I don't understand how Natalie won in the end. Her pieces were too weak in my opinion. Watching the episode where she painted a peanut butter sandwich, the sandwich was not really deep or on point compared to the rest, and the poses were too simple, yet she still managed to stay? Nicole's piece was definitely better, there were at least movements like hair and scarf flying in the wind. I feel like the judges were kind of biased because they like peanut butter sandwich? Just can't really agree. In my honest opinion, her techniques were really in the bottom. I'm not convinced by the judges decision. And creativity? you call peanut butter sandwich creativity?AND in the episode where they ask them to paint only on hands to tell a story, she painted mountains and volcano eruption. How is that even a story? Zeus and cow, that's a story. Adam and Eve, that's a story. Volcano eruption? that's not even a story!!! and she won???????? are judges blind?

Amazing show, talented hosts, talented artists = breaktaking results.

Sorry for any spoilers! So we've watched two seasons so far, 1 & 2, and admittedly we watched them in a couple of days, but I'm not going to be watching season 3 for a couple of reasons, most noticeable in season 2. Firstly, the judging is bad, and not because I disagree with their choices necessarily, but because it is never clear what they're judging on. Take the steam punk challenge - To one contestant they're saying, you aren't meeting the challenge; to the next they're saying, I don't care that you didn't meet the challenge, this is a beautiful painting; and to the next they're saying, you met the challenge but it's too true to what we're asking and then voting her out on the strength of that. I really couldn't understand what they were choosing based on, unless it was the judges own tastes - and that's hardly reasonable. Secondly, bullying. I mean, how is making a judge laugh a reasonable challenge anyway, but then the winner did a mean, bullying cartoon of another contestant and that won. Really? Come on now. Not only should that contestant have been reprimanded rather than rewarded, the judge also succeeded in making himself despicable by condoning that behaviour. Way to create role models, hey. You just have to watch Face Off to see how good this show could be - and perhaps it's the contrast between the two shows that leaves me absolutely cold here.

The idea and concept the this show is stunning seeing some of these amazing artist preform incredible pieces can be awe inspiring at times. So throughout the show competitor are reminded over and over this is a competition you are her to win, some forget that and others stay hard and true. Since the judges keep reminding the cast this you would think they would keep to there word but they don't. Low and behold finishing the 1 season the artist whom I believed should've won who had pure talent was disqualified even after following everything asked of the last challenged and taking what was learned and told told of him to change in his art style and brought out a amazing piece of art, now understand that this artist was always at the top almost every challenge but the judges still rejected this artist in favor of an over a horrible artist who throughout the entire show was in last or almost dropped out and skated along by sheer dumb luck and puffy eyes and didn't even follow the last challenge requirements but put a "what I like" on the canvas. At the end of the day the Artist you showed true talent, dedication and Confidence was denied in favor of someone who kept saying "but I worked real hard" threw some puffy eyes on and throw in some BS emotions and OMG the Judges found there charity.