I felt from the beginning of the series that ABDI was the best artist and I would have been very disapointed if he didn't win. I didn't agree with a couple of the judges many times. All the best to ABDI he deserves all of the acolades he receives.

The whole back and forth related to Jacqulyn's leaving out sharpies for people to graffiti her portrait is not irrelevant.

I have already seen promos on TV about episode 5. Episode 5 was so predictable........so Miles and Nicole are flirting. Every episode has been so strictly scripted that Bravo's Next Great Artist lost all of its authenticity. It hurt me to see artists denigrated by "judges" who were not themselves artists. I read a blog where Trong, previously eliminated, said the biggest shock would have been the artists banding together and coming on to the show with "nothing". At least they would have retained dignity. Bravo's Next Great Artist is not about finding a great artist; it is about pleasing an audience with a soap-opera presentation. Clearly disappointing.

a few remarks about this episode before #5 is aired.

First, it was clear to me as a viewer that it was hard for andres or china chow or any of the judges or the mentor, simon, to articulate what really was expected or why. to hear a great artist talk about sh*% and then to have china snicker like a 13-year-old school girl in her paper doll dress, followed by simon's rather pathetic attempt to 'shock' the artists and viewers with his use of the word, "sh*%" was an amalgam of non-connectedness. It was not clear to the viewer, anyway, what the artists were to do and why. to say make some really good sh&$ and something "shocking" is vague and i think some of the outcomes reflect the ambiguity of what the seekers were seeking.

second, it was clear that jaclyn wouldn't acknowledge her use of a peer's idea. that was not something that should have eliminated her, but artists--aren't they supposed to have character and ethics? that at least should have been brought to her attention.

third, why later in the competition was it noted that this would be a double elimination? was it due to the fact that simon couldn't find any really good "sh**" and went back to say, hey, we could get rid of 2 here....why two and why now, in a challenge that was so unclear.

fourth, just a question I guess more than anything else: why is every artist over the age of 40 now gone? is there something to be said about that and the level of specificity in what judges might be seeking? or is it that people over 40 are just not creating interesting enough chatter/diatribes on camera to create good tv? hmm.

fifth, if simon could barely look at john's piece why was it deemed to be less shocking than, say, pieces of wax made to look like "pretty" thumbs in jars? didn't make sense...which leads to another question. On some other reality tv shows, the composite, comglomerate performance of participants is considered when they are or are not bumped. here that clearly did not happen. john for example madeit free and clear thru #1 and #2 episodes, then won #3 and then is off #4? But were there others in the judge's presence to defend poor work that had to defend poor work in other weeks, too? why is it that they can be poor for more than a week and stay--but when one artists is poor for the first time, is gone. just not sure how the elim process works here. if it is to be formative or what?

i'm not watching the series anymore because the premise of the show and the logic being used don't jive. #1 contestant got eliminated for making pretty wallpaper and not complying with challenge. but miles hides his junk under that bed--it's deemed ok. artists who are ranked as poor more than once stay and others who are deemed poor once get eliminated. and that doesn't even include any ranting or diatribes about how or why the second place contestant this week got second place and is staying. enough has been blogged about that and the judges can defend their decision all they want but it is clear that this is also about making a tv show and the judges probably get curtailed in what they want to do? and if so, shame on them for staying on. if china wants to dress up and be seen, surely she can achieve that in other ways with her fame and fortune, huh?

Abdi's piece might have been "socially aware" but shocking? No. This is 2010, how many years has BET been on cable? How many movies and how many rap songs, many in the top 40, have made this message accessible to just about everyone. We know that poverty and racism leads to desperation and anger and it is shocking that so many young black men cannot get out of a lifestyle that allows a racist system to incarcerate them at such a high rate, but that wasn't the point of the challenge.

However, it was a tough assignment but to armchair quarter back it a bit, if Abdi had thought it out a bit he could have done something like had President Obama, Jesus and MLK lighting the fuses etc. We, most of us, are already on the same level of sympathy, if not empathy but to be shocked we would need another element, a sacred cow to be sacrificed.

