Landscape Artist of the Year

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.

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 with 'Portrait Artist of the Year', this series follows the journey of some incredible artists. Unfortunately, it's the judges who disapppoint! 2018 competition clearly demonstrates this with the chosen winner who produced the weakest pieces out of all 3 finalists. The subject matter for this particular commission piece was so important, and I feel the final piece was an incredible let down for the venue and the series!

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.

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.