doesn't mean a thing, but if you look at a sculpture by Michelangelo and you know the story behind it, it will somehow come alive.
I strongly disagree with this. Yes, knowing something about the author, artist, composer, etc. may/can/will shed light on their works of art. It's interesting for the sake of analysis, but first of all I think a work of art should speak for itself. Secondly, there are authors/artists/composers who I find totally unsympathetic, whose political/religious views I strongly disagree with, people who may be outright a$$holes, but whose works of art still are amazing.
Having been so interested in Mark the artist and person, over so many years, has ruined my view of his art in a way. I really wish I knew lot less about him. A lot of the mystery is gone. All the interviews, all the insights (through Guy for example) have actually contributed to lessening my interest. As I have discovered other artists and musicians, I have a made it a point to know very little about them. Maybe just some elementary facts, but that's it.
