People are ragging on you for this question, but it is an important, and not an uncommon one at all. Thanks for being brave enough to ask it publicly. I have w

People are ragging on you for this question, but it is an important, and not an uncommon one at all. Thanks for being brave enough to ask it publicly. I have wondered this myself. People think they recognize great art because of its inherent qualities, ignoring the hard to dispute fact that culture, fashion, and economics influences a lot of what we consider great in art. Tastes change over time, and the pantheon is always in flux, even though the art itself is still the same. So, of course people can look at something and "fail" to recognize its genius! That's not to say that some things aren't better than other things, or that everything is relative. Only that the relationship between aesthetics and culture is complicated and woven together in a way we struggle to untangle in ourselves, let alone more broadly. In the particular case of Picasso, I think I can look at paintings like Guernica and Man with a Guitar and say "well, shit, there's something going on here that deserves my attention". But there are other widely-hailed artists I don't respond to in this way. I think they're garbage, and people are crazy for paying millions of dollars for their work. Maybe I'm deluding myself. The only thing I'd challenge you on is your confidence that you'd always recognize certain Michelangelo works as genius (with the implication that they are universally and timelessly good, not just that you would happen to personally like them). All I can say is that I'm not sure I am confident that I would pass that test. I guess there's no accounting for taste.