Picasso occupies a remarkably sustained position in the depth-psychological corpus, functioning simultaneously as clinical evidence, cultural symptom, and archetypal exemplar. Jung’s 1932 essay ‘Picasso’ — reprinted in The Spirit in Man, Art, and Literature (CW 15) — establishes the foundational diagnostic claim: Picasso’s art exhibits the formal signature of schizophrenic dissociation, with its characteristic ‘lines of fracture,’ its cold grotesquerie, and its systematic destruction of unified feeling-tone. Yet Jung simultaneously reads Picasso as a Nekyia figure, a Harlequin descending into chthonic depths in a manner parallel to Faust — dangerous, portentous, and symbolically fertile. Murray Stein substantially extends this reading in his 1998 treatment of imago formation, repositioning Picasso not as pathological specimen but as the quintessential modern transformer: the artist who gives fragmentation, dissociation, and loss of soul their most blatant aesthetic form, and who embodies the Minotaur as a legitimate adult imago. Iain McGilchrist offers a neuropsychological counter-reading, arguing that Cubism instantiates left-hemisphere dominance — fragmentation, schematization, the elimination of depth and living surface. López-Pedraza and Campbell engage Picasso’s specific iconographic productions — the Vollard Suite engravings and the Minotaur series — as psychologically revelatory documents. The tension throughout is between pathology and transformation, symptom and achievement.