Comment by qarl

To try to make myself clear I've taken your comments and quoted them out of order. Hopefully why will make sense.

> Well, are you saying people shouldn't complain?

I don't have issue with people pointing out Picasso's faults, complaining as it were. I have an issue if they try to use those faults to erase any good actions and deny others in society the benefit of those good actions.

> And before that overwhelming majority is convinced, people may spend effort trying to convince them.

I'm fine with the societal wide debates being had and repeatedly had. Societal expectations change over time, things that were detested can become fine and vice versa. This is what we're doing now.

> So where exactly is your problem with this process?

I think my problem with this societal wide debate process is with the actions taken based on the overwhelming majority. Societal debates often (not always!) promote blunt outcomes that lack nuance because convincing large groups of people of simple outcomes is easier. The extreme of this blunt outcome promotion are things like three-word-sloganisms, "Ban the bomb!" or similar but usually it doesn't quite devolve that far. But for example, debates on social media resulted in "under 16's banned" in Australia.

Whereas the correct action often depends on context and nuance which involves a proper understanding of the issue.

To demonstrate what I mean about context and nuance I have a bunch of questions about your sentence.

> Certainly if an overwhelming majority think he was too horrible to display his art, you would agree that it's fine to remove his art, right?

"overwhelming majority" - of society? Or of Art experts/academics/researchers? Both?

"to display his art" - to display in general admissions access of an art gallery? To display in a paid admission only side gallery? To display in an advert/tv show/biographical-documentary/my-house/my-front-porch?

"to remove his art" - to what degree of societal removal? Not allowed in free public access but available at the art gallery in a paid ticket side room? Available only on request? Available only to art historians and researchers? Put in storage not to be seen for 50 years? Destroyed but current visual replicas like photos are fine. Censored outright and any replica image of any of the work is banned?

In this particular instance regarding Picasso, his personal life and his art I think society has the balance largely right today. His art is a passive content in that it requires people to go seek it out. Those who dislike Picasso's wrongdoings so much they can't dissociate it from his art won't be subjected to it. Those who view it from the art angle can gain benefit from it as they seek it out.

If Picasso was used in an ad campaign - where it is actively pushed at people - then I think questions would rightly be raised.

To try to guess where I think you were going with this in a reasonable sense: If an overwhelming majority of society was confirmed as thinking the art was too horrible for public display, it would be a clear signal to the art galleries that they won't derive visits from hosting his art. And they'll probably take it down voluntarily because they usually want visitors. But it will still be available for art dealers/historians/researchers/private individuals or the future when society may decide they're ok with seeing it publicly again. And I think that's fine.

If an overwhelming majority of society wanted the art destroyed/banned/censored then I would argue that is too far. If there is a non-harming societal benefit to his art to 1%, then why not let them have that benefit? They could buy it and stick it in their house...

To reaaaaallly stretch the example, if an overwheming majority of Art Experts argue the art is magically convincing people that blatant misogyny is fine then maybe the art should be destroyed.