Your main concern appears to be the poor likenesses of some of the portraits. There are several points to consider. First, the judges have no way of knowing whether or not the submitted portraits are good likeness of the artists as they do not meet the artists until they appear on the programme. Second, producing a portrait in four hours under the glare of public scrutiny and television cameras, plus the judges' continual interruptions, compared with painting in the privacy of their own studios and in their own time must be a tall order, so it is no surprise that some of the portraits are unsatisfactory. And third, the objective of the programme's producers is not so much to find master painters as it is to produce good television, at which by your own admission they succeed. In doing so, the producers no doubt demand that judges meet several criteria when choosing the artists, including a range of painting styles and a diversity of candidates (sex, ethnicity, domicile, etc). And, in selecting a winner, it is apparent that the judges consider the age of the artists, their artistic potential, and whether an artist is likely able to meet the demands of the prize commission, alongside the quality of portraits produced. That ALL the artists can produce a good likeness is hardly a consideration. You come across as an old curmudgeon.
I often shake my head at the judges decisions and agree with much of what you have said. But .. In respect to the artist. I have been led to believe that many of them had as much time as they needed to work on their entry self portraits and probably mostly from photographs and perhaps traced onto the support.... Then they are task with doing a painting from life in four hours where the sitters are constantly moving, being interviewed with cameras stuck in their faces, and are much further away from the sitter than it appears on TV. That being said, half of them work from iPad or phone photos and ignore the sitter mostly. but I thought that it might be why so many artist fail on the show. That and the added pressure of being on national TV. A lot going on. It amazes me how some of the artists can really soar in that environment.
I agree. If I even know someone might drop buy I dont paint. I have to have my music and all my tools in a certain way. I would have no concentration under these competitive conditions.
I completely agree, these are my exact thoughts when I watch this show. I paint portraits (although mostly charcoal) and I am by no means a professional and in almost every episode there is at least one contestant that I know I could out preform and I am not that good! haha
Keeping it 💯. With around three exceptions, most of the portraits look like something I'd see in an adult enrichment evening school art class. The judges nauseate me with their florid gaslighting. Then there's the Landscape Artist of the Year, where contestants complain about having to paint trees--hating the color green--or--only attempting it ONCE before. You're entering a contest for a £10,000 prize and you can't be bothered with getting up to snuff.
Thank you for these blooper videos! They make me laugh so much and I admire all the artists for getting up there and doing it regardless. Some of the bloopers make me feel better about my own attempts. I've seen very different takes though on the role of likeness in portraits. Some of the judges want to define "portrait" very loosely and define portraits as broad resemblance and devaluing likeness and get excited by the painting style. Even if I move away from realism, I'd like to be able to do likeness well and then have the expression be an artistic choice
You are so right. I can't agree with you more. I'm glad you pointed it out. If the show experiences a decline in patronage the producers and judges should at least know exactly why.
That (often) amateur painters don’t produce wonderful work - or a likeness - in a short time and under great scrutiny is not a surprise. The meanness of your opinions is more offensive than anything I see on the show
Arnt these artists amateurs? As someone who is involved with an art group who do portraits, I know that two representations are never the same and I know from.lonh experience you don't always get a likeness.
It's almost as if they know nothing about painting or drawing, the judges that is. And if they don't why are they judging a competition on drawing and painting. Tai Shan Schirenberg is who I'm most disappointed in because I think he's actually a talented artist. But he's outnumbered by nitwits. Please forgive my name calling but this show drives me up the wall. You are 100 percent correct, the artists should at least show a basic understanding of perspective, contrast, proportion, anatomy, character of line, etc., etc. I like the show and the landscape artist of the year as well, but I just wish they would please, please, please, get new judges at least every season. It's really really annoying.
I agree. Rotating artist judges would make a big difference. Just like in the bake off program. You need judges who have spent time developing the skills they are judging.
Your main concern appears to be the poor likenesses of some of the portraits. There are several points to consider. First, the judges have no way of knowing whether or not the submitted portraits are good likeness of the artists as they do not meet the artists until they appear on the programme. Second, producing a portrait in four hours under the glare of public scrutiny and television cameras, plus the judges' continual interruptions, compared with painting in the privacy of their own studios and in their own time must be a tall order, so it is no surprise that some of the portraits are unsatisfactory. And third, the objective of the programme's producers is not so much to find master painters as it is to produce good television, at which by your own admission they succeed. In doing so, the producers no doubt demand that judges meet several criteria when choosing the artists, including a range of painting styles and a diversity of candidates (sex, ethnicity, domicile, etc). And, in selecting a winner, it is apparent that the judges consider the age of the artists, their artistic potential, and whether an artist is likely able to meet the demands of the prize commission, alongside the quality of portraits produced. That ALL the artists can produce a good likeness is hardly a consideration. You come across as an old curmudgeon.
