This doesn't do much for me as a criticism of Picasso (I'm not sure if that's what you intended or not). But it is an interesting question nonetheless.
As in any other form of art, I think there is a continuum in painting between art that is great because of its surface aesthetic qualities [1] and its display of technical skill, on the one hand, and works that are less accessible, and made great by their relation to other works and their broader historical situation. I certainly think that Picasso is much farther towards the second pole than Michelangelo. And there's nothing wrong with preferring Michelangelo on that basis.
The problem with this as a criticism of Picasso is that it pretends to but ultimately fails to identify any objective reason for preferring Michelangelo. I personally prefer Picasso because I think his work is interesting in the way it relates to other works of art and the ideas it communicates if you go looking for them. It's true that I would get much less of that if a Picasso work were torn from its historical context. But that's just a thought experiment. How does that relate to the value of a Picasso at it exists in the real world? (I hasten to add: to say that I prefer Picasso is not any sort of criticism of Michelangelo! I'd happily travel half way around the world to look at his work all day long as well.)
[1] This is, of course, just a first order approximation. I'm willfully ignoring the likely interplay here between so-called "aesthetic properties" (what colors look nice near each other, etc.)--and the broader cultural context.
As in any other form of art, I think there is a continuum in painting between art that is great because of its surface aesthetic qualities [1] and its display of technical skill, on the one hand, and works that are less accessible, and made great by their relation to other works and their broader historical situation. I certainly think that Picasso is much farther towards the second pole than Michelangelo. And there's nothing wrong with preferring Michelangelo on that basis.
The problem with this as a criticism of Picasso is that it pretends to but ultimately fails to identify any objective reason for preferring Michelangelo. I personally prefer Picasso because I think his work is interesting in the way it relates to other works of art and the ideas it communicates if you go looking for them. It's true that I would get much less of that if a Picasso work were torn from its historical context. But that's just a thought experiment. How does that relate to the value of a Picasso at it exists in the real world? (I hasten to add: to say that I prefer Picasso is not any sort of criticism of Michelangelo! I'd happily travel half way around the world to look at his work all day long as well.)
[1] This is, of course, just a first order approximation. I'm willfully ignoring the likely interplay here between so-called "aesthetic properties" (what colors look nice near each other, etc.)--and the broader cultural context.