Portrait Artist of the Year

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 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

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.

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 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.