woman with body issues and fragile ego taking pictures herself is nice. i like to be every reality show of women

Jaime Lynn presents a case in point: her junk sculpture two weeks ago wasn't nearly as bad as the judges' opinion made out; in fact, it appeared relatively well-executed and conceived compared to some of the other pieces.Mark's was beautiful and deceiving and heart wrenching. He really got it. Abdi's had so many layers too...brilliant.

I would love for Brovo.com to post the artists' artwork every week with a commentary from the artist. During the show, I am not able to really get a feel for everyone's artwork. Some works do not get much exposure at all during the course of the show and even for the ones that do, I would like to be able to see more of the art in order to be able to form my own opinion of the works.

Perhaps I am jaded from experimenting with life too much because nothing in this episode shocked me. The show was interesting, some of the pieces were good and provoked a lot of thought within my mind but I feel the artists didn't reach out far enough.

"Shockingly Beautiful" Seems many of the contestant's missed that point! One does not necessarily have to offend, to be shocking. Bill Powers reference to Pope Benedict XVI comment "A Healthy Shock" speaks volumes.Perhaps a better challenge would be, Astonish us with an image!Serrano's image of "Piss Christ" is astonishingly beautiful. Without the back story verbiage, or title, I would have the same reaction as Abdi (Although I am shocked that he did not know the work!)To criticize the appearance of a judge in an attempt to ridicule their informed opinion, is puerile, ineffectual and crass. Many viewers and commentators would do well to study the Art of Disagreeing with out being disagreeable. There are no rules to making so called Art, only endless possibilities!

abdi.. made a candle with a wick.. A Bomb? really??

So--NO young, straight, white artists have been eliminated. And I'm not surprised. . . .

The most interesting (i.e. older) artists are gone? Nao had an important point-of-view. She should have stayed and Jamie should be gone. I still have high hopes for this show but it is beginning to lean in the direction of Next Top Model. Please, please don't go there!

Someoneabove says - perhaps - what is the GUIDING Anti-Pronciple of this show - and of the judges....

"...Just as art is subjective, "shocking" is also subjective..."

How do we know if that statement is true?

What if there is Truth and Beauty....(tho it might be shown in the tragic figures - the art of Abdi...proclaiming the beauty of the persons crushed by the horrible truth of the inner city's WASTE of precious human youths?

Maybe that fashionable college prof - who taught some of us - such destructive NIHILISM is WRONG???

Imagine how art would change. Some of what we call Great...might actually be - Garbage!
*****
The judges' pick of Abdi's good work - is a hint that artists are not TOTALLY lost in "Postmodern Land"!

ChristafromKenmore,

Trust yourself.

The the lingos from the artworld is like numbers being called out at a church bingo night. The artworld is a very insider's game and all the art jargons that get toss around is just a way to add fluff to an opinion. Granted some people do have brilliant thoughtful opinions like teacher/philosopher/essayist Dave Hickey.

Way's of See by John Berger's is a good book to read.

When I was younger I use to visit my hometown's modest museum several times a month, just to be around this things that people would tell me is art. I knew the names of some of the artists in this little museum with their cliffnote like exihibits. I had a great time wondering the different rooms discovery artworks from different periods in history. No one told me why I should like this artists versus that artists, I was free to form my own opinions. Of course my opinions changed as I got older, but I never lost the excitement of just looking at art. Having knowledge on art can sometimes get in the way of really looking at the art.

One of my favorite painting is Vermeer's Woman With a Water Jug at the Metropolitan Museum in NYC. I just love looking at that intimate Vermeer painting. I've seen a documentary on Vermeer and read a few essays on his paintings, but to be honest, all that information is meaningless to me once I stand in front of Vermeer's Woman With a Water Jug. I become that kid again, who still loves looking at art.

I am happy to see Nao disappear (she was just annoying): I am sad to see Jamie stay (she is too illustrative). I'm not happy about Abdi winning (although his piece was okay). A lot of the artists resorted to cliché subject matter/ imagery and it was clear that a few of them have no ideas outside of their own aesthetic experience. Nonetheless, I'm excited to see next week's episode.

Everyone keeps saying that the contestants were being childish and cliche for creating works which resorted to the realm of sex. I understand this point to some extent. However, I think that sex, especially for Americans, is still a very shocking thing.

