The problem is that art is what a system of galleries and museums establishes as art work. How unfair or not this is I might agree. But artist is not a condition that you can claim. I agree that there is a bit of arrogance, which is a psicological condition that is very tipical in artists, so it should be no problem. The problem is that in this case this work is not only outside the institution but also outside the discourse of art. I'd like to know what message you read here. As someone that has been tought to look at works of art since I have memory I tell you that the only message implied in these pieces is the inner world of the author. I respect it but art is a metadiscourse, art is always about art, or at least provides a means to refer to art history. It can be about literature, take a look at Lovecraft or Allan Moore. Those are artists. The technique is good, even impressive but dificultness is not needed in art. Museums would be filled of ships constructed inside bottles and they are not. So I understand this negativity because it's not only arrogant to claim to be an artist at the age of 20, but to claim it without having been interested yourself in art history much. Art is not about artists, that is some romantic stuff we've been told from 1800 and stoped working 50 years later, until the new media started emphasizing in personalities so insistently. So of course attitude is really important, but I think the one showing the wrong attitude here is the one claiming to be artist. There is nothing wrong in not being an artist.