I know at least two other artists who have stood in front of a Rembrandt and cried. There's just something about his expression that says, "And what are you doing with your life? Get painting!"
I definitely love the choice of Archie as the winner, but I was disappointed that the other two got 2nd and 3rd. While they are talented, I thought their choices of mediums showed a lack of experience and professionalism. While alcohol inks can deliver some wonderful effects, they are notoriously fugitive-some will completely disappear in as little as 6-8 months! Even UV filtering coatings will only slow that process down. Considering that these artists are competing for a commission that will be part of a museum collection-where the expectation is that paintings will exist for hundreds of years-I just felt that these two artists didn’t understand the obligation to create a piece that will stand the test of time. In addition to capturing a likeness, a professional artist must also know how to create a piece that will look the same 100 years from the day it was created. As for the charcoal, while it won’t fade, portraits typically sell for large sums of money and I didn’t feel that charcoal showed how well the artist understood color-color adds a whole new level of difficulty. For a commission this prestigious, I wanted an artist to demonstrate a solid skill with color. This commission is a BIG DEAL, and while all of the artists were extremely talented, I felt there were others that were better prepared for it. My picks were Archie, Zeri, and Jane.
I completely agree on the alcohol inks. They are fine to work with if you scan the pictures and sell digital copies or professional artist quality prints that would last longer than the original. Absolutely not suitable for this competition and for a museum commission, even with UV-filter glasses and no direct light on their display. There are better quality inks than the one in the marker pens, but still, it isn't a material that would stand the test of time. Although that can be a problem with painting too, Van Gogh was notorious for using fugitive colours (mostly because they were cheaper), some even lost colour while he still was alive and he was aware of it (his solution was a thicker coat of paint, but that wasn't a reliable solution as we know it now). On charcoal I just want to weigh in that working monochromatic shows how well an artist understands values and contrast. Maybe less suitable for an exhibition piece but it can most certainly show the full ability of an artist in understanding light and contrast which is essential even if you work in colour. It is of course more difficult to do it in colour but if you are very well practiced in monochromatic adding colour shouldn't be an issue.
I think sadly they’re choosing many artists who don’t have much actual experience with portraits. Which to me, defeats the entire purpose is this competition. How can you put someone in a “portrait artist of the year” competition that has little to no experience with them. There should be a minimum requirement of some sort (w portraits) to even be included. Archie was by far the rightful winner in my opinion
Can't believe that Jane's painting didn't even make the shortlist... from the beginning, hers had such a great likeness...the only other artist that had a good likeness of the sitter was Archie ...and what's with the ear on Shaloah's (sp)? ....way too small and way too high and not well formed ... at least the winner's was one of the best of the lot
The male actor that had his hand to his mouth chose the painting from the artist that spoke to him the most. I think there should be a rule where the artists should have boundaries and not shmoose in order to be chosen.
I’ve noticed a pattern… they seem to have several artists w little to no actual experience with actual portraits. I really wish they chose all artists who excel SPECIFICALLY in portraits. I mean these are famous sitters.
The chalk artist to me, just didnt show how beautiful the sitter was. Something just looked odd to me about it. I don’t think it should be too 3 at all sadly.
(Honestly) I've seen better street artists ...and then the judges try to obfuscate the messes with their jibber-jabbering; and people think, "Well the judges are 'the judges' so I have to believe whatever they say" No you don't.
My thoughts exactly....at least the winner's portrait was a great likeness as well... Jane's should have been shortlisted alongside of Archie's...then there would have been some comparable pieces to select the winner from
This series n landscape series would be better without those 2 so-called female judges. They practically try to push away old techniques and keep pinning new “unique/modern’ styles.. both doesn't have background in art or even painting.
The ladies have a background in art history and museum curating. So they know their stuff in theory very well. For this competition it is important to have a different view than an artist would have as the final commission piece will hang in a museum in the end, it hast to fit certain requirements an artist is less aware of. Art is highly subjective and seeing the original in the flesh and the whole process may show the pictures in a different light than for us watching 4 hours compressed into 45 minutes. Everyone can choose their favourite paintings, you are free to disagree with any judges or artists on what looks best.
I love Archie’s painting. Only a couple had the likeness.
They chose the best one, brilliant painting!
Yes Archie was a good choice but I think one of the Stephen ones should’ve been in the last 3
“Wall of clocks” that was hilarious
I know at least two other artists who have stood in front of a Rembrandt and cried. There's just something about his expression that says, "And what are you doing with your life? Get painting!"
yes! the best won this time!
..but will they next time?
Thank you for posting this….love this show
They always surprise me by their top three choices. I had 2 different choices along with Archie
Wonderful series. I'm enjoying every minute.
Sometimes it’s really hard for me to not skip to the end!
The woman who finished first and had done Stephen was by far the best.
100%
Beautiful! Excellent choice 👌
They picked the right winner without a doubt. By far the best up there.
Well done. Worthy winner!
They're all wonderful but thought Archie's was especially terrific!