Here is a case in point. Jerry Saltz said that an all white painting by Robert Ryman is shocking. I live in Chicago. If you go to the new wing of the Art Institute, hang out in the Robert Ryman room, and watch peoples' reactions, you may think otherwise. Most folks walk in, look puzzled, and then stare out at the amazing view of Millennium instead. The don't freak out, act surprised, or act as if they're shocked!

Now compare this to Two Girls One Cup! That video spread virally and soon was followed by videos of peoples reactions to the video - hundreds of reactions. Not only is sex shocking, but I would go so far as to say that Two Girls One Cup is an excellent piece of video art (certainly better any of the boring garbage that Ryman has made).

Abdi's piece was shoddy, sloppy, unfinished, and sitting on the board that he spray-painted it on. Sex to shock may be cliche but so is the concept behind Abdi's winning artwork. I think its strange that a concept as puerile as Abdi's won, while anything having to do with sex was vilified. This is especially strange when you consider the fact that Andres Serrano was the guest judge, an artist who uses sex/blood/semen/excrement quite frequently.

Nao was overlooked and doomed from the start. I will miss you most of all. I think that the show is going to become much more two dimensional without her. I wish that this show embraced a more mature view of art... maybe she'd still be around.

John got his book deal. He was more of a designer anyway right? I'm okay with him leaving. Enough with the timid gays for middle America. I want a real ferocious queercore artist for the next season-- I mean if you're taking requests via comments on this blog.

Erik? really? did he ever cite his statistic? haha. I hope he's excommunicated from this show soon, poor guy. no need to embarrass him further.

The problem with reality tv is that it has nothing to do with reality.

Nao's personality, as portrayed by this show, is hard to warm up to. Still, I think her performance art deserved more time/explanation for the audience - it was different from the others and I would have liked to hear more about it.

Did not agree with the criticism of Jaime's piece - she followed her vision instead of trying pander to the judges with sex. The work was not fully realized but none of the work was or can be in the given time frame.

I definitely liked Abdi's winning piece - it was thoughtful, personal, crafted and stood out from the others. It was more of a social statement than superficial shock art.

I was disappointed by the artists who rushed to use sex (crudely) as the solution to the challenge. So boring and predictable - plus, it seems kind of cliche and adolescent. What is shocking in this day and age when you can see anything and everything on the internet and you become numb to it? My mind goes to torture, human rights, war crimes, etc.

One thing that continues to bother me is the judges pushing Jacklyn to do nudity when she seemed hesitant and John to be more sexually explicit in his work when he seemed uncomfortable with it. I felt the judges were out of line - were they pushing that for ratings or because they are voyeurs? I felt it was exploitative of the artists. I am more annoyed by the judges than the art.

I agree with another commentator that the judges should represent a broader spectrum of the art world. This slate of judges only serves to perpetuate the belief that the arts are elitist.

"Who is more dangerous, a kid from a bad neighborhood or a radical faux "Christian" who can get our entire country involved in a holy war, or who thinks we can destroy the environment because the world won't end until "god" says so?"

This is interesting, because here you criticize Jeanne and the judges for "missing" a crucial element of Jaime's piece while simultaneously missing a crucial element of Abdi's piece. The "danger" of the black men depicted is only a secondary one. The real danger is the systemic racism and classism that has prevented poor, black communities from escaping the vicious cycle known as poverty.

And if Jamie wanted to tackle the ramifications of radical Christianity in a compelling, powerful way, she couldn't have picked a worse way to do it. Jamie's sole audience was the Christian community, which severely limited the piece. The least of my worries is how these people misrepresent Christ and give him lipstick-smooches. I'm more worried about blown-up abortion clinics and hate crimes against the LGBT community.

I also think it's interesting that relative "danger" is the point of comparison you make. Abdi's piece simultaneously elicits fear and heartbreak, which is compelling. Jaime's piece is emotionless and completely conceptual.

I was really sickened by the subject matter this week.I'm an artist myself and was happy to see this new show.But I found this last episode one I could have missed. The girl that must be proud of her naked body keeps going to the bathroon to take nude pictures of herself we could do without.I really would rather see real art not a bunch of kids acting obscene and offensive and calling it art.

i

Nao's gone? Me too.

We just checked out John's book cover design for The Time Machine -- It looks WONDERFUL! Pengwuin gave nice props to John and the show in featuring it front and center on their website. This book happens to be on my daughter's summer reading list - John's cover is totally responsible for my daughter choosing to buy this edition!

