so what you're saying
is that once anyone decides to produce works of art for public consumption, and, it follows that the better those works of art are the more likely it is that this happens, that they are categorically opening up their personal life for similar consumption.
that, i disagree with. you are saying that someone who's a fireman (i just read the postage stamp post above), who chooses to be a fireman (or is drawn to the profession thru some internal force) is categorically allowed to be kept as a private citizen of humanity moreso than someone who either chooses or is forced (and, most artists would agree, that there is more force involved with deciding to pursue their art) to become an artist.
i understand the reality of the situation. i'm interested however in discussing the theory of the situation. are you saying that you think it's ok/morally acceptable that artists should expect microscopic investigation of their lives?