People that criticize Picasso invariably focus on his Cubist period. Bad idea. As some have noted, he created art in a huge range of styles over his long career and was very talented, as you might surmise from some of his conventional, early works, or even his simple line drawings. Those throw-away, simple works reveal a lot, just like the drawings and sketches of Toulouse-Lautrec.
I like the bold color of Van Gogh as much as anybody but Picasso was far more successful in his career, as measured by the art he sold. That counts for something, right?
Much of modern art is good, some of it is not. I think how a particular person's brain is wired determines how they feel about a Pollock or a Rothko. Some get it; others never will. Too often they view good/bad on the basis of whether they could replicate it, or not. That's a mistake; they can't - but they don't understand enough of the technique to know why and they fail completely in achieving the emotional connection. Some things are pleasing, some are not and the underlying reasons go unexplored. There's quite a bit of art out there that plays with how the brain interacts with colors or patterns and that's not something most people will understand unless the read a book on it. That's OK, there's other stuff out there for them.
Books on Picasso, for those inclined:
https://www.artnews.com/list/art-in-america/columns/essential-books-pablo-picasso-1234679306/a-life-of-picasso-iv-the-minotaur-years-1933-1943-by-john-richardson/