I hate how people comment "I am so amazed that everyone went to sex first" blah blah blah. Sex, religion and politics are among the most shocking things in our society, so why wouldn't you? I'd love to see what these people would create.

I think the show does not let your personality come through at all, I came here to see how you come through and I must say I like you. I didn't think I would. You are well written and amusing. I love the China doll comment :P lol.

This week I will have to disagree with you in regards to your opinion on Nao artwork. I personally thought her artwork (performance art) was the best of all the artworks created for this weeks’ show. Her statement about giving room for failure said it all. The real failure was the judge’s critique of her performance piece, excluding Serrano. The judges (excluding Serrano) had a tinge of arrogances in their canned statements.

For example:

1) ” I don’t understand this art and she did not explain it very well” POV

2) “She’s a performance artist and she should have known better”.

Nao was the goddess of creativity this week; A contemporary Venus of Willendorf. She went into the fertile ground of creativity and reemerged a nameless person unexplained. Not all art needs to be verbalized. In fact, Serrano had it right in my opinion, when he referred to the self taught homeless artists who create just to create.

Nao did not give Bravo's television audience an art product. In my opinion, she gave Bravo's television audience the opportunity to see creativity at its’ purest form. There are no rules to making art. Creativity is like water; an element of great possibilities.

Art will always be Art.

It’s the subjective opinions of the individual that turns art into a mirror.

I thought the body bits incast thumbs in jars was...lame.

"yawn"

Another candidate to be sent home!!!

A shout out to MARK whom I failed to mention in another post about this show...His triptych on sexual abuse makes a good and frightening point.

As a foster mom, (who heard some horror stories along the way--who has SEEN some abused kids...including one brave boy who had burn scars all over his arms) I could have shocked that group with my stories and maybe some would looked and created beyond the genitalia level of shocking.

They were too UNDER inspired by Serrano - who has done some of the genitalia or anti- Christian faith shock jock work---but just on a higher artistic level---and with the blessings of high end galleries (where the naiive will accept works as "fine art" simply because of the gallery's prestigious reputation).

Mark's pic is (to me) up there with Abdi's...

We are Decimating our Best Hope - the next GEN of humans!

This country is so WASTEFUL and foolish in how we treat the next gen of humans...we are used to the death, abuse and overall horror of what happens to many kids - notably in inner cities...but elsewhere also!!! PS did anyone react in horror on the latest reports of youths murdered in the inner cities? Or to the huge number enslaved in worldwide human trafficking???
***
A secondary mention to the fashion models & STD pics by the lady in rabbit ears (Peregrine??) It sorta works...tho not on an exceptional level. It hints at how we separate sex from medical consequences, from love and caring, from nurturing and caring for any young that come as a result of sex.

"Shocking art", at first it seemed so easy.
Then upon thinking what I would find shocking or would attempt to do in order to shock, I realized that it is not so easy.
I have to agree that as you said, "Andres Serrano's iconic use of religion seems so effortless that one does not appreciate the difficulty of this challenge", is so very true!

I love the idea of The Boys in the Band meets The Dinner Party as a shocking piece of art. I have not been to The Brooklyn Museum in over a year so I have not seen Judy Chicago's "Vaginas on Dinner Plates" (as my friend Drew likes to call it) for a while. In fact now that I think about it, I didn't bother giving it another look the last time I was there. Perhaps a Gay Jesus with penises hanging out at the last supper would shock me. Okay, I'm sure it would, well maybe more amuse me.

I decided to do a little research on The Dinner Party to learn more about the piece, I knew there were layers and layers going on there, I just never bothered to look into it more until now. Having seen The Boy's In The Band about 100 times, I think I am pretty set with that gay cult classic. It interested me to learn that the 13 woman on each side of triangular table were meant to represent the 13 people at the last supper - your suggestion seems somewhat brilliant to me now. I think I will have a new appreciation for Judy Chicago's work when next I see it and how wonderful to reference a permeant piece at The Brooklyn Museum. I will have to check it out again when I go to see whoever wins Bravo's Work of Art.

I see many people that are commenting here are shocked that Nao was cut. Did any of them watch the show? Didn't she admit herself that she really was not sure what she was doing or where the piece was going? That being said, I don't really know Nao's body of work. Perhaps, as with Marina Abramovic's work, it would have been easier to be drawn into it if I knew more of her other work. I feel as if she vocalized doing a poor job for this episode. It is a shame though, you would think out of that whole bunch of artists, if anyone could shock, she could! Perhaps being eliminated was the most shocking thing she could have done. Sorry to see her go.

perhaps the Cezanne's "Bathers" in a cesspool with your artists as the "Bathers"
would have been a better entry.

