Those shows are great. I prefer the portrait one. The landscape locations I saw were kind of old fashioned.
I love both versions. I lean more towards the portrait show while my mom prefers the landscape show.
I would not want to be a judge on this type of show.
I love watching the varieties of techniques, and yes, some of the artists who prefer grittier locations often do the most interesting and innovative pieces, and sometimes the judges seem to pick the “prettier” pictures. Although they are seeing the pieces in real life, and genius is difficult to convey through a tv or computer screen. I do prefer the neutrality of the landscapes though, because I feel second hand embarrassment and disappointment if a sitter has a really unflattering portrait done; I’ve seen a couple of those.
I know a couple of the painters who have been on Portrait, the sitters are primed to understand that four hours is not the optimum time for some painters and the pressure is felt more by some than others. In Landscape I think the judges are sometimes influenced by the end commission prize although I have seen some surprising picks in the final three, the winner is often a safe bet.
I am more like a 40-hour painter.
Oh man. I’d love to see one of the contestants suddenly switch to conceptual art - the concept being that capitalism is a cancer that is killing everything.
Although I would imagine they probably have something int eh contract to guard against that.
Hunger games for the starving artists
a song of victory is played by harpists
rallying creative competitors to seek a win
no time for process everything abstract to the bin.
must claim ideas before an adversary does
and ensure ones brand theirs alone and always was.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.