Jaclyn is really on the show for the T&A, totally being exploited at this point as her piece was the least original. Sexting pictures and comments from the public? that's that teenage girls do on MySpace, cheesy...

John deserved to go as, once again, he forgot that this is 2010 and any kind of legal sex act is on the internet (in video, art and cartoons) and unless you are a little old lady (who would never have lasted 5 minutes into that episode the way it reveled in it's vulgarity) you couldn't find that shocking.

Nao was the only one that came close to shocking us as her work was not instantly definable but you sure felt that creepy feeling of seeing insanity and it made you think about homeless people and how they still exist in this modern society. Funny how her work wasn't labelled "socially aware" and even though it was the most original AND the guest judge didn't shake his head at it like he did most of the others, she still was considered the weakest which is a pretty sad commentary on the show in my opinion.

The whole back and forth related to Jacqulyn's leaving out sharpies for people to graffiti her portrait is not irrelevant. She clearly looked to the other Artist for an idea as to how to expand on her simple nude pictures of herself. The appropriate thing for her to do in front of the judges would have been for her to acknowledge that the other Artist gave her the idea or inspiration for the sharpies and to say that she expanded on that idea. It goes to her lack of respect for her fellow Artists and her own dark side, irrespective of her religous fervor, which she feels allows her to steal another Artist's idea and pass it off as her own because of her own lack of imagination. She should have been more corteous to the other Artist and told the judges that she got the idea from him and expanded on it. That would have lent her more credibility not just as an Artist, but as a person.

Uh, Bill, y'think y'coulda offered that little nugget from Papa Bennie during the show?

What was really a problem here is that Serrano's work is compelling but his chosen form of verbal expression--sh** this and sh** that--is just not helpful. There was not here--and has not been in any episode--any truly meaningful discussion of the assignments BEFORE the artists get started.

I'm not looking for a disquisition, just 45 seconds or so of pithy observations on the nature of shock, it's disorienting effects, it's importance to learning and imaginative expansion. You the Jury essentially directed the artists toward the scatological and pornographic and the resulting objects illustrated that.

I know that entertainment is BRAVO's goal, but really. This show is certainly an instance where aiming higher than the lowest common denominator might have increased viewership.

Serrano said that Nao's piece was the most disturbing and the weirdest, so clearly she should've won the competition. What is shocking is that the judges had no comment on the transphobia and homophobia in the "tranny porno fantasy". As a transgender person myself, and an art professor at a major university, I just hope none of my students watch this show and think that selling books or selling art in galleries has anything to do with making good art. And Simon couldn't even look at John's piece, so clearly it was shocking. But the absolutely amateur last supper and bathroom nude photos without even the courage to show her own body pleased the judges enough to keep? It just shows that this show has nothing to do with making great art. And the very idea that great art can be made in 18 hours is idiotic. I'm never watching again after this episode.

I have to say, the whole concept of this show is really a slap in the face to the artistic process. If you had taken the idea and applied it to Graphic Artists, I could understand ripping apart ideas, reaming someone for misspellings, boring composition, etc. It would be for commercial use. But art is personal. When you degrade someone for entertainment value, it becomes ok for people in general to be more viscerally critical about something that is purely an expression of another person. You end up humiliating someone until they are embarrassed to express their truth anymore, and then you have one more run of the mill artist pooping out commercial grade gallery garbage.

And please don't respond with some diatribe about the harsh realities of the art world. The hostess of the show seems to take great pleasure in humiliating artists. I was SO looking forward to this show.

Shock? I think not. All the pieces were predictable and boring. How predictable for Jaclyn to get nude. How predictable for Abdi to attach bombs to African-American male heads. How predictable for someone to take on religion and make fun of the Last Supper. Auto fellatio? And some judge suggested it would have been better as a photograph? Get real. Serrano couldn't make it in the art world if he didn't do crap that shocks/offends people. Offending people to initiate a dialog is unnecessary. Just tune into the news. Tuned in and out and then tuned in at the end to see the winner. Again, not a surprise. How politically correct can one get. I hope you all can come up with better challenges than this one.