Holiding out hope for next week............

I think the judges were right to keep Jamie Lynn...she has a quiet talent that may emerge suddenly. Although Nao will be missed! Can't believe they invited Andres Serrano to judge and then completely dismissed his crit. ? I thought Erik would go home...and I saw that John was going too. But for me, Mark should have been top 2. Jaclyn's was interactive, but not shocking. Mark's was beautiful and deceiving and heart wrenching. He really got it. Abdi's had so many layers too...brilliant.

Why are there performance artists on the show when there are no judges qualified to critique them?

I don't have to reiterate what Brandine so eloquently put forth already. I personally was quite surprised by how 'impressed' the judges were with a few sharpie marks on a nude portrait. So what? I guess the sharpie thing is new in New York?

I was so disappointed in the disgusting "art" on this week's show. What a waste of opportunity to present art and the artist's processes to the public. In the attempt at "shocking" us you failed! It was such a failure I almost cried. What you did was turn people away from art.

If this type of work is what the art world considers worth viewing most of us would want no part of it. Please stop trying to shock us and let these artist's be true to themselves and their own mediums. Give them a chance to be great at what they know.

You said: "What could the artists have done to shock? Perhaps just throw away local conventions, breaking any of the gallery rules as a starting point."

Yes, please.

-----

I rather wish Nao had photographed herself nude in response to Jaclyn's piece.

i wish that instead of two artists, one judge and one artist were sent home this week. your knowledge of more conventional art forms may well be solid, but your comments about Marina Abramovic, Nao Bustamante's work, and performance art in general reveal a completely unsophisticated view on the genre and a total lack of historical knowledge or context. I am shocked by your primitive blog post. You live in New York???? Um, Performa???? I am so offended that you would reduce Nao's performance to a "get-up" and have the nerve to compare it to China Chow's skirt. And declare China the winner.

I will apply a similarly superficial judgment.
Mullet haircut = retro veneer masking a thoroughly conservative, conventional cultural and political ideology. While quick-witted and in character, we learned very little about Jeanne Greenberg Rohatyn.

Jaclyn's work was shocking?? Abdi's? Ryan's? In a cultural context in which we can be "shocked" on demand via a multitude of blogs, websites, and reality tv shows....really? i find a more disorienting, realistic and vague form to be shocking, considering our current cultural climate. Nao should have been a winner with this challenge. You are clueless with regard to anything related to performance art.

I meant to say you write. I was going on about 4 hours of sleep! LOL!

this challenge felt forced/early 90's to me, to say the least. john parot is one of few, if not the only, interesting/authentic artists in this bunch. weird. not that i expected more from the realm of reality tv.

Thank you for taking the time to write this blog. My family and I are enjoying this show immensely. Last night's episode was not watchable for the younger children, but I found the fact that it is now VERY DIFFICULT to shock the adult public a compelling topic all its own. I think it's more interesting when the motive is passion--for anything. Thanks again!

I thought the works were mostly gross not really shocking.
Hard to imagine what would be shocking though. I can think of maybe a couple of things but I don't even want to write them down.
Anyway, you make me kind of wish I could have looked at Abdi's candles because on the television I thought they kind of looked like voodoo candles or something like that.

Shame on you judges for letting Jamie Lynn stay on and cutting John loose! I agreed with the winner being Abdi, however he let his concept bog him down when it should have energized him and it could have been so much more. Abdi needs a better sense of time and what needs to be accomplished in that period of time. I am wondering how one can apply for the next season of this fantastic show? There is NO DOUBT that there will be a Season 2 and it is about time that art is allowed to be experienced with the creative process and anyone is allow to join in the ride! Great idea, Sarah Jessica, et al!!!!

wait- are you kidding me with Jaclyn's response to the "male gaze"???? seriously??? this is the most infantile and lame piece of art i have seen in a long time, even if it is trying desperately to refer to more complicated art concepts.

really? go naked and show fake breasts and take a pic of them but turn the model's own camera outward to the viewer- it is like penthouse trying to make a statement.

if this was in the real contemporary art landscape in a real gallery, i don't even think people would take a second look, or even argue about it's concepts for a half second.

this is just more misunderstanding of feminism (showing your titties and engaging in self exploitation does not make you a feminist) and pop cultures self obsession with celebrity that trickles down into art.

this offers absolutely no response to the male gaze. this is exactly what the male gaze wants! but instead of society exploiting the female body, we have women doing it for them! insert britany spears or lindsey lohan and you have an album cover.

