Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
The Big Painting Challenge
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
I liked the practical exercise they demo'd about finding your eye-line, and the informative bit about the Lichtenstein bedroom. Jennifer - the contestant who spent more than half her time faffing around without actually creating anything - needs to be sent home PDQ rather than being saved by the audience. And, anybody (as one did) who dollops thick daubs of paint on the canvas to paint feathers is probably out of their depth.
It's easy to criticise from the comfort of a Monday morning lie in; I'm looking forward to episode 2.
Posted
Trouble is, the programme is by definition a gimmick, so the non-drawing contestant (did she improve later, my attention waned?) ought to have been in her element. Its problems are obvious - you set up a still life consisting of the same objects for everyone because that way it's easier to judge; but if you're going to do that, why use entirely random objects with no relationship to each other? I suppose to test the artists to see if they realize that the only way to tackle this sort of thing is to privilege one object over all the others rather than trying to paint them with equal attention, but the extremely boring paintings this produced reflected the tedious nature of the exercise. Then we went on to the two rooms exercise, the one based very obviously on a van Gogh painting (and when one of the contestants mentioned that, his bossy mentor said "forget the artist": well maybe YOU should have forgotten the artist - whose damn' fool idea was this, anyway?) the other was supposed to have some relationship to Roy Liechtenstein, about whom Lachlan Goudie spoke in the only relatively interesting part of the programme so far as I was concerned, but the snag was that it hadn't.
OK, I'm not exactly easy to please, and this WAS the first programme in a series, but for me the only pleasure to be derived from it is the look on Daphne Todd's face, which could be translated as "How the Hell did I let myself be bribed into doing this thing again?", and Lachlan Goudie's patent embarrassment that he's there at all, masked by a rather desperate attempt at boyish enthusiasm - for which he's been too old for some years. And I pass, in simple human compassion, over the other judge who is obviously trying to give us a parody of an arts professional with added simpering.
I shall continue watching it, as I did the last series - just to see if Daphne Todd finally breaks down and screams "It's all just bloody awful!" - but you couldn't pay me enough to participate in a show like this as a contestant, and I've great compassion for those who do; if I were their best friend, I'd advise them "DON'T" - no artist in the whole history of art has ever been able to produce good work across so wide a spread of subjects, constrained by time and the pressure of being watched, and using the direly dull props imposed on them by a programme such as this, and I fail to see what, in the end, even the winner can hope to gain from it.
Posted
As always, these shows have good and bad section (I'm a lifetime dance fan but much preferred Come Dancing which was actually about dance and not theatrical gimmicks) . I often wonder where they choose the contestants from and I share the views here on talent and rubbish. What surprises me (against it seems, the main opinion via the media) is that tuition is needed during a contest like this. Surely it's about talent they're supposed to already have? Give them the task, stand back and judge the results, eleiminate on merit and announce a winner. What exactly is complicated about that?
Jim..
Posted
Yes Jim, I entirely agree with your view. Why did they need mentors? And that abstract girl, what on earth did the public see in her art I don't know. I noticed there were no watercolour artists there, I wonder why?? When I look at our gallery here and see the wonderful paintings from amateur artists you wonder where on earth do they find these people who want to be criticised publicly I don't know. Programmes like the X Factor have rubbish singers going through only to be made fun of, why why why do they put them through???? The mind boggles! I will continue to watch though to see what else comes along. At least with the Sky Arts programme 'Portrait artist of the Year', they are all portrait painters, though I never agree with the judges on that. Moan over now.....
Posted
I thought it was better than the last Painting Challenge series - although with two presenters, two judges, and two mentors, it does seem a bit over-staffed.
There's nothing wrong with having an abstract artist on the show as long as you can see where their ideas come from. During the still life project it looked as though she spent most of the time there swirling paint and wondering what else to do with it. The thing with the hair was, well, a bit gross. I was also puzzled as to why some of the contestants seemed a bit clueless at times - how do I draw a chair? why is my paint so runny? - when I assumed the people on the show, who had their own paints, would have some experience of knowing what they were doing. TV nerves, maybe?
I quite like the fact that we are learning from the programme as well though, the piece about the bedroom was interesting. I liked the demonstration of how perspective works (a tricky subject for many). I'll keep watching and hope everyone will settle into it and the painting will get better.
Kay M.
Posted
I was quite interested when they first asked for contestants. I followed instructions to the letter and e-mailed them to get an application form. They e-mailed me and said that they would send me a form. I then went on holiday, as I do, and after several weeks contacted them again to find out where the application form was. The then told me that the closing date was over, but I could send in a couple of paintings. Needless to say I was not selected. However I am quite pleased - they have saved me from a fate worse than death. I would hate those annoying mentors and the subject matter has been uninspiring to me. the only things I would have enjoyed painting were the teddybear and the copper kettle. I really sympathise with the contestants and wonder what kind of take I would have had with the challenges. I think I would have put a teddybear on the bed or someone sleeping in it. Perspective asked for all the construction lines to be left in. Still life in 2 hrs - has to be simplified, so a close up on 2 or 3 items at most.
But the challenges were in my view too simple - teaching granny to suck eggs and all that.