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 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.

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.

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.

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.