A fourth form (year 10) creative writing class has taken over the marketing department of our National Museum:
"OMG" the class clowns said to each other (or whatever it is the kids say these days to express wide-eyed wonderment) "the wikipedia page on Picasso reckons people had sex before 1990! Well, it reckons he did, at least. That must be why he's so famous. This is newsworthy - let's mangle a few synonyms together into a really long sentence."
And so they looked up
1. Picasso was prolific; not his art nor his relationships.
2. How many works of art does a relationship need to equal, for Picasso to have been as prolific a relationship producer as he was an artist? 50 paintings for every lover? A painting a kiss? Are we counting sketches here? What about one night stands?
3. The first half of the sentence is only grammatical as a reversal of the phrase "His relationships with his many lovers and several wives were as interesting...". What you actually meant, I expect, was something different: "As he had many lovers and several wives, his relationships were as interesting..."
4. Why, if his relationships were as interesting as his art, was it the art that created the real sensation?
5. How can something non-revolutionary be as interesting as something revolutionary AND real-sensation-creating?
6. Does a New Zealand audience really need a generalised gloss reminding us that this guy was a real arsehole of a ladies man before they'll go see a picture by Picasso?