I Exposed the Truth About Picasso—I Didn't Expect This Reaction

Pablo Picasso died at 91 on April 8th, 1973—25 days before I was born. He created more than 50,000 pieces of known art and is considered one of the most successful artists of all time. Assemblage, collage, mixed media, and the use of artist crayons are all credited to Picasso as techniques he popularized, co-developed, or helped invent. Clearly Picasso pushed the envelope, challenged artistic boundaries, and opened the door for many artists in the future. He lived a long, prolific life. His net worth in today’s currency would be $1.3 billion.
But he was a jerk. Very few people had nice things to say about his character. His granddaughter wrote a book all about how terrible he was. He was most likely a narcissist, definitely a womanizer, and a violent, non-empathetic, unkind, tortured soul. He used and abused women, often having flings and relationships with underaged girls, and did not keep friends.
Picasso was responsible for numerous broken hearts, devastations, betrayals, and losses. Virtually not one soul remembered him as kind, gracious, longsuffering, patient, generous, or loving. Only self-serving, manipulative, and controlling.
Is all of this collateral damage for whatever boundaries he moved in the arts? Did all of these women suffer for the sake of cubism or oil pastels? Could Picasso have achieved the success he did while still being a good, decent person? Or do only twisted souls have the temperament and audacity to challenge artistic norms? Do only the mentally ill have the license to be a name remembered in history?
The Forbidden Question

The age-old question is, “Do we separate the man from his art?” Is what we create separate from ourselves or a part of ourselves? Should the character of the artist be considered, or only what they produce? Are we human beings or human doers?
I recently put out a reel facetiously giving Picasso advice—telling him that if he weren’t such a creep, he might have made even better art. I hypothesized that maybe his twisted and somewhat hideous portraits might have still achieved breakthrough in the arts but possibly could have been beautiful instead of so beastly, ill-formed, and cold.
What if the genius gifts of Picasso remained intact? What if his drive and perseverance held, but he was a good loving father, a devoted husband and valiant friend? If he inspired through kindness, generosity, and love, what could his art have looked like?
Many who commented on my reel were horrified that I could dare such a question. They told me I must separate the man from his work. They said only someone who suffered from mental illness and struggled with temper could have the capacity to push the envelope the way that Picasso did. That I was presumptuous for suggesting the contrary. He was a genius, and all geniuses are deranged! It’s the price we must pay for the gifts they leave.
But this is not truth. The man and his work are inseparable. The creation is the extension of the creator. Every utterance is a mirror of the soul. All of our pain and our overcoming are embedded in every brushstroke. Every past wound and small will towards forgiveness is recorded in our work. Our wonderments, our questions, our statements, and our findings are visible in our art. We create from inner need and desire. Our taste and choice are reflections of our life experiences. Our artistic agency is evident in how we lay down paint.
Nothing about our artwork can be separate from our being, our character, our essence.
Art and the Inner Life

What we create originates from our spirit and filters through our soul. I would even argue that there is no part of what we create that is separate from ourselves. The man and his work are one. This is why our healing and wholeness is so crucial. This is why forgiveness, letting go, and beholding love are vital. This is why creating is so spiritual and transcendent.
If only a deranged and tortured soul can break through the norms and open up new pathways of art, then it is darkness that creates these movements and new modern art. Is this why they are vacant of Beauty? Is this why our architecture and homes have become do drab and dull?
Even more, we should endeavor to create art from a place of humility and openness to the Divine source of beauty. If the creations we want to leave on this earth open portals of freedom, liberty, safety, comfort, peace, joy, and love, we must be the man or woman who esteems such things. We must be people who abide in love, endeavor to reach the valor of forgiveness, and walk in integrity at all costs.
An Artist's Legacy

We aren’t going to be perfect—not even close. We will lose our temper, make mistakes, slip back into feeling like a victim, and be short-tempered. But only for moments. This is human. But certainly we can do better than Picasso. We can own our mistakes and make amends. We can admit fault and reach our hearts for reconciliation. We can have short memories when others do us wrong. We can try to see the best in others and operate from faith, not fear.
Our art will be our legacy, but not in the way we’ve been taught to believe. It will not only testify to our talent, innovation, or productivity. It will testify to who we were. To what we loved. To what we forgave or what we refused to heal.
History does not only remember brushstrokes. It remembers the spirit behind them. And while the world may excuse cruelty in the name of genius, brokenness is not required for birthing beauty. Darkness does not get the final say on creativity.
We are not called to be tormented icons. We are called to be whole humans who create from truth, humility, courage, and love. And if our work opens doors, shapes culture, or moves hearts, let it not be because we stayed stuck in a path of darkness, but because we dared to walk in the light.
What do you hope your work says about you when you’re no longer here?
Hi Elli,
I always love to read your posts.
Sometimes I have a comment,
Sometimes not. I saw a Picasso show with original artwork of his in Madrid, Spain,
Three years ago. What surprised me the most was seeing art of him that I never saw before. He is known for his cubism,
And as you say, distorted work, but in that show much of his unknown paintings were
Exhibited. Before he went “wild” he painted matriculate and highly realistic oil paintings. Many Portraits resembling the sitter perfectly.
He had achieved this level of mastery already in his twenties. I think he was looking for new waters and in my view he reverse engineered his perfectionism. That is not an excuse for his poor character and obviously he did not learn to handle his mind in his lifetime.
I loved what you said! It made my day. I really don’t have words to express what a beautiful surprise to see this today. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Some of the personal qualities that society idolizes and promotes in order to have social cohesion are the antithesis of creativity. In order to create memorable work, you have to leave your manners at the door and be willing to say the things that others aren’t saying, to shine a light on the secrets in everyone’s closet, to be ugly and bare in a way that most people are afraid to be. Art that is born from polite, nice and compromising people rarely stirs the soul. It’s not that you have to be a social outcast to create something, but the most memorable creations come from those who were socially disagreeable.
Art, music, invention, et al., come from a deeper place or dimension. How often have we heard a writer say “the book wrote itself.” Or, a musician say, he heard the music in his dream or inwardly, before he actually sat down to assemble the composition. What was only a seed in the imagination, centuries or decades later becomes reality in invention, in technology in the world. What does any of this have to do with the good or bad choices a person makes. The good or bad choices later becomes the person/personality, but the capacity to create remains. Are we not vessels of creative force? This does not mean we cannot and don’t affect or cannot smear the creative force within us. Does the spark of creativity come from the mind, the subconcious mind, the body, the heart, the soul, the human spirit. No. These can affect the process. We can imitate it, but not originate. We are part of the process and by virtue thus create. We are vessels that can damage the intent of creativty or the original idea. Saying art and the man is interwined is pretending the man is the origin of the idea or inspiration. It is separate, though a part of the man, it is processed through the man. It is man though who can destroy the final product.
Thanks for this information. I agree that the man and the art must be taken together. Too often abhorrent behavior is excused by calling the person and/or their work “genius”. True genius would be working through our frailties and attempting to become better humans. Not perfect – no such thing – but better. I will never look at his art the same way, perhaps I’ll never look at his art again. Art is subjective, definitely, and I’ve never really liked his art, perhaps now I know why. I’m a HSP, and perhaps his ugliness comes through to me in his art. Thank you for shedding some light on this reality
Leave a comment