Opiniones de usuarios

I enjoy seeing the many portriat artists with their wonderfully varying techniques. And I know art is something that appeals in many different ways - there is no uniform or formulaic method of appreciation.

That aside, in the 2020 PAOTY the pontificating judges staked a claim in the eventual winner from the outset and her journey to success was always guaranteed. I found several other artists to be more insightful and skilful but they were ditched along the way.

Like another reviewer, I enjoyed the process and was able to form my own appreciation of the many talents on display and the final result was of little importance to me.

Enjoy watching other artists in process, but think the judges need to be replaced from time to time. Two of the three judges are not artists. I respect many curators, restorers and gallery administrators, but the two judges who are not artists often fall into thier idea of what is "fresh", or "new", and that often means admonishing what is considered tutored or "academic." These are really over used terms, and used too disparage work from 50 years ago now, but really no longer. Art and those who have careers now, are discovering art history and expressing it, to the increased flexibility and expansion of art in general. Realism has returned. You need skill and craft to work in that style. Also there is a leaning towards "flat" canvasses, as well as "graffiti" style-or spray paint/pop style- art (Nick Lord for ex-whose semi final round painting was just tacky). This was a thing 20-30 years ago. It's still around us but the slick, tacky style has been done. The paintings he showed of Models, were so slick and tacky I was shocked they took him. If they were to have new guest artists as judges every other year, or 2 artists judging, I think the choices would be stronger. One judge in general says "more drips" as of she really believes that somehow makes the paintings more edgy. These sorts of comments betrays a lack of understanding that actual artists get. Why not educate the public more, while allowing us into the usual private process of artists-which is marvelous.

I thoroughly enjoy watching this programme; it is fascinating to watch each artist's work evolve and thrilling to view the three finalists work on their commission pieces. However, I am in agreement with Frank Skinner in my tendency to disagree with the judges. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with their decision making and choices, particularly when selecting the overall winner. 2018 is a perfect example; there were were two clearly strong, talented artists who produced exemplary portraits that literally took my breath away. As usual, the weakest portrait and accompanying commission piece was chosen. What's more, the selection of mediocre artwork is becoming too predictable. It's disheartening!

This is one of the most enjoyable shows on TV. It's fascinating to see how the pictures develop over the four hours and the different techniques by the artists. The celebs being painted are also part of the enjoyment and the two presenters are excellent. It's only let down by the judges who don't seem to like realistic portraits and often choose one of the worst to go through because it's wired or different. I know art is subjective but they seem to forget that people who commission portraits want a picture that actually portrays them and look like them. The sitters almost always make better choices and the show would be better if they got rid of the judges and let the sitters decide who goes through.

I just started watching this series. I agree with messkimo, the judging is frustrating, and I find the presenters irritating and ignorant. I enjoy watching the artists so much that it all even's out. But if they think about doing another season, how about no judging, no commenters, focus more on the artists. If you need an evaluation bring Tai back and another artist. Curators, gallery owners, committee members are useless.

Such an interesting show, but I'm so frustrated watching the judges. They purposefully overlook artists who actually know how to paint as if knowing how to paint in a painting competition is a detriment. It's embarrassing. It's shameful. It's snobbish. It's BS.

We're not in the 60s anymore. Not one word said about light, composition, color choices and harmony, depth, or gestalt. They choose tiny figures painted on otherwise big, empty canvases, giant heads, and very unfinished works asking, "What would you have done, if you had time to finish it?" WTH? How about picking one that's closer to finish so you can see what that artist did, not postulate on what the other artist might have done? JHC.

A painting competition should be judged by painters! There are some very talented artists on this show who work in very diverse styles. They deserve to be seen and not tossed aside as "academic" or "sweet" simply because they know how to paint and draw. Using those terms to disregard a work, especially when it doesn't even come close to applying, is so passe', so cliche', and shows absolutely no imagination, no talent, and displays extremely lazy judgment.

I would prefer to see the artists working and the development of the work rather than hear three rather stuffy individuals pontificating about art. I don't care what they think. I love seeing the artists work. I disagree with many of the judges-not that I'm opposed to edgy or work that pushes expectations. But I think they trend toward inferior work in an attempt to seem avant-garde. Less talk and more focus on the artists. Show all the work, not just that of a select few. I need 117 more characters, so I repeat: get judges who talk less, understand and value art more and show more of the works as they develop. I love the time-lapse sequences showing how the works evolve.

Brilliant show. Impelling viewing. Shame about those dreadful judges.

What qualifies these awful "judges" to criticise an artist's work?

What qualifies them to choose the best.

Surely a painting is judged by the general viewer. The sitter has chosen which they would hang on their wall, as we all subconsciously do.