THIS IS NOT CONTENT.

too bad nao bustamante was kicked off. she is the one true artist and one who is involved in the art community and contemporary art landscape for a long time.

i am glad jerry salz is on the show though, he rules.

Thank you for the thoughtful detail on what we didn't see. It's sometimes hard, given the constraints of time and editing, to understand what the artists intended and, as a result, the judges' decision. Learning through the blogs that Miles put his electronic junk under the bed changed my opinion of the piece, and while it was obvious that Serrano tried to save Nao, the full extent of his generosity is heartwarming to know.

Abdi's sculptures definitely deserved the win. I'm a big fan of Southern Folk Art and his sculptures reminded me of the face jugs of North Carolina and Georgia. My mother has 3 Lanier Meaders face jugs. As a little girl, those jugs shocked me on a regular basis, leering down from atop the pie safe. But they never left me feeling sad, as Abdi's heads did.

Jacqueline's photos, on he other hand, were hardly artistic. She did what a bunch of girls on MySpace have been doing for years. Post a sexy photo and have people comment on it.

I am just a regular housewife who is really enjoying the show, but honestly, I have NO CLUE what you are referring to in most of the paragraphs you right. Can you possibly post blogs that are a little more general for the population? Paragraphs three and four above leave me saying, "huh"? It would be very helpful if you could explain the art world to the commoner like me. After all, isn't this show meant to make the average person love art even more? I feel like watching the show and reading the blogs is like trying to figure out some secret society. Thanks!

I love the additional details you provide here. There's so much we don't see, and I hope that Bravo will compile some of this footage into bonus clips or extras for those of us fascinated by process and wanting to see more of it.

I was disappointed to see Nao leave so soon, found little shocking in Jaclyn's efforts, considered John's "Recluse" to be worthy in the genre of Outsider Art (though not shocking), and would have found more effective shock art in Nao nude (to American sensibilities) and Jaclyn taking on the uncharacteristic role of performance artist.

Overall, nothing came close to successful shock art except perhaps Abdi's artwork, and we were unaware of the textural finesse which you have described here. I love the fact that he displayed the trio of heads on the floor, forcing the viewer to bow down to them in order to see them or interact with them in any way. Yet one more layer of meaning in what appeared to be an effective work of art. Not everything that shocks will contain social commentary. Not every socially conscious artwork "works."

Once again, your elaboration is a welcome addition to what makes the final cut.

I will miss Nao...her intelligence and unpredictability and think that Jaime Lynn deserved to be cut first.

I agree with the comment on the relative shockability of New Yorkers and southerners

but somehow I don't feel as compelled to tune in for Jaime Lynn, whose known limits make her a bore.

Finally someone in TV Land giving a showcase to the millions of artists that we have among us. Last nights episode may provoke drama among the current tabloid TV watchers of today but the beauty of art is shown in other ways by true gentle talents that go unnoticed by the masses. These artists can reach inside and pull tenderness from within. I was hoping that the beauty of art would be shown to your audience and the work that goes into creating it. This show has a chance to teach the viewers that art is not only craziness but also complexed elements of design, light and color, showing emotions. Shock art is not ALL art. I had hoped this form of art would have been brought in at a later time in the series after the audience could have been taken along a journey of different expressions. Giving us this platform is terrific. Artists deserve respect for what they do. There are many of us who are intelligent business minded professionals who juxtapose their right brain creativity and make great art. Perhaps your future episodes will feature just that. Lets keep trash off the air and simulate the positive.

I'm a little mystified by the judges' criteria, and while I understand the limits of episodic television, I wish a little more time was devoted to the critique.

Jaime Lynn presents a case in point: her junk sculpture two weeks ago wasn't nearly as bad as the judges' opinion made out; in fact, it appeared relatively well-executed and conceived compared to some of the other pieces. I found the judge's reaction to that piece too extreme. Yet her "Last Supper" was bottom-of-the-barrel poor in concept and execution--and you didn't send her home?

