Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Painting Challenge, BBC, again.... Episode 2
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
What did we think? Let me confess that I don't like the show or the format, and just leave that behind because it is what it is.
I would have hated to paint the subject given - comfort zone? Right bang in the middle of my discomfort zone - too many buildings, too much detail. But then, it was meant to stretch them, and it did. And I think one learned something about the contestants in this one, more so than in the last programme - I won't give away who lost out, because some might have saved this one to watch later - but I was sad for him or her - and (for once) I'm sure it really was a very difficult decision to make, these weren't just words.
Incidentally, I was slightly surprised - I thought the choice was possibly a mistake; but then.... I'm not one of the judges.
It is growing on me a little: is this because I can't resist programmes about painting, or because this one is getting better? I'm even beginning to regret my decision to avoid Sky (because I can't bear Rupert Murdoch - can't 'bear' Rupert: get it? Eh? Oh never mind....) - I've nothing to compare this programme with, other than the last series, that's the trouble.
Learning that the artists have 6 hours to do their painting - I'd not quite registered that before - does make me pause and ponder: I can't paint for 6 hours at a stretch now, the arthritis just wouldn't permit; but when I could - maybe 20 years ago .... well, I think I might have done a bit better (and of course: you've only my word for that!) - it puzzles me that painters go so quickly into detail, and worry at isolated bits of the painting before they've established the broad framework - is that perhaps the real mark of the amateur? If you haven't got the groundwork, how can you hope to produce a successful painting? Too many of them seemed to gloss over this initial stage in the hope that it'd be 'all right on the night' - if they were lucky it was, but it WAS luck. I did admire the painter who basically scrubbed out her early efforts and started again: brave, and successful (she won the popular vote). What it had to do with Hastings, Lord alone knows - but she seems to have been spared much comment from the judges on that front, having achieved the support of the public.
The whole thing does leave me with an enhanced sense of respect for the painters who put themselves through all this; I like Daphne Todd's honesty, and the quality of her judgement; on the whole, the same is true for Lachlan Goudie; I'm even warming to the art historian, David something, who actually stopped simpering a bit for this episode and concentrated on the essentials. The mentors - are leaving me unconvinced; they rather obviously have their favourites, and in my view impress their own views on their 'classes' rather more than I'd want to do if I were in their place: and neither seem to be especially sympathetic characters, but that might be that I'm transferring my own tendency to resist advice onto them; and of course - we're only seeing the tiniest fraction of their relationship and interaction with those with whom they're trying to work.
Posted
I've just seen the first episode on catch up and, I'm afraid, my low boredom threshold kicked in. So much pointless waffle and repeats of information already given. Anyway I ended up doing a lot of fast forwarding to get to the bits that mattered and probably missed out on a few useful bits of information but overall, for me at least, it was somewhat boring. Having said that I did find three of the bed interiors quite interesting and worthy of note - pleased to say they all got through.
Now to watch part 2 when I get a few moments - I'm sure I'll be doing more fast forwarding.
Posted
Treading on eggshells so as not to sound too judgemental after just watching Episode Two, but I'm not agreeing with much so far. What's the point of having mentors to guide ( not that I agree with that anyway) when some contestants blatantly ignore any advice or instruction? Granted, the finished work is their own, but one particular contestant seems to think (they) are above guidance or criticism in comparing them selves with Cezanne? ......and letting the public decide who stays in, come on? What's the point of judges then? All the contestants seem to specialise in their own fields, but that isn't what this is about is it? If you're painting a view of Hastings as a challenge, then surely Hastings it must be at least in some form or other, not an excercise in a pointilism view of Juan Le Pain... Oh, and how long can the public's favourite voodoo painter go on sending people home by daubing woad over her victims scalpings? Be sure not to miss Part Three of "Guess who's going Home tonight" next week....(-:
Posted
Hmmm. Personally, I think Jennifer's getting a free pass to the next round after spending 40 minutes slopping paint over an upside down landscape which, by her own admission, she hated, sends the wrong message.
I got more out of the mentor bloke having the contestants start a landscape using just five lines. I even tried simplifying a Constable landscape down to that extent
Roll on next week.
