User Reviews

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Another poor decision this week. I appreciate we cannot view the actual paintings but even so, it is so disappointing to see some excellent portraits by these incredible artists be overlooked by the judges. These paintings/drawings are invariably an excellent likeness of the sitter! In most cases the sitter chooses the best portrait. It seems that the most strange looking portrait which doesn't necessarily look like the sitter seems to win almost every week! One wonders will the final winner of this year's Portrait Artist of the Year be able to find a likeness of Lenny Henry? Maybe as others have suggested a change of judge/s would help this wonderful program. Love Stephen and Joan's comments.

Great watching the artists and seeing their different styles but oh dear, the judges really let it down, that awful affected 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 Landscape 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. New judges needed, perhaps some Art school professors and tutors and relevant artists, please. After first series, got too predictable and irritating.

Hi, I have been a avid veiwer of this show and also landscape artist of the year, but I became increasing.dissillusioned with where your show was heading, I always under the impression that a standard had to be reached especially where being in the position of calling oneself a ARTIST, a bit like a driving test where the majority of people do not drive in the way required to pass the test but they have the skills in which they do so just so everyone knows they are able to perform at a standard required.

So we know they are able to draw or paint at a certain skill level to warrant the title of ARTIST but prefer to express their talent in a more none conventional way, absolutely no problems with that at all, but anyone who is only capable of creating random patterns or otherwise or if they can only paint or sketch stick figures at a preschool level should not have the title of ARTIST, now I know there's all kinds of art and has been for a very long time, that's fine but this should not be in a competition to become portrait ARTIST of the year and should be in a different categorie such as abstract or modern artist of the year l. To actually have a painting displayed in the national portrait gallery should in my opinion be capable of the highest standard possible to have that honour and not someone who is ONLY capable at best work at best at the skill level of maybe a 5 - 10 year old, they should never be in a competition for portrait ARTIST of the year. No problem whatsoever in them competing in any other competitors at all, Art should be expressed in lot's of different ways but definitely not in the same skills category such as Portrait Artist of the year, this implies being able to produce work at a very high standard and definitely not someone one who has time to belt out 4 or 5 works in one heat, someone who actually only spends 15 or 20 minutes on their actual Submission this is not only very wrong but extremely disrespectful to you as judges and especially the other competitors.my apologies for going on a bit but as someone who has tried to produce something of a certain standard and is never really happy with most of what I produce, it's extremely frustrating, I could without doubt paint at the level of a six year old or throw paint at a canvas in the hope of creating at best a nice pattern but this would be to easy and anyone who pic's up a crayon could call themselves ARTIST, please please for a competition such as yours keep it to a certain standard then I would certainly start watching again and a high enough standard to call themselves ARTIST, they have been some extremely talented people on the show that don't even get considered, judge them not on how they may look in a perfectly lit gallery under some vague description that tries to explain why it's with next to no talent, but on skill capability and effort.

You can pretty much tell which artist the judges will select because they will often choose a certain Sloane type regardless of the art. It's a common theme now in this very class biased show. Not altogether surprising for the art world but it makes shameless television. I imagine that is why Frank Skinner quit the job because it is so obvious that talented artists get overlooked. Really really poor and shame on you Sky. It's high time that they replace the two non-artists in the judging panel and replace them with either artists or art school teachers.

As others have noted the work of artists on this show can make for compelling viewing. However, this effect is seriously undermined by the 'judges' whose aesthetic values seem to be based on a bias against good technique and the prioritisation of works that least resemble the sitter. The outcome of the 2018 competition was a joke IMO. Two further critical comments: the choice of sitter is often quite bizarre, based on the alleged fame, and the youth of the sitter rather than whether they will make good subjects with interesting faces. Last point: Joan Bakewell's diction is bizarre and irritating, the result perhaps of too many elocution lessons when young so that she has lost her original accent. The effect of this is that she seems unable to replicate her pronunciation of some words so 'one' isn't quite sure what she is referring to, e.g. Her pronunciation of London on one episode which sounded something like Lonn-Don.

I'd really like to see new judges.

It's gotten too predictable one can almost guess who will win.

Fresh judging would bring the show back up.

Maybe a panel of artist?

The three judges now must be getting tired of it.

I'd also like to see less working from iPads. Engage with your sitter,that's why they are there.

I'm an artist myself and have so much stress watching the artists be interrupted constantly with silly questions.

It works out to more like 3 1/2 hours instead of 4.

Maybe just let them do what they do best and observe?

Leave them be.

I loved the show so much at first and even though I still like it, it it needs a boost in a few ways.

My husband and I have been a fan of this show and the Landscape Artist since they began. However, over the last couple of series we have seen the judges choose paintings that my six year old granddaughter could produce. We stopped watching landscape artist during the last series when the judges chose art that quite frankly wasn't art! But tonight in the first episode of series 6 they chose a painting that without doubt I could do with my eyes closed! It must have taken ten minutes to do and it genuinely looked like a child had painted it. But to choose it as the winning painting over the others was just too much. So, we removed the series link and deleted episode 2 and will no longer be watching them. What a load of bull.

If I was an artist, I would never go on this show. I would not allow myself to be judged by these people, knowing that they are probably under pressure to pick winners on some basis other then who does the best portrait of the subject. It appears that an artist who is a "person of color" absolutely has the inside track in this competition, regardless of whether or not their portrait is good or captures a likeness of the sitter.

I love the concept of this TV show. If I only had to rate the concept I would easily rate it a 9/10.

I really enjoyed the first 3 seasons but by the fourth season it had become painfully predictable. I can always guess which portrait the judges are going to choose to send to the semi final. There's not much variety of art that gets sent to the semifinals and what's worse is that the judges think they're being really modern and unique with their choice of works. I understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and I really do like the type of style that the judges keep choosing but it's not the ONLY style I like.

This show desperately needs to switch things up with the judges. The show would instantly become more interesting if every 1-2 seasons we would see different judges and if all the judges were actual artists as opposed to curators and historians. I still cannot believe who they chose as the winner in 2020. It's something that every graphic designer out there has been doing for a good while now, it's something I've seen a thousand times, and doesn't show the level of skill that most of the other artists who competed showed.

The hosts are alright but I felt that Stephen Mangan is far more entertaining and better cast here than Joan Bakewell and Frank Skinner. But I don't really care that much about who is hosting as long as I'd get to see some variety for once!

They waste most of every episode focusing on the judges talking and barely show people actually painting. When it comes time to actually judge the finished paintings they don't even show them all! Then the judges make absolutely awful choices and are completely biased. I was so excited to see many different artists take on the same subject, but they don't even show them. The editing is also terrible, they will be talking about one person while showing work by another. On a super rare occasion they will show a time lapse of people painting which is so interesting, but the instances are few and far between. I've started fast forwarding through most of the episodes to get to the actual art.

I wish someone would make a better art competition show.