Landscape Artist of the Year

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..

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.

The show concept is quite lovely. I enjoy seeing all of the artists' varying mediums, perspectives and abilities. It's to be expected that artists will produce pieces reflective of their experience, and I have enjoyed all of their offerings. But, the judges. Good grief. I have nearly quit the series after watching several episodes where the least capable artist won accolades over more accomplished artists who deserved recognition and stellar wins. So much fine art was passed over for mediocre art, and raved about, at that. My heart goes out to the artists who should have won, as I can only imagine how their losses when viewed in tandem with the winners were so entirely unfair. I am glad to see that other reviewers felt and voiced their same opinions. I hope the artists who should have won are encouraged by these reactions, and that their enthusiasm to produce will not be diminished.

They always select 8 artists with unique styles and its a pleasure to watch them work. The best part is watching as a blank material is transformed into a work of art, how each artist interprets the scene and create an atmosphere. The part i dislike is how the judges always seem to pick the same type, style of artist to win. All the winners (to me) seem to end up with a very traditional end product. Yes, the artist puts paint on the canvas in a contemporary way but the final product is so very traditional.

Another high point is the wild card artists, so wonderful to see such a large group of artists just enjoying doing their work.

Just like the Portrait Artist of the year, Great watching the artists and seeing their different styles but oh dear, the judges really let it down, that affected portrait artist, Thai-Shan Shierenberg, whose paintings are all done in the style of Lucien Freud is awful, plus a curator and an art historian, same judges for the Portrait one. Agree with other reviewers, they always pick some posh Sloane type who speaks the same affected language and often some talented art graduates and artists are overlooked. Focuus too much on the clunky coarse style that Shierenberg uses in an obvious attempt to be "contemporary " but sadly behind the times by about 15 years now. New judges needed, perhaps some Art school professors and tutors and relevant artists, please. After first couple of series, got too predictable and irritating to watch, you knew which picture they'd pick before the end of the show.