Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
That BBC 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
The format of the show is very confusing. Is it a competition, in which case you would seek the best amateur artists you could find for the job and they would all work at a high standard surely? Or is it a 'learn to paint' programme in which case why the judges and the eliminations?
I do recall that in the first series of the programme they said they were trying to find Britain's best amateur artist.
Now they deny that series ever existed by calling this series 2, when it is in fact series 3.
This year they say that contestants have been selected for their 'ability to learn'. I wonder how that selection took place?
Posted
Use blue to counteract pink ... or modify it, or whatever the intention was? And then the poor old chap picks up French Ultramarine ... and adds it to the pink on the canvas ... that was really going to work like a dream, wasn't it?
PS - If they're going to do this programme again, they'd do a lot better to get someone from Painters Online/TAPC - say, Dawn, Ingrid or Sally Bulgin - in as technical advisors/mentors. Or as producers, for preference.....
Edited
by RobertJones
Posted
I wonder what would happen if all the contestants turned out a perfect portrait of someone next week. What would the criteria be, photographic perfection or individuality and personal interpretation? If the former, then why bother, just buy a camera. It's how we all see and interpret things differently that makes art. If it were not so, how do you judge Dali against Gainsborough, Turner against Constable, any of them against Singer Sargent or Monet? Is the challenge a competition, and if not, why judge and send somebody home each week and have an eventuall winner? A "mentor" taking a brush from a contestant and demonstrating a point during the contest is a bit ludicrous, but it happened last week. The eventual weekly winner's portrait of an old lady armed forces veteran was described as looking like Ronnie Wood! Thankfully, there's no great prize at stake as few people seem to agree on anything in the show. Bring next week on..😆
Edited
by Wanderer69
Posted
Will read back on this, as haven't looked at several postings, but it seems to me...an old moan coming up... the 'show' is getting to the point of having too many 'staff' compared to participants.
It doesn't need the presenters, but it's TV and our local vicar can often be seen around and about in casual wear - not all black, with his dog collar, and rarely stands in that supremely pious way.
Posted
Sylvia, ref an earlier comment of yours; my wife watches the prog with me and is no way an artist but creates a lovely garden and cooks wonderful stuff. She uses non stop inane somtimes scoffing comments which annoy me greatly as I am trying to watch and listen, however bad it is.. Far be it from me to do the same about her efforts or during the huge number of cooking progs she digests.
Posted
Anybody watch the weekly B.B.C "How to kill creativity" hour? The longer this goes on, the more baffled I am as to what it's actually all about as opposed to previous years? Poor Jane ( at lest twice as good an artist as the Tilly lady) got shown the exit after some really insensitive and unneccesary caustic comments from the experts. Her views were realistic in that she uses colours to depict what she sees, not what Laclan, Daphne or the mentors see, which is usually totaly at odds with the mentors anyway. I don't agree that if you don't win tears are the answer, that's no criteria at all. Like a few of you, I have to watch, it's Sunday after-tea mandatory entertainment, but there's actually more caca-de- toros in evidence than in the Maestranza Plaza in Seville. Are they trying to breed a race of Pascal or Diana clones? They ask the public to vote on personal preferences (as diversified as football supporting but probably more genuine than the "experts" ) then pick three to send to the coffee discussion chamber before sending the wrong one home. Gee, it's great stuff this art. 😆
Posted
Watched it - thought the choice lay between Tilly and Jane, but thought the latter's effort was interesting and rather attractive in its way.
But there we are - few of the paintings were equal to the scene in front of them - too cautious, careful, and conservative: they're fearing to test themselves against the subject, and too keen to propitiate the judges and those (frankly) wholly incompetent mentors.
The whole thing has become just depressing to me now - I don't think there's very much to learn from watching this, and will hesitate to watch the further programmes, but probably will - in default of anything else, at least on the BBC. This whole thing could have been so much better - but is just a game show: if you can't even draw/paint a boat, for Heaven's sake, what on earth is the point? And why is a graphic designer (Anil) who know so much better than his hapless mentors, competing with the likes of these amateur artists? It's ludicrous, frankly: he may not win in the end, but he's the only competent artist there - if he doesn't win, it'll be a fix. If he does, it'll still be a fix.
The whole thing is a nonsense. Though quite why Coles had to underline this by wearing a kilt, God alone knows.
Edited
by RobertJones
Posted
I actually listened to the show introduction ( as in really hearing what the blurb said) for the first time tonight. It was stated the entrants had to have "a desire and passion to learn". Now theoretically that's fine, but is it a contest, and if so, why do they need lessons during the show, and if not, why are they bothering with a winner? Didn't they hold auditions over large numbers of applicants? Were they all learners? I mean, Youtube is full of useful lessons for beginners and real amateurs; lessons of far better quality without the confusion that is the panel. The Lachlan chap dashes at his explanations with gusto, but seems to conradict himself (and certainly baffles me) repeatedly. One week he's drooling over Constable's detail, the next about a modern day painter (sadly deceased at far too early an age which was the epitome of loose, almost abstract work.
Anyway, next week is about gymnasts in action; that should be fun.
Edited
by Wanderer69
Posted
From what I've seen, so far, the way the artists paint, now, has changed, their own personal style and technic of working has been slaughtered by over guidance
It is possible to portray a subject without such change. After listening to the mentors I was amused to hear Daphne say to Chris, paint 'what you see' we want to see that image.
With that said, I ask myself why was Jane, slammed for her depiction of water, using blue. Her last painting was a brave effort to please the mentor, I think, if she was left to do it her way, would have been full of life.
Some of the painters were told when to stop and leave well alone by their mentor, only to be told by, Lachlan, 'it is the artist who should decide when the painting is finished' such mixed and conflicting comments from experienced artists.
Will be interesting to see if the final paintings have become too much alike in the way they are presented.