Most any article on Picasso and the women in his life term them as "muses". I think that ties them in to his art pretty closely. I agree that a "bad person" ca

Most any article on Picasso and the women in his life term them as "muses". I think that ties them in to his art pretty closely. I agree that a "bad person" can get positive things done. This is pretty much exactly what I am saying. But I am also saying to separate the action from the person when it comes to admiration or disavowal. In the context of multiple actions of varying perceived moral quality then understandably this will lead to mixed feelings. But still hold a person responsible for their actions, especially when it comes to judging to how to interact with them in future. IE you CAN hate fossil fuels and enjoy plane trips. But the hate should reduce the enjoyment. If you claim to hate burning fossil fuels with every fibre of your being AND claim enjoyment from a long plane trip then one claim or the other is not a true statement. I don't care much for art. So to me, Picasso's wrongs weigh much more than his societal contribution. He is a despicable person of history. But I can understand that others may not see him as a despicable person of history if they really think his art was a cosmically great contribution - maybe they seem him as a terribly flawed genius. But if they deny his wrongdoings altogether, we're in for an argument of facts.