Landscape Artist of the Year

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.

The program itself is very well produced, however, without being personal the judging is an absolute injustice to the artists themselves. I say this as there is without doubt only ABSTRACT & REALISM in their views as clearly shown by the winners chosen week in week out. I am at a loss how they choose artists that go to these wonderful locations and produce A TREE art that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the view?

As an amateur myself I would ask them to Stop insulting good art with these horrendous results.

Lastly, I have to ask with respect, what are the judges talking about as it's nonsensical to a lot of us.

Please judge fairer or change format as it is an insult to many good artists.

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..

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.

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.