Work of Art: The Next Great Artist

Ryan, it seems to me, was on his own wavelength in this competition. It refers us to the Andy Warhol movie "Blow Job" in my opinion.
Jacqueline, Camon, who can be shocked by a naked body nowadays? Also with these stars on intimate places. It reminds me of the photos of all those moms who post photos of their babies with emoticons on their faces. Which devalues it as Art. Moreover, this is not Art that causes shock. Only if you're shocked by how tasteless it is. But I liked the idea of interacting with the audience, the moment of engagement, but if it was something really strong plus the viewer could participate in it, then yes, but the basis for interaction is about nothing.
Jamie Lynn's idea is interesting if you spin it, but the performance doesn't appeal to me at all and doesn't attract me, doesn't pull me to look closely. And when there are a lot of details, elements and images, it is important that the eye clings to something and that this encourages it to walk through the image further. But there is no such thing.
John- selfblowjob, hmm, I don't know, no comment. It's definitely not shocking in this performance.
Abdi is just a BLM before it became mainstream and blew everyone up. I liked the performance of the goals, the emotions on the face are perfectly read and there is a response. It's all frenzy and tension in the form of a bomb, which is on the verge of exploding and which can be blown up by the slightest trifle. The idea is read and pushes for reflection. I got lucky.
Nicole is more disgusted than shocking.
Miles is a frame, of course. I laughed a lot. Mickey Mouse in the form of penises and vaginas, it's fun and makes you look at the graphics. And the lines themselves, as a result of fellatio. It doesn't shock me, but it intrigues me. And jerking off on a painting is not new, but jerking off on Mickey Mouse (which, by the way, also enters into a dialogue with the works of Andres Serrano) is in its own way really a reference for some to the first experience, and again I like his approach again.
Mark is such a classic pop art, in the style of Andy Warhol, and the meaning is clear. Shocking, I don't know, but it makes you think.

I am very impressed with Miles's approach - immersion, familiarization, preparation for work (he is somewhat similar to my own, maybe that's why I like his work, and the way he approaches the process. This job was no exception. I liked the volume and textures after interacting with the fire. I'm not sure if the book is recognizable by its cover, but it would intrigue me.
Jacqueline has a very shallow approach to work. Well, it's okay that you haven't read the book. (Although I can't imagine how you can draw a cover without knowing what the book is about) well, it's completely facepalm- the authors had a mistake in writing. This is definitely a failure.
Ryan's work really suited me. Fascinating.
Overheated, I also don't know about the book, apparently I haven't read it, and I got into a mess. Its cover absolutely does not refer to the book. And in general, it's too cheesy for a science fiction book cover and gives the impression that the inside is a love story about a 15-year-old girl with forest dwellers.
Jamie Lin's "dracula" is not bad.
Eric's font is suitable.
John's time machine is great, designed to stand out and sell. Intuitively, it even resembles the process of moving "Doctor Who" and nevertheless refers to time travel and what is so bright, inviting and suggestive of the future."
Judith chose a palette that would be more suitable for the design of diaries for girls than "pride and prejudice", and she did not appreciate this joke with writing in reverse and in another language. Dracula in black, white and red is also excellent and professional.

How Eric freezes out the whole issue. As an immature child, he is completely incapable of working in a team. He tries to ride on something that heats up everything and everything, only making everyone's work worse. The collaboration is clearly not his. He only criticizes, and not art, but stupidly insults personally, as if he were five. At the same time, it offers nothing, no constructive approach. They took away his "toy" in the form of a tree and he became so angry that it felt like he was deliberately sabotaging everyone's work.
The work of the blue team was more interesting for me, I like streamlined forms, but there are a lot of questions about it.

Pelegrin did a great job this time, I'm hooked and the idea is interesting. (I wrote it down in my notes during the viewing process, but I can no longer remember what kind of work it was)

Mark - I noticed a cool feeling from his work, it was immediately obvious that he was "flirting" with Mondrian, which prompted me to Google where Mondrian was born, and it turned out that it was in Amersfoort, and I had a pleasant feeling because I was there yesterday, but hardly anyone-He catches sight of the painting. It brought me back to the feeling of my personal trip, but that's all. There is no movement or connection to New York at all, and the work with the pretense of verbosity is still very flat.
Jacqueline has finally done something worthwhile, and it has the rhythm of the city. The subject of the vision, the object of the vision and the one who is watching merged into one piece, which is very cool, I think. Abdi's painting is uplifting, but it doesn't reflect a trip around New York.
I think Miles's OCD helps him cut out all the unnecessary stuff in his work. Because of this, they are simple, understandable, respond, involve you, convey emotions and state - and this, in my opinion, is an integral part of art.
I really like Nicole and Miles.
Simon's humor is very satisfying, I laugh every time he comments on something.
Ryan was amused by the narcissism. His laugh is really contagious, but his work is too literal.
Psy: All Eric does is shit on everyone around him.