Why is Picasso controversial today?

Because his treatment of women was, by any honest accounting, exploitative and often cruel. He had multiple marriages and affairs, and by the accounts of the women themselves — in memoirs, interviews, and documented history — he frequently manipulated, dominated, and discarded them. Two of his lovers died by suicide. Others described relationships that damaged them severely.

Françoise Gilot, who left him (one of the few to do so and document it), wrote Life with Picasso in 1964, a frank account that he tried to have suppressed. It remains a primary source on how he operated in relationships.

Can we separate his art from his behavior?

This is the question galleries, museums, and educators are genuinely debating. The art is real and its influence is historically documented. So is the harm. The two things coexist.

What we should not do is use his genius as a defense. Greatness in art does not immunize against accountability for harm to other people. His misogyny was not the source of his genius — it was a separate feature of his character that he chose not to examine.

Does this change how we experience his art?

For some people, yes — knowing biographical context reshapes the experience of work. For others, the art stands on its own formal terms. Neither response is wrong.

What does matter is being honest about both dimensions rather than celebrating one while erasing the other. A complete account of Picasso is a more honest one — and honesty is what great art typically demands.