Posted
It's the first episode that I've seen and definitely the last, I found it painful and embarrassing. Perhaps I hadn't been warned that the contestants were rank amateurs, all clearly well out of their depth standing on Hastings pier to paint just one canvas in six hours. (correct me if I have that time scale wrong), all they did was continually moan about the weather, pathetic stuff.
However, six hours is a hell of a long time to be out painting plein-air facing just one vantage point, so little wonder that the contestants veered off at different tangents and all ended up hopelessly lost. As anyone knows who paints outside on a regular basis as I do you have a time frame of around 90 minutes to capture the essence of the scene, after that time the light will have changed significantly making it pointless to continue on that particular work. So in their defence it was a ridiculous time scale to spend on the same subject and typical of the lack of thinking and knowledge by the BBC.
It would have been more interesting, for me anyway to have had more competent artists on this monotonous one-hour show and at least we could have seen some decent finished paintings. I won't be wasting another hour of my time watching any more of this rubbish.
Posted
Sorry you feel like that Alan. Personally, it's a programme about painting so, despite a few scathing comments from me (all part of the fun as forums are surely about personal views and likes and dislikes) I'll certainly be watching the circus again next week. Jennifer discovering she liked her own work better when the wind blew it upside down was pure comedy gold, and I actually (hey, just my view) think even the "experts" are guilty of talking up some twaddle at times. Dealing with people and attempting to organise their thinking in one direction is at best a tough task, with artists it's mission impossible. The whole concept of art is creation and expression and it doesn't come in bottles or jars. Like someone already said, this years contestants are far poorer than last years. If they have talent enough to be selected to enter, then they should be left to prove it.
Amen....(-:
Edited
by Wanderer69
Posted
As Syd says, advice on perspective to artists? They are supposed to be artists first and being selected. The Beeb obviously don't take advice from practicing club artists for instance, just the elite I reckon. I actually did like the upside down wind blown glimpse of the hair painting. Like I said last week, two many staffers and why that vicar? They should give them a challenge and let them each get on with it in their own way, not be telling them how to paint whatever subject it is.
Robert's comfort zone is very different to mine, I know - I have been out sketching with him, so I would have been in my element with Hastings and have sketched near that pier while my wife swam. I wonder if figure work comes into play in further episodes.
My wife made some facetious remarks immediately during dialogue was live after the coloured lady had made marks with credit cards. I so wanted to hear and couldn't, the atmosphere in the lounge wasn't too sweet for a time - I'd told her to shut up. Will have to watch it again.
I get too annoyed at the producers, they are thinking purely of a TV production, as they will I suppose, but it doesn't adjust to artists like wot I am for good viewing.
Posted
Have you ever noticed (I'm sure that's a pointless question, of course you have) how much camera time on these programmes is spent on the "experts", guests and visiting dignitaries instead of the painting and contestants? I'm still trying to remove the burn mark left in my pc monitor screen from Una Stubbs hauntings from last year. Visits to museums and art galleries for the purpose of seeing art works, fine, but the public traipsing in and voting on who shouldn't go home? Really? Get on with the painting please...pretty please...(-:
Edited
by Wanderer69
Posted
An interesting cross section of views - some crosser than others.....
The 6 hours thing - yes, Alan, I think that's the oddest part of the programme on reflection: do they really work for 6 hours at a stretch? En plein air? Why, on earth - who does that? I've worked for hours on paintings before, usually when they've gone wrong, but 6 hours .... until Alan spelled it out, I hadn't really thought just how long that is (which sounds daft, I know): it gives you every opportunity to get something right, and even more of an opportunity to go and muck it up afterwards. How can you possibly make sense of the light on a typical English day if you're slaving away for that length of time? Well, you can't, and they didn't - 2 hours I could have understood; then a nice cup of tea and an ice-cream or sandwich on the prom: that would have been my idea of a good day. Yet even with the 6 hours, some of them didn't finish ... very odd.
I do, incidentally, remember Watercolour Challenge - Hannah Gordon reciting cringe-inducing poetry in a reverent voice to fill in the gaps.... Not her fault, I hasten to add, she didn't devise the thing. But WCC did produce a higher standard of work as I remember - memory does tend to add enchantment - and a very fine painter, Rupert Cordeux, emerged from it. I don't see any of these contestants in anywhere near the same category, and that's a large part of the trouble.
I will watch the next one - but a waste of time? Well - yes. It is.