I find the entire subject of "shocking" and how the "artists" interpreted the subject pretty depressing.
Shocking to me:

Is traveling to my studio and seeing a 2 or 3 year old kid sitting on the curb in cold weather wearing a dirty diaper and no shirt at 8 a.m. sucking on a can of Coke for breakfast.

The dichotomy of fat people screaming for more hand outs and calling me names at a public food pantry while my daughter sends home pictures of village in Africa with a very thin 5 year old smiling for the camera lens while dressed in black plastic garbage bag....... called a dress.

I must say this show has made question my work and if I am being authentic.

How about shockingly authentic ?

Art should be shocking and it should make you think ....... and not about your genitalia.

Dear Bill and producers at Bravo,
One of my favorite art museums in the world is the Tate Modern in London. One of the reasons I find the museum so interesting is the unique way they've organized their permanent collection. Instead of grouping, for example, the Impressionists all together or Conceptualists all together is that they instead group their collection by subject matter.
They group landscapes together, portraits together and nudes together. This way you get a fascinating cross-section of how the artists from different movements handle these subjects.
When the show started, (and I still think the first episode has been the best) I thought this essentially how the show was going to be organized as well.
I see the value in emphasizing one media every so often so the artists can demonstrate versatility and work outside their comfort zone.
But I thought the idea: "This week we're going to try to be provocative" was a little bit random and not nearly as interesting.
Anyway, I don't know if you read this stuff, but I do enjoy your show and I want it to remain interesting and fun.
Thanks.

I'm not persuaded by the Warhol-soup can painting analogy regarding Jaclyn's work. True, ideas come from many places, but didn't Warhol's execution of that idea have something to do with its enduring appeal? I don't see any way in which Jaclyn as an artist entered into the work she exhibited, either in the concept or in the creation of the piece. Her only intent in taking the pictures was to make them grainy and deliberately artless.

I'm not an artist and perhaps there are lots of things I don't understand. But I think this is one of the reasons non-artists don't take contemporary art seriously -- lacking either vision or skill of execution, someone can stick a jar of Sharpies next to their mediocre photographs, and suddenly it's "art." It's an interesting participatory event, and I would give Jaclyn some points for guts, but an artist? I'm not convinced.

I agreed with the judges that Abdi's piece was the strongest. Now to see an entire gallery filled with those little bombs--that would be something.

(I will note I was a bit disappointed no one told Miles that his work this week was distractingly boring... though it did bring about a confession on Renoir, which was almost worth having to yawn through his last minute addendum to his inky cocktail.)

What shocked me so much about Abdi's excellent work was how well-timed it was to The Roots' latest album, How I Got Over. It was eerie, in a good way, how he manifested the frustration that is so obvious among the young African/African-American men who can not eloquently express their frustrations and anger.

The video is amazing. The album, based on the tracks I have heard, are transcendent, and I hope Abdi can be pulled into that amazing group of artists and create some transcendental works...

WOW. Such tired porn lite. (With a few exceptions) Lots of those artists (the ones doing some tired version of explicit sexual stuff) need to dig deeper---they need to grow their own souls..

.I'd suggest a mix of things...including...STUDYING HISTORY thru personal interviews...thru reading really OLD preferable POLITICALLY INCORRECT old history books...
---walking-driving thru the most wretched part of the city...visiting soup kitchens ---rescue missions - and maybe then goign thru the richest areas...Find the true horrors (amidst some beauty)!!!
Maybe studying the great religious texts. (In Western culture, they should have read all or significant parts of the Bible...possibly of some other faiths too. the Bible (old and new testaments) shaped much of our art, culture thinking. In the Middleast, I'd say they should know the Koran, as it shaped that culture...You get the idea. Reading the classics presented last week is a great way to enrich onesel also.

Most of the people do NOT seem to have a significant, rich inner life, inner vision...Lots of genitalia.in the pics...blood and the usual tired stuff (not done well) concerning the Christian faith also..Boring, boring.