Also we judge it's worth by what we would be prepared to pay for it.

Not by some up-themselves so called "experts" who are with artists like the competitors or gallery owners.

They would no doubt choose the banana gaffer taped to the wall or the unmade bed!! They obviously wouldn't know good art if it fell on them.

I have always loved portraits and to see them emerge as the show goes on is fantastic. It's formulaic but fun, love the judges. Don't always agree with their choice but that' art for you...... binge watch during lockdown

I was gobsmacked by the winner in Season 4 after watching the judges overlook truly gifted artists. I'm not sure I will keep watching. As a painter myself I hate the way supposedly "fresh," which seems to equate to sloppy brushwork and poor composition, is rewarded over more traditional styles. Sigh...it's such a good idea and so nice to see creativity getting air time. But if the result is judges who really can't intelligently discuss their choices and the best are overlooked then I won't waste my time. Another issue that that not all the participants' work is shown, which makes it hard to form your own opinions. It could be so much better!

Another poor decision this week. I appreciate we cannot view the actual paintings but even so, it is so disappointing to see some excellent portraits by these incredible artists be overlooked by the judges. These paintings/drawings are invariably an excellent likeness of the sitter! In most cases the sitter chooses the best portrait. It seems that the most strange looking portrait which doesn't necessarily look like the sitter seems to win almost every week! One wonders will the final winner of this year's Portrait Artist of the Year be able to find a likeness of Lenny Henry? Maybe as others have suggested a change of judge/s would help this wonderful program. Love Stephen and Joan's comments.

Great watching the artists and seeing their different styles but oh dear, the judges really let it down, that awful affected Thai-Shan Shierenberg, whose paintings are all done in the style of Lucien Freud is awful, plus a curator and an art historian, same judges for the Landscape one. Agree with other reviewers, they always pick some posh Sloane type who speaks the same affected language and often some talented art graduates and artists are overlooked. New judges needed, perhaps some Art school professors and tutors and relevant artists, please. After first series, got too predictable and irritating.

We've been watching this show from the start, the idea of a live competition of artists some professional, some amature is great. Showing the process as time lapse, choice of medium, different attitudes towards art. Two things however stand out: the choice of the sitters - almost always they have to be some recognizable screen figures, celebs, actors, TV presenters, almost never people with interesting professions and interesting personalities - those who would be of interest for real artists to draw. Where are real scientists (not popularizes of science), doctors, teachers, construction workers, street people. The second point: more than half of the chosen artist are just slavishly copying from iPads and photos. It might be Ok to allow to use a photo crop for the reference of yes, nose mouth (to avoid coming too close to the model and also to battle model's fatigue after several hours of sitting) - but taking a photo and copying it exactly (in one show even with some artificial computer effects) should be disallowed.

The judges are criticized a lot in the comments, I think they are OKish, sometimes they do make strange choices - probably taking into account the self-portrait more than the actual performance during the show. They often cancel some artists as too academic, this is of course a disaster, because mastery should not be punished and someone who can not get a likeness without a photo is not a portrait artist.

Hi, I have been a avid veiwer of this show and also landscape artist of the year, but I became increasing.dissillusioned with where your show was heading, I always under the impression that a standard had to be reached especially where being in the position of calling oneself a ARTIST, a bit like a driving test where the majority of people do not drive in the way required to pass the test but they have the skills in which they do so just so everyone knows they are able to perform at a standard required.

So we know they are able to draw or paint at a certain skill level to warrant the title of ARTIST but prefer to express their talent in a more none conventional way, absolutely no problems with that at all, but anyone who is only capable of creating random patterns or otherwise or if they can only paint or sketch stick figures at a preschool level should not have the title of ARTIST, now I know there's all kinds of art and has been for a very long time, that's fine but this should not be in a competition to become portrait ARTIST of the year and should be in a different categorie such as abstract or modern artist of the year l. To actually have a painting displayed in the national portrait gallery should in my opinion be capable of the highest standard possible to have that honour and not someone who is ONLY capable at best work at best at the skill level of maybe a 5 - 10 year old, they should never be in a competition for portrait ARTIST of the year. No problem whatsoever in them competing in any other competitors at all, Art should be expressed in lot's of different ways but definitely not in the same skills category such as Portrait Artist of the year, this implies being able to produce work at a very high standard and definitely not someone one who has time to belt out 4 or 5 works in one heat, someone who actually only spends 15 or 20 minutes on their actual Submission this is not only very wrong but extremely disrespectful to you as judges and especially the other competitors.my apologies for going on a bit but as someone who has tried to produce something of a certain standard and is never really happy with most of what I produce, it's extremely frustrating, I could without doubt paint at the level of a six year old or throw paint at a canvas in the hope of creating at best a nice pattern but this would be to easy and anyone who pic's up a crayon could call themselves ARTIST, please please for a competition such as yours keep it to a certain standard then I would certainly start watching again and a high enough standard to call themselves ARTIST, they have been some extremely talented people on the show that don't even get considered, judge them not on how they may look in a perfectly lit gallery under some vague description that tries to explain why it's with next to no talent, but on skill capability and effort.

You can pretty much tell which artist the judges will select because they will often choose a certain Sloane type regardless of the art. It's a common theme now in this very class biased show. Not altogether surprising for the art world but it makes shameless television. I imagine that is why Frank Skinner quit the job because it is so obvious that talented artists get overlooked. Really really poor and shame on you Sky. It's high time that they replace the two non-artists in the judging panel and replace them with either artists or art school teachers.

Partly due to many years as a graphic artist and professional photographer, I've come to know exceptional, world-class, talented individuals: many of which were/are artists. I can often see more in an image/object than most people: colours within colours, balance or lack of, etc. I also know you can take the worst piece of motley crud and, with fake "enlightenment", throw enough BS to make it "appear" genius. It's upsetting to see how many exceptionally talented artists have been passed over because of, what I see as, misguided judging. (Note: if one must explain WHY a piece of art is good in order to gain appreciation, then maybe that piece of art is NOT that good after all.)

An enjoyable show to watch where you get to experience various artist techniques and processes.

You do however need to keep in mind that the judges will generally not pick the best likeness, nor will they pick the one most aesthetically pleasing, nor anything too traditional.

They will pick the one that's fairly unique with signs that the artist has room for improvement. Though some styles and mediums will never be named the winner.

If you keep that in mind, it becomes more enjoyable and easier to guess which artist will be picked, rather than being disappointed that your favourite did not make it.

The artists that were bypassed in the 2018 season in order to elevate a mediocre artist, is shameful. The final product was awful. Liverpool deserved more. We all deserved more. WTF are these judges looking fo exactly? The more abstract and quirky, seems to be the measure. I've noticed that if that the more the"artist" takes a sitter to the extreme, the better they do. Painting a portrait should be capturing the subject at hand. Painting weird lines and cross-hatching weird color pallets does not make a good artist. Look at what the sitters choose. It's often not the same that these "experts" choose.

As others have noted the work of artists on this show can make for compelling viewing. However, this effect is seriously undermined by the 'judges' whose aesthetic values seem to be based on a bias against good technique and the prioritisation of works that least resemble the sitter. The outcome of the 2018 competition was a joke IMO. Two further critical comments: the choice of sitter is often quite bizarre, based on the alleged fame, and the youth of the sitter rather than whether they will make good subjects with interesting faces. Last point: Joan Bakewell's diction is bizarre and irritating, the result perhaps of too many elocution lessons when young so that she has lost her original accent. The effect of this is that she seems unable to replicate her pronunciation of some words so 'one' isn't quite sure what she is referring to, e.g. Her pronunciation of London on one episode which sounded something like Lonn-Don.

They waste most of every episode focusing on the judges talking and barely show people actually painting. When it comes time to actually judge the finished paintings they don't even show them all! Then the judges make absolutely awful choices and are completely biased. I was so excited to see many different artists take on the same subject, but they don't even show them. The editing is also terrible, they will be talking about one person while showing work by another. On a super rare occasion they will show a time lapse of people painting which is so interesting, but the instances are few and far between. I've started fast forwarding through most of the episodes to get to the actual art.

I wish someone would make a better art competition show.

I'm very angry that the painting Joely brought in of her grandmother was unattributed.

Strange how in a programme about art it was seen as just a prop! Is because the judges have no respect for art only their own voices.

Why? I tried to find out who did the painting and when - but just nothing from the programme.

I love the programme but it like so many others lost all respect for them after the debacle of the 2018 landscape artist of the year.

I wish I didn't have to write a poor review of a programme within the schedules that is about Art but the arrogance of the producers is just too much sometimes. At least publish the artist name.

I'd really like to see new judges.

It's gotten too predictable one can almost guess who will win.

Fresh judging would bring the show back up.

Maybe a panel of artist?

The three judges now must be getting tired of it.

I'd also like to see less working from iPads. Engage with your sitter,that's why they are there.

I'm an artist myself and have so much stress watching the artists be interrupted constantly with silly questions.

It works out to more like 3 1/2 hours instead of 4.

Maybe just let them do what they do best and observe?

Leave them be.

I loved the show so much at first and even though I still like it, it it needs a boost in a few ways.