In Portrait Artist of the Year 2025 episode 9, the tension of the semi-final stage transforms the atmosphere from a standard heat into a high-stakes examination of technical skill and artistic nerve. Eight remarkable artists, having triumphed in their initial heats against the unrelenting four-hour time limit, gathered once more to prove they possess the resilience and vision required to reach the grand finale.
The pressure was palpable from the outset, as the competitors faced not only the constraints of the clock but also the challenge of capturing the likeness of one of the nation’s most beloved figures. This specific juncture in the art competition serves as the ultimate filter, separating those who can merely paint from those who can navigate the complexities of a high-profile commission.
The stakes for this semi-final were exceptionally high, extending beyond the immediate glory of the television broadcast. The winning artist from the series is destined to receive a ten-thousand-pound commission to paint the award-winning mathematician and broadcaster Professor Hannah Fry for the permanent collection of the Royal Society. This commission is particularly significant as it celebrates the eightieth anniversary of the first women elected to the society’s fellowship, Professors Kathleen Lonsdale and Marjorie Stevenson. Consequently, the judges were not merely looking for a pleasing image; they were searching for a portrait artist capable of delivering a work of historical and institutional significance.
The central challenge of this painting challenge lay in the specific sitter chosen for the occasion. The semi-finalists were tasked with painting a true television icon and culinary expert, Dame Mary Berry. While a familiar face to millions, Mary Berry presents a unique paradox for a portraitist. She is widely perceived as warm, comforting, and grandmotherly—a national treasure associated with baking and kindness. However, as the judges noted, she is also a woman of immense strength, steeliness, and professional acumen who has endured personal tragedy. The danger for the artists was falling into the trap of creating a saccharine, one-dimensional representation that failed to look beneath the surface of her public persona.
Adding to the complexity of the task, Mary was accompanied by her dog, Freddie, and the set was dressed with an array of baking paraphernalia, plants, and personal objects. This staging offered the artists an opportunity to navigate the space and manipulate the composition to their will, but it also presented a cluttered visual field that threatened to overwhelm the subject. Among the objects Mary brought was a small wooden shoe-cleaning box made by her late son, William, who died in a car crash at the age of nineteen.
Inside the box was a Valentine’s card he had made, featuring drawings of elephants representing his siblings. This heartbreaking inclusion underscored the depth of character the artists needed to capture, proving that this was not merely an exercise in celebrity portraits, but a test of emotional intelligence.
As the artists turned their easels to begin, the room was divided between those adhering to traditional methods and those employing more experimental techniques. The judges—Tai Shan Schierenberg, Kathleen Soriano, and Kate Bryan—observed the proceedings with a critical eye, explicitly stating they were looking for the “Holy Grail” of portraiture: a perfect likeness combined with a quirk or unusual element that propelled the genre forward. They demanded blood, sweat, and tears, expecting the semi-finalists to demonstrate the full range of their artistic capabilities. The four-hour limit, usually a source of stress, became a crucible where decisions had to be made instantly, and the margin for error was non-existent.
The episode showcased a diverse array of styles, from clean, stark realism to industrial mark-making on aluminum. As the clock ticked down, the atmosphere shifted from nervous energy to intense focus, with each artist grappling with the unique difficulties presented by the sitter’s delicate features and the distraction of her canine companion. The following analysis explores the specific journeys of the artists during Portrait Artist of the Year 2025 episode 9, examining how they managed the delicate balance between technical execution and narrative depth.
The Challenge of Capturing a National Treasure
The primary obstacle facing the artists in this semi-final was the immense familiarity of the sitter’s face. When painting a figure as iconic as Dame Mary Berry, the audience and the judges already possess a deeply ingrained mental image of the subject. This familiarity creates a “cliché minefield,” where the artist risks producing a caricature rather than a piece of fine art. The judges were particularly wary of portraits that would render Mary solely as “sweet” or “cuddly,” stripping her of the resilience and sharpness that defines her character. Mary herself expressed a desire to look happy, noting that she arguably looks miserable in repose, yet the judges famously prefer portraits that convey gravitas over simple cheerfulness.
Courtney Bay, a creative marketer from Surrey, entered the semi-final with a reputation for a muscular, dynamic painting style. In her heat, she had impressed the judges by capturing a ballet dancer with vigorous, broad brushstrokes. However, applying this same aggressive technique to Mary Berry proved to be a complex endeavor. Courtney admitted that Mary’s features were beautiful, feminine, and pink—qualities that did not naturally align with her bold aesthetic.
Throughout the session, Courtney struggled to reconcile her “muscular painting” style with the delicacy of the sitter. She opted for a traditional composition but found it difficult to inject the whimsy or twist that had secured her place in the previous round. The judges noted that while she was attempting to force her style onto the subject, the result risked being a mismatch between the artist’s hand and the sitter’s spirit.
Conversely, Katie Jones, a full-time artist from Somerset, leaned into her strength: clarity and precision. Katie had previously won her heat with a sensitive portrait of James May, and she applied a similar philosophy here. She chose a landscape orientation, incorporating a stark white background that was only broken by a block of color derived from the blue wall of the set. Katie’s approach was characterized by coolness and cleanliness, which the judges found to be a modern interpretation of a traditional setup.
She quickly established a composition that included Mary’s hand—a notoriously difficult element to paint—and maintained a disciplined palette. By avoiding the temptation to over-romanticize the scene, Katie managed to navigate the trap of sweetness, producing a work that felt contemporary and fresh despite the traditional subject matter.
Experimental Mediums and Unconventional Compositions
One of the most striking aspects of Portrait Artist of the Year 2025 episode 9 was the presence of artists who refused to work within the standard parameters of oil on canvas. Chloe Barnes, a gallery production manager from London, brought a radically different technique to the studio. Working with etching ink on an aluminum plate, she used rollers and wipes to subtract and add pigment, effectively sculpting the light and shadow on a metallic surface.
This method is high-risk; the materials are unforgiving, and the reflective nature of the aluminum can distort the image if not handled with mastery. Chloe’s composition was equally daring; she positioned Mary’s head low and to the left, leaving a vast expanse of negative space that was filled with the shimmering texture of the metal.
The judges were captivated by Chloe’s process, noting that they had never seen an artist work with this material in the history of the competition. The radiance of the aluminum provided a unique luminosity that traditional paint could not replicate. However, there was concern that she might overwork the piece.
Since her technique involves removing ink to create highlights, there is a point of no return where the image can become muddy or lost. Chloe’s focus was on creating a strong likeness while allowing the medium to dictate the atmosphere. By the halfway point, she was polishing areas back to the bare metal to create depth, a technique that resulted in a “radiant portrait” that stood apart from the other entries in the room.
Vincent Stokes, a librarian from Birmingham, also eschewed traditional paint, opting for dry media including mechanical pencils, rubbers, and protractors. His workspace resembled an architectural drafting table more than an artist’s easel. Vincent’s challenge was the sheer volume of visual information. He attempted to include almost every element of the set—the table, the plants, the box, and the dog—resulting in a composition where Mary appeared relatively small within a “fairy tale” clutter.
He described his concept as a man overwhelmed by the various things in his life, projecting this narrative onto Mary. While the judges admired the singularity of his line work in the heats, they expressed concern that his drawing of Mary was becoming too soft and that the narrative quality he aimed for was getting lost in the “busy-ness” of the composition.
The Narrative of the Dog and the Sitter
The inclusion of Freddie, Mary’s dog, added a significant variable to the painting challenge. Animals are notoