Portrait Artist of the Year

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.

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.

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 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.

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.