Mark's piece was arresting, disturbing, but also moving. Importantly, it was able to shock without being either revolting or titillating. Very disappointed it wasn't paid attention. My only guess is that people immersed in the art world are too familiar with this sort of work?

You seriously think his piece was shocking? Come, get real, it was BORING at best.

I am disappointed that no one made any positive comments about Jamie's Last Supper inspired piece. Perhaps it was not shocking enough (we could only see bits and pieces of it at a time) but it seemed amazingly detailed and well done. The fact that she created such a huge detailed work in one day was impressive and I think her talent was overlooked. Not saying it was the best but the judges should be a little more balanced in their critiques and give the artists a crumb of encouragement when they have obviously put so much into their work.

I think you judges are dismissing Jaime Lynn's work too quickly. She was making a statement about hypocrisy, and she used a style of illustration that is used in Christian tracts, i.e. propaganda. She's not an East Coast artist - in the context in which she lives, and in our current political climate, her work said something as important as Abdi's and she did it in a more original way. Who is more dangerous, a kid from a bad neighborhood or a radical faux "Christian" who can get our entire country involved in a holy war, or who thinks we can destroy the environment because the world won't end until "god" says so? I was predisposed not to like her work, but I think you all need to go deeper.

Why invite a guest judge as hefty as Andres Serrano if you are not willing to heed his input? Nao Bustamante is genius and that no one but Andres was able to see that calls into question the judges as a whole. Nao Bustamante is undoubtedly brilliant. I'm no longer interested in the show without her on it.

I can't believe that almost everyone thought SEX right away. I have to say i was a bit saddened (no....frustrated) to see these "Next great artist doing such". Wow this was such a great opportunity to "Go all the way". I feel not one of them really did so. Maybe someone should have just stood there in the gallery with nothing finished. That would have been more shocking to the judges perhaps.

First, we learned to take those "some material may be inappropriate for young viewers" warnings more seriously this week!!!! When one judge said to John (I think), "only a 10-year-old would be shocked by this," my 10-year-old daughter turned to me and said, "yeah, I AM shocked!!!" I guess I am out of the running for "2010 Mother of the Year", yet again.
As a 47-year-old, middle-class, suburban, white woman, I surprised myself at how "unshockable" I have become -- or by how "conventional" (most of) these artists' choice of subject matter was! SEX in its various personal / illicit forms - oh, ho HUM! I think they really need to get out in the world a bit more. I mean, Nip/Tuck, a basic cable TV show no less, devoted a whole episode to auto-fellatio -- and it was much more compelling (and funny, actually).
Judges and producers, please note: Abdi, the only non-caucasian member of the group, could look beyond himself and his genitalia (and/or religion) -- He could see there are things a little more significant going on in the world. How about a shocking exploration of GENOCIDE, people???? I bet Trong, Judith and Amanda would have had MUCH broader life-experiences and world-view to draw on as artists in this challenge. (Why, oh, WHY is Jamie Lynn still around???) Frankly, the judges panel could use a little more diversity, too.
Here is how WoA (pronounced: WHOA!) has influenced our lives this week -- my daughter and I participated in a tour of an exhibit of 10 artists challenged to create outdoor sculpture that interpretes the historic home, Evergreen, in Baltimore. Several of the artists were present to discuss their work, along with the co-curators. We LOVED playing the role of Work of Art "judges" together in discussing the pieces and conversing with the artists.(A few of these artists' work were TRULY shocking and disturbing - and yet no blood, penises or crosses anywhere! Go figure!) We had a GREAT mother-daughter time - I thought my daughter would have to have been in college before we could share - and have FUN -- doing something like that! (We told the curators and museum director to watch WoA, too!) Thanks for inspiring us!

Just as art is subjective, "shocking" is also subjective. What may not make an eyelash flutter in New York art circles would scandalize entire communities elsewhere. Jaime Lynn's take on the Last Supper would cause rioting in some Southern towns, particularly those with residents whose religious beliefs are ultraconservative. Perhaps a panel of judges representing a broader geocultural perspective might see things differently.

I fail to see how a woman with body issues and a fragile ego taking pictures of herself is art. Or a boy obsessed with his own erection. Someone on the judging panel is going to have to find some way to communicate to the general public a more compelling argument for why any of these works are deserving of our attention. So far this show seems to be like every other reality show: let's all watch the freaks implode. *eye roll*

Thank you for sharing the stories of what we missed. That helped a little.