One of the most beautiful series . LOVE ..LOVE .LOVE
I definitely love the choice of Archie as the winner, but I was disappointed that the other two got 2nd and 3rd. While they are talented, I thought their choices of mediums showed a lack of experience and professionalism. While alcohol inks can deliver some wonderful effects, they are notoriously fugitive-some will completely disappear in as little as 6-8 months! Even UV filtering coatings will only slow that process down. Considering that these artists are competing for a commission that will be part of a museum collection-where the expectation is that paintings will exist for hundreds of years-I just felt that these two artists didn’t understand the obligation to create a piece that will stand the test of time. In addition to capturing a likeness, a professional artist must also know how to create a piece that will look the same 100 years from the day it was created.
As for the charcoal, while it won’t fade, portraits typically sell for large sums of money and I didn’t feel that charcoal showed how well the artist understood color-color adds a whole new level of difficulty. For a commission this prestigious, I wanted an artist to demonstrate a solid skill with color.
This commission is a BIG DEAL, and while all of the artists were extremely talented, I felt there were others that were better prepared for it. My picks were Archie, Zeri, and Jane.
I completely agree on the alcohol inks. They are fine to work with if you scan the pictures and sell digital copies or professional artist quality prints that would last longer than the original. Absolutely not suitable for this competition and for a museum commission, even with UV-filter glasses and no direct light on their display. There are better quality inks than the one in the marker pens, but still, it isn't a material that would stand the test of time. Although that can be a problem with painting too, Van Gogh was notorious for using fugitive colours (mostly because they were cheaper), some even lost colour while he still was alive and he was aware of it (his solution was a thicker coat of paint, but that wasn't a reliable solution as we know it now).
On charcoal I just want to weigh in that working monochromatic shows how well an artist understands values and contrast. Maybe less suitable for an exhibition piece but it can most certainly show the full ability of an artist in understanding light and contrast which is essential even if you work in colour. It is of course more difficult to do it in colour but if you are very well practiced in monochromatic adding colour shouldn't be an issue.
Thank you for educating us about an artist choice of paints and how that choice will impact the painting in its future.
I appreciate your feedback…
Ty 😊
Archie was the best hands down. Unfortunately, this wasn't a good day for the other artists.
I think sadly they’re choosing many artists who don’t have much actual experience with portraits. Which to me, defeats the entire purpose is this competition. How can you put someone in a “portrait artist of the year” competition that has little to no experience with them. There should be a minimum requirement of some sort (w portraits) to even be included. Archie was by far the rightful winner in my opinion
YES😊
Can't believe that Jane's painting didn't even make the shortlist... from the beginning, hers had such a great likeness...the only other artist that had a good likeness of the sitter was Archie ...and what's with the ear on Shaloah's (sp)? ....way too small and way too high and not well formed ... at least the winner's was one of the best of the lot
amo muito, tudo isso. quero receber a tradução do brasil aqui..
Archie is a boss!
The male actor that had his hand to his mouth chose the painting from the artist that spoke to him the most. I think there should be a rule where the artists should have boundaries and not shmoose in order to be chosen.
I’ve seen portrait sitter choose worst painting probably to avoid having such terrible portrait “out there”. Hehe
Archie's was the best!
Any gadget like Ipads should be banned from competition. Archie didn't need it.
Degas used photos and tracing.
The tinfoil background is so disturbing!!!!! What creazy ideea!!!
toooo many commercials! every 5-6 minutes or less!
Who told Daisy to stand there at the beginning of the video?
I’ve noticed a pattern… they seem to have several artists w little to no actual experience with actual portraits. I really wish they chose all artists who excel SPECIFICALLY in portraits. I mean these are famous sitters.
Wall of clocks. 😂
2019??..
Every time these sitters say they can’t really sit still I’m wondering why they were asked 😣
They are not really expected to sit still. If you listen to the judges' comments, in other episodes, of the models sinking.
The chalk artist to me, just didnt show how beautiful the sitter was. Something just looked odd to me about it. I don’t think it should be too 3 at all sadly.
(Honestly) I've seen better street artists
...and then the judges try to obfuscate the messes with their jibber-jabbering; and people think, "Well the judges are 'the judges' so I have to believe whatever they say"
No you don't.
Jane was
just ROBBED! OMG - what is wrong w/ these judges????
My thoughts exactly....at least the winner's portrait was a great likeness as well... Jane's should have been shortlisted alongside of Archie's...then there would have been some comparable pieces to select the winner from
I would've been hard pressed to decide between those two!
@@conniekiers9554
Performing for Putin is not a good thing lol
This series n landscape series would be better without those 2 so-called female judges. They practically try to push away old techniques and keep pinning new “unique/modern’ styles.. both doesn't have background in art or even painting.
The ladies have a background in art history and museum curating. So they know their stuff in theory very well. For this competition it is important to have a different view than an artist would have as the final commission piece will hang in a museum in the end, it hast to fit certain requirements an artist is less aware of. Art is highly subjective and seeing the original in the flesh and the whole process may show the pictures in a different light than for us watching 4 hours compressed into 45 minutes. Everyone can choose their favourite paintings, you are free to disagree with any judges or artists on what looks best.