Where is the Goya amongst them??? Or the Van Gogh or Georges Rouault (who both painted some down & out women in an amazing way)

Here, I agree with the judges. The two that went (notably Tao) were bad - in this week's contest anyway...

And ABDI focused on the TRULY SHOCKING....which is the US's obscene waste of the next generation..the most decimated generation being AFrican americans...both before and after birth...notably in the inner cities...

And if you want related HORROR---see little children (in foster care) who are great little fighters, but they were mutilated before and/or after birth by---Mom or Mom's latest man...Some will fight this disability the rest of their lives. Tubes out of them...learning disabilities, emotional torture...physical abuse... (Yes I was a foster parent!)

GO Abdi. You (so far) seem to have the deepest soul of all.

The only thing I found shocking was the quality of some of the work presented in this episode. Some of the artist need to think a bit more about execution and maybe their ideas could come forth. Abdi's piece was thoughtful, current and well executed. His statement about young black men was able to be seen without a long, lengthy and complicated explanation. He communicated. Love the show!

Personally, I found nothing shocking in any of the pieces. But I also find Serrano a merely competent photographer who created "Piss Christ" simply as a ploy to get his name in the news when he couldn't otherwise.

Don't think much of your quotes, but I do have to give a nod of the head to anyone who quotes Kipling, even if it's one of his most oft-quoted poems these days.

I have mixed feelings about Nao's ouster; I do think you sent the exact wrong two people home this week. But what I love is how Trong, Nao, and Judith accepted their fates on the show the way real artists do--as another bump in the road. Degree of fame is irrelevant--these are people who have already established themselves, and they presented a wonderful contrast to the younger members of the cast who are still discovering their own voices.

I'll miss John. He was clearly the one most uncomfortable with the assignment to begin with. I'm surprised he wasn't able to execute the piece better, but I still thought his piece, while not "shocking," was something that might at least provoke an uncomfortable chuckle, whereas Jaime Lynn's wasn't even good comic illustration.

I don't think the judges are being serious when they evaluate Jaime Lynn's work. I'm Pagan and am predisposed not to like her art, but I'm also a Southerner and I can tell you that in the context she functions within her work is biting and satirical, and it's extremely relevant in the days of the Tea Parties, abstinence pledges and Sarah Palin. She's coming from a completely different place than the other artists and I think that place is as valid as any other. Even her manner of dress is a costume that lampoons our society being stuck in the past while the rest of the world has moved beyond us.

I think Jaclyn's work might have been brave and shocking if it had been done by Nao, but a pretty girl taking pictures of herself is really not a big deal, even with the graffiti. Would her work have any interest to anyone if she didn't look as she does? I can't tell if she's saying something about our beauty-obsessed society or skating by on her good looks.

I thought Abdi's work was kind of obvious and non-shocking, but then I've been wracking my brain and I can't come up with anything I'd consider shocking. In the age of the internet, the only things I find shocking are scenes of senseless, extremely cruel violence, but I don't see a way an artist could address that in the context of this show, and as an artist, I wouldn't want to. Even "deviant" sexuality (whatever that is, if it exists) is not "shocking."

Stupidity and greed can be "shocking" but that takes you back to Jaime Lynn's work. I really think you judges need to take another look at what she's doing and saying, and who she is. Can't an artist have a different perspective and still be an artist? Would her work be more or less relevant if a Pagan did it? What if I pointed out that the style of drawing you all dismissed as cartoonish is the kind of artwork used in Christian tracts and propaganda?

The back and forth dialogue about the sharpie idea was relevant in the vein that unlike Warhol, Jaclyn was bane to admit someone else suggested the idea. Certainly there is nothing wrong with using someone else's suggestions...the problem is in denying it ever happened. A lack of integrity is something that will eventually show through in a person's work. I defended her work last week..this week, she's on her own!

These artist need more time to think about the given project . I love the show but I dont think it will make it unless the art gets better. I love the show because "fine art" is so misunderstood by JQpublic. My favorite part of the show is hearing the critques.I hope ya'll make it.