A writer should be 'invisible' agree/disagree?

It depends what you classify as invisible. Whether it is used to mean an author who hides from the public eye and gender stereotypes like J.K Rowling did initially or whether their agendas and flaws should be present and obvious in their writing.

To an extent I agree with this statement because it allows nothing to be drawn from context to affect the reader's enjoyment of the plot and characters such as our knowledge of Cheever's alcoholism and its presence in The Swimmer. When the writer is invisible in this sense, the writing is allowed to be enjoyed and appreciated without being compromised by authorial flaws. It also allows the reader to look past any socio-political agenda and messages hidden within, like those of war that Dickinson concealed within her poetry. Without any prior knowledge of her lifespan or reclusiveness, you appreciate the language rather than trying to interpret a deeper meaning all the time.

However I do also disagree. Shouldn't a writer be appreciated for their work and recognised for their achievement? Although, any writer that is widely criticised may want to be invisible as a result of publication, such as Stephanie Meyer. Also, writer's agendas can open readers' minds to see further meaning rather than reading superficially for entertainment. 

Considering both, I think it can be a two way street and as long as the writer's background isn't negative or a public struggle, it shouldn't affect the writing to an extent where invisibility becomes the best course of action for future authors.