I find this so interesting, as someone who many lifetimes ago was trying to be a museum curator, before I completely fucked up and went to law school.

It's the rage that's so confusing. Critiques of exhibits are usually a pretty mild affair; it either did its job of teaching us something about the artist or the era or the movement, or it didn't. If it didn't, the critical language usually consists of "omits" or "forgets" or "failed to address" or "it would be nice if [this aspect was included]." But apparently in this case people have gone off their onion?

Personally, I think that an exhibit centered around the worst aspect of an artist is probably not a great approach for a myriad of reasons, but mostly because people are complex and strange it's just not interesting to focus through one lens. It's why I happily recommend "The Wonderful and Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl." Nazi, yes. But incredible filmmaker, also yes. Put those two things together, and you learn a lot about the world.

That said, I wouldn't become completely unhinged about a show like this either, because as you point out it's one show at one museum, about...Picasso. He'll live, so to speak. So the reaction really is puzzling. People could shrug and move on, but instead are breathing new life into the Streisand Effect. And that's what I find fascinating; do they not know they are doing this? The museum must be thrilled.