It seems pretty clear to me, especially with the context provided in the article itself: don't judge an artist solely by the last thing they made; don't write them off just because they're going through a bad patch.
At the same time, artists of every kind have to contend with the fact that this is currently a golden age for art. We are confronted with more art of every kind than we could ever consume. The cost for moving on has never been lower.
So while an artist should be allowed to have down periods, it also shouldn't be surprising if people move on. We're not looking for needles in haystacks anymore, we're looking for needles in a stack of needles. There may be value in coveting needles and hay from a particular artist, but that's an intensely personal decision to make.
It is preferable to take a more nuanced approach to judging artists, looking at their entire career and recognizing the inherent subjectivity of artistic appreciation, but people have a perfect right to judge an artist on a work of art, it simply shows a certain closed-mindedness
