Sky Arts Landscape Painter Of The Year

I have been watching this series with a mounting sense of incredulity, but tonight’s episode just defied belief.

Now I know that certain people will decry me as a philistine, but as an ex-art student I couldn’t believe that tonight’s winner was at all worthy. His “landscape” looked a bit like an arse-wipe after a particularly bad night out.

Could it be that as a second-year student at the revered Slade he had some advantage, particularly as Tai, one of the judges is an alumnus?

Perish the thought!

You can see the brilliance of the winning artist here:

Talk about Emperors New Clothes.

Uggh…how depressing. I have a friend in Utah who is more of a traditional landscape artist…much more to my liking…

When in Southampton get to the art gallery and check out Ben Johnson’s work, currently on display.

Some of his earlier work is incredible.

As for Sam Taylor…Lou told me to be more cutting so…what a pile of absolute crap!

A waste of a felt tip, and a waste of a place at art school.

He looks totally talent-free.

Felt tip? I think he droppped his trousers and pants, covered his arse in paint and twerked at the canvas…some even look like he coughed and had follow through whilst he was twerking.


Its right on the money for a big business to put on its office walls though.

As Ex-Trader said it’s a case of “Emperors New Clothes”…it’s the sort of thing only “expert art critics” could like. It’s the only view you have when your head is so far up your arse.

Well, I’m no expert art critic, but I like the Sam Taylor paintings. Depends on whether you like non-figurative art I guess.

I dont get a lot of “art.” I can throw a lot of paint on a canvas but why is a Pollock worth more than my offering just because it is done by him? Why is Tracey Emin’s unmade bed worth money and comment whereas mine is just me being too lazy to make it? Why is a dead, stuffed shark in a case a masterpiece? I am fine with people getting off on whatever gets them off, but often clearly it is a case of someone has said this is cool and it is in a gallery therefore it must be cool. You can imagine a group of people standing around a mop and a bucket in a gallery muttering something about the composition and how it says something profound about the mess our lives are in and how we need to clean it up only for the cleaner to come along later and walk off with their work tools.

Not being an ‘expert art critic’ but married to someone who has studied the history of and fine art… think you guys are simply dismissing what you dont think is what art should be… it’s no different from how folks responded to the many movements, such the impressionists, the fauve, cubism, modernism etc. all of which are now highly respected. In his day even Constable was considerd a maveric…

It’s because what you see is challenging what you consider to be art - a popular misconception is that some high browed folk pretend to ‘get it’ whilst the masses are being ignorant (the emporers new clothes…). The point is that its not about ‘getting it’ or even understanding it - its about questioning, chalenging expectations (being provocative) and anyone can do that if you remain open to the experience. You dont have to like a piece of art to appreciate it. You dont have to understand it to respect it.

These landscapes are a little abstract for sure,and wont be to everyones taste, but to dismiss it out of hand because it is not meeting your expectations of what a landscape should be seems odd. Would you dismiss a new scientific hypothesis in a similar vein, simply because it goes against what you have learned? I dont think you would. I just think there is a huge amount of reverse snobbery where art is concerned.

It’s easy for those with a bit of talent to paint or draw in familiar styles… art is about using that talent and challenging expectations. Its not about pretty pictures that look good above the fireplace.


But if beauty is in the eye of a beholder surely that means that just because that a person says something is good and is “art” and another things it is bollocks then both are right? Just because an art critic “gets it” doesnt really mean that there is anything to get. To them and people who agree with them yes, but for others who just think it is bollocks then it really it just bollocks. I get that art isnt about pretty pictures, and I may well have my expectations challenged by someone taking a dump on the floor and surrounding it with seaweed, but I am not happy with the dump being worth millions just because somebody that has influence in these circles decides it is “art.” It is about time some of these people just said do you know what, this is just shit!


But you answer our own question, Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder, but art is NOT about beauty. Also ‘dump on floor surrounded by seaweed’’ come on SOG, that is a bit cliched. NO one would ‘pay millions’ for that sort of thing. Bit churlish to use examples that are unrealistic. I am sure someone has taken a dump and called it art - but apart from shock value it is simply a turd…

You need to forget about the ‘price’ of something - it has nothing to do with either the definition of what is and is not art, nor is it any reflection of quality. It is merely a reflection of of supply and demand and what someone is willing to pay. Is a Picasso really worth 120mil? No, the price is merely because its being treated as a comodity/investment.

The ‘someone with influence’ - ‘in these circles’ … can you not hear the prejudice in these statements? Yes there are art critics and art historians and commentators. Yes there are those who are ‘less credible’ than others (usually gallery owners), but also those that have credibility, have studied, researched etc, same as scientists etc - their opinion is not always correct, but it carries more influence becasue of that study and research, not because of any devine right. To dismiss their view on a piece as rubbish would be no different to dismissing Darwin and his views on natural selection… they are afterall still a ‘Theory’.

Art should create an emotional repsonse - sometimes it will be beautiful, sometimes very moving, others shocking or confusing - but never indifference.

There are more pieces of ‘art’ that are considered shit by critics that vice versa already…

woah are you bros saying art is subjective?

Pretty interested in seeing sog’s shit seaweed collage tbh


'specially as he paid £1mil for it…must be a bit pissed off that someone called it just a piece of shit


To those people who didn’t actually watch the programme, believe you me those paintings on his website are masterpieces compared to his offering on the show.

And it was his second attempt.

That may be very true. BUT, its a popular misconception that these ‘experts’ (not to be confused with simple ‘critics’) just pluck their 'opinions on a piece out of thin air based on their likes and dislikes. They dont. They view a piece in context of their own knowledge and understanding of a much broader range of art than the average person in the street because of their study.

Good (very simple) illustration is me. I could never get Picasso and Braque and their cubist nonsense, because I did not understand what they were doing - two eyes on same plane? distorted objects and shapes? What the fuck was that all about? When I read a bit about it that in simple terms , they were trying to show what objects and forms really looked like from all sides at once (tricky to do without 3D holograms) - it makes alot more sense and actually became much more interesting… same goes of Jackson Pollocks or even stranger someone like Jeff Koons… we tend to be far more critical of that which we dont understand because we are worried it highlights our ignornace… reality is EVERYONE can get it, but not everyone has accessed or researched the right information.

To dismiss Darwinian evolution as ‘still a theory’ CR, shows that you may well know more about art than science.

Try looking up the scientific definition of ‘theory’.

1 Like

@Cracked Rib Your explanation of what art is is all very understandable but it fails to understand that to 99.7% of the population art is there to be enjoyed.

For me what Sam Taylor has produced is neither enjoyable nor likeable, true it illicits a response and, in that sense, is art but to me it is a horrendous mess that my girls could easily reproduce.

A while ago someone put a pile of bricks up at the Tate Modern normally I see this sort of thing hanging around at Jewsons or Wickes so what makes it art? What makes it worthy of comment? The author must have been laughing all the way to the bank (bet you he was an ex Wickes employee)


Considering I studied Evolutionary Biology, I would suggest otherwise - you seem to have missed the point on that one Ex-Trader, being that there is a similar level of hypotheses tested, evidence required and theories presented in the academic pursuit of art as there is in science - and I say that as a scientist!