Landscape Artist of the Year

They always select 8 artists with unique styles and its a pleasure to watch them work. The best part is watching as a blank material is transformed into a work of art, how each artist interprets the scene and create an atmosphere. The part i dislike is how the judges always seem to pick the same type, style of artist to win. All the winners (to me) seem to end up with a very traditional end product. Yes, the artist puts paint on the canvas in a contemporary way but the final product is so very traditional.

Another high point is the wild card artists, so wonderful to see such a large group of artists just enjoying doing their work.

They should replace the judges with objective ones. Those judges are biased to modern art bordering to abstract. I wonder if the organization or sponsor of the £10,000 commission has rejected some works since some do not jibe with the existing collections displayed in their museum. Most of the collections are classic or impressionistic but the commissioned work is sometimes too abstract like in the earlier season where the painting highlights a glob of green mass in the middle, you can't even decipher what it was.

They should stop wasting the time and effort of great artists if they will only pick their personal choices who are sub par those participants who turned out great works. Artists using etching, decoupage, print, etc., will never get a chance to win even if they make it to the semi finals or finals coz their works are not what the commission sponsors are looking for, and definitely, not the choices of the biased judges who I think already have pre-determined winner in mind before the start of the season's production, since they already have the list of artists and their submitted works before the season starts.

The show itself is quite enjoyable. Watching the different artists with their various styles is fascinating. However, the problem with the show, and the source of my frustration with it, is in the judging. Unfortunately, the judges don't seem to be looking for the most talented artist as much as the artist that suit their own stylistic preferences. They rely far too heavily on the crutch of art being "subjective" and forget that judges are supposed to be "objective". If you can put the frustration of the judging aside and just watch the show for the art, it can be quite an enjoyable experience.

We watch this show on Amazon Prime and have come to enjoy seeing what each week will bring as far as the artists. As with all shows like this, you play along and pick who you think should win, but in the end the Judges never agree with us. These three always have to act that the ones they love just know how to paint and that us dimwits in the audience can't decipher between good paintings and bad. For the most part they seem to choose the most boring awful painting in the bunch claiming the painting is just the most fabulous thing they have ever seen. I wish they would rotate judges so we get different styles.

The show concept is quite lovely. I enjoy seeing all of the artists' varying mediums, perspectives and abilities. It's to be expected that artists will produce pieces reflective of their experience, and I have enjoyed all of their offerings. But, the judges. Good grief. I have nearly quit the series after watching several episodes where the least capable artist won accolades over more accomplished artists who deserved recognition and stellar wins. So much fine art was passed over for mediocre art, and raved about, at that. My heart goes out to the artists who should have won, as I can only imagine how their losses when viewed in tandem with the winners were so entirely unfair. I am glad to see that other reviewers felt and voiced their same opinions. I hope the artists who should have won are encouraged by these reactions, and that their enthusiasm to produce will not be diminished.