Portrait Artist of the Year

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.