I often shake my head at the judges decisions and agree with much of what you have said. But .. In respect to the artist. I have been led to believe that many of them had as much time as they needed to work on their entry self portraits and probably mostly from photographs and perhaps traced onto the support.... Then they are task with doing a painting from life in four hours where the sitters are constantly moving, being interviewed with cameras stuck in their faces, and are much further away from the sitter than it appears on TV. That being said, half of them work from iPad or phone photos and ignore the sitter mostly. but I thought that it might be why so many artist fail on the show. That and the added pressure of being on national TV. A lot going on. It amazes me how some of the artists can really soar in that environment.
I agree. If I even know someone might drop buy I dont paint. I have to have my music and all my tools in a certain way. I would have no concentration under these competitive conditions.
Maybe some of them have been helped with going about their submissions.
@@aphrabenn3233 I never thought of that.
I completely agree, these are my exact thoughts when I watch this show. I paint portraits (although mostly charcoal) and I am by no means a professional and in almost every episode there is at least one contestant that I know I could out preform and I am not that good! haha
That is how I feel too.
Keeping it 💯. With around three exceptions, most of the portraits look like something I'd see in an adult enrichment evening school art class. The judges nauseate me with their florid gaslighting. Then there's the Landscape Artist of the Year, where contestants complain about having to paint trees--hating the color green--or--only attempting it ONCE before. You're entering a contest for a £10,000 prize and you can't be bothered with getting up to snuff.
It is very up and down. I wonder how many people apply and who judges them in? Producers, the judges we know on the program?
Thank you for these blooper videos! They make me laugh so much and I admire all the artists for getting up there and doing it regardless. Some of the bloopers make me feel better about my own attempts. I've seen very different takes though on the role of likeness in portraits. Some of the judges want to define "portrait" very loosely and define portraits as broad resemblance and devaluing likeness and get excited by the painting style. Even if I move away from realism, I'd like to be able to do likeness well and then have the expression be an artistic choice
This program has made me easier on my failures.m
I guess thats why the sitters must be actors😂😂😂😂. I mean the last portrait really shocked me. It showed a complete lack of respect for the sitter
That is why I get emotionally involved. I take this art thing as a privlege and it should not be misused.
You are so right. I can't agree with you more. I'm glad you pointed it out. If the show experiences a decline in patronage the producers and judges should at least know exactly why.
I want to know more about how the show is produced.
Do you think the painters are just as frustrated? They surely have to know that they have not even nailed it…
Good question. I do not know the answer.
I often think its lucky the sitters can draw on their acting skills when they see some of the works.
I think they have done that for sure.
💓
That (often) amateur painters don’t produce wonderful work - or a likeness - in a short time and under great scrutiny is not a surprise. The meanness of your opinions is more offensive than anything I see on the show
Omgosh! Ohhh my.. 🫣
There were some rough ones.
I thought it was me. You are so right about those paintings not even close.
Arnt these artists amateurs? As someone who is involved with an art group who do portraits, I know that two representations are never the same and I know from.lonh experience you don't always get a likeness.
Some. Ut not all. Some of the amateurs have been better than the professionals.
I find your judge mental comments as rude. Do better with what you put out into the world please.
Avez vous deja tenter de présenter votre autoportrait en sélection a PAOTY ?
I love the show, but I don't think the judges are doing the artists a favor by the way they pick a winner.
judges who are also painters would be a good start in changing how this program is in tone.
@@jomackenzie7065 - except you may not like their paintings or their choice of winner! One of the judges is a painter.
It's almost as if they know nothing about painting or drawing, the judges that is. And if they don't why are they judging a competition on drawing and painting. Tai Shan Schirenberg is who I'm most disappointed in because I think he's actually a talented artist. But he's outnumbered by nitwits. Please forgive my name calling but this show drives me up the wall. You are 100 percent correct, the artists should at least show a basic understanding of perspective, contrast, proportion, anatomy, character of line, etc., etc. I like the show and the landscape artist of the year as well, but I just wish they would please, please, please, get new judges at least every season. It's really really annoying.
I agree. Rotating artist judges would make a big difference. Just like in the bake off program. You need judges who have spent time developing the skills they are judging.
i think most artists thnk the show is crap. I don't mind encouraging young artists...but why embarrass sitters and artists in the process
I did not know artists do not take this program as seriously as I do. I need to think about that.
@@jomackenzie7065 - bob8878 claims that he speaks for 'most artists' rather that acknowledging that this is only 'his' opinion.