Wouldn’t matter - in general, paintings are “worth” what they are simply because people have spent a lot of money on them in the past, not because of critical reception. Plus, with Picasso, most of the work is trading off of his name rather than the quality of the individual works (which were frequently sloppily dashed off and many of which were, frankly, not that great). When it’s being used as a means of laundering money, critical perception is doubly irrelevant compared to their ability to be highly commodifiable. Which, as mentioned, is why his work goes for so much money when the work of much better artists who were less prolific doesn’t.
2 Likes
