Landscape Artist of the Year.

I haven’t been very impressed with many of the judges choices throughout the series this year.

I think the judges look for a back story about the winner and latched onto the fact that, as with Van Gogh he suffered from depression.

He was the only possible choice amongst the 3 finalists for the brief of France, and the piece he produced after his French trip was good - not earth-shattering - but just fine.

It was certainly an interesting and clever pastiche of all three artists ..

I so miss the south of France it's gorgeous..

Yes I agree, I think the south of France is all about light and colour, so for me he was the only possible winner. I haven’t seen the commissioned painting yet.

Agree the winner produced a really lovely painting. Out of the finalists he was the only possible winner as the other paintings were dark and thickly painted. Following the trail of Monet, Ceszanne and Van Gogh in the wonderful sunlight of the South of France needed light, colour and deft brush strokes. Really enjoyed last night’s programme.

Yes. The commission painting was lovely, wasn’t it. My son did a painting of Stonehenge; it’s in the loft. I must dig it out.

Now the series has finished I will say how much I enjoyed the Final at Stonehenge and the film of the winner's trip to the South of France. I'd thought he had a good chance of winning when we first saw him, and he came up with a stunning painting for the Courtauld.

ferry23

I can always predict the probable winner, it's usually the one I like the least.

And I agree with the twaddle! Last night Tai Shan said - and I think these are his exact words -

"it's almost as if he instinctively reacted to what was in front of him"...

...well excuse my ignorance, but if you're asked to paint a landscape that is in front of you, isn't that what you're supposed to do?

😂
Perhaps he really did react instinctively to what was in front of him? In other words he thought OMG I can’t do that!
As ferry23 says, the winners are predictable, they will be easily the least talented.

That was exactly why I did not like it; there was no sense of place or atmosphere and it could have been anywhere.

I dozed through the repeat , but finally managed to see the full programme .
I loved the beautiful little woodcut .
I wasn't that enchanted by the other entries .
The watercolour wasn't bad .
I felt that the artist managed to convey the mood of the scene in miniature -a very hard thing to do .

It’s an eye opener when you see Bill Bailey’s Extraordinary Portraits where the artist is usually professional and of a very high standard.

Stephen Mangan is the best bit in my opinion! I reckon he knows a lot of what the judges are saying is bullsh**. I am usually disappointed by the winner. Why oh why, I ask myself.

It has struck me that they seemed very cramped pascal30 and being constantly watched is a nightmare for any painter.

shysal

I think most of the winners of the current series are awful!

Totally agree!

Deedaa

I don't bother with the portrait one anymore. I get so annoyed with so many of them working from their I pads instead of the model and there's always someone going for photo realism which really isn't my thing. I've seen the little woodcut now and I think it's lovely. I've always had a soft spot for wood cuts as my art teacher at school was an expert. I don't see her winning the competition, but I have liked the paintings they've chosen so far.

A friend of mine has been on PAOTY a couple of times and apparently you have to stay where you are painting (because of the constant camera presence) and it is very difficult to actually see the sitter.. so much easier to use technology.. and they are constantly interrupted by the presenters.. very challenging I think..

Art is very subjective, but tho I haven’t seen this years bunch I agree that they often choose awful winners. “ But he got the ‘feel’ of the person/ landscape…” . The fact that it looks nothing like the subject(s) painted escapes them
I think they are always trying to be clever and find something ‘arty’ instead of great realism with a bit of character! I despaired and almost gave up watching! But I like Stephen Manganese, so often pick it up again later.

I don't bother with the portrait one anymore. I get so annoyed with so many of them working from their I pads instead of the model and there's always someone going for photo realism which really isn't my thing. I've seen the little woodcut now and I think it's lovely. I've always had a soft spot for wood cuts as my art teacher at school was an expert. I don't see her winning the competition, but I have liked the paintings they've chosen so far.

That was to Ferry23

Yes Marg the Portrait one is much better. For one thing the sitters are interesting. Yes the wild cards are often better.

😂🤦‍♀️

I've given up on it as I can't understand why they pick the artists that to they do. Some of the paintings are dreadful. Love the portrait one though.

I haven't seen this episode yet but so far I have liked all the winners in this series. I like all the innovative work we are seeing, and there's plenty of innovation among the wildcards too.

I absolutely love the wild card artists.. I wish they would spend more time on them

I usually prefer the wild card winner.