Landscape Artist of the Year

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.

I thoroughly enjoy the concept, but dear gawd. The judges have some hidden criteria that means they can't pick anything but artists with big chunky abstracts that are more suited to a Walmart art section or mid-grade hotel rooms then the hallowed halls the winners end up in. They end up all being pretty similar (even to Tai-Shan's own style). It can be disappointing is maddening.

What is interesting to a critic, much like all art, isn't necessarily going to translate well in posterity. It would be great to get new judges, and do some episodes of how the contestants are after a year or two.

Still, fun for most of each episode..

As above. The judges always choose the most unlikely artist rather than the most talented. Emporer and clothes comes to mind. The final commissioned painting did not fulfill the brief and was very disappointing. Why the fire? Other than it's her trademark.

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.