What are the main arguments against Picasso not being a great artist?

Art is in the well-cliched eye of the beholder.

I don’t consider hip hop “music” to be art. I don’t consider signing a urinal with a Sharpie to be art. Some people don’t consider sideways face that looks like it was painted by a 6 year old to be art.

Personally, I like quite a bit of Picasso, but I’m not a huge fan of the sideways face stuff.

Hey, if Jackson Pollack could become rich and famous by essentially emptying paint cans, why not Pablo for putting facial features in unusual places ?

Are there any?

It took me a long time to appreciate Picasso. Even longer to appreciate Miro

The progression of his work from realistic to expressionistic. (He didn’t just do the same thing over and over.) The volume of his work. The variety of materials with which he worked. People may not appreciate or understand what he produced, but there should not be a question that he was unique and a great artist.

None. He had a lot more than one style; his draftsman and representational skills were equal to those of Rembrandt.Images of Picasso, the early years.

and specifically

In order to break the form, one needs to have mastered the form first.

There’s a double negative in your question: “against… not” which implies you’re asking why Picasso is a good artist, although the rest of your question implies you’re wanting to hear why he might not be a great artist. I’m not aware of modern-day critics making arguments that Picasso isn’t a great artist. Early in his career, people objected to his work because he was among a group of artists that were pushing the boundaries of art. There are always critics who object to challenges of the status quo in their field.

@gorillapaws Yikes! Sorry I meant “What are the main arguments against Picasso being a great artist” Which does in fact assume I think he’s great ish. Thanks though

Art is subjective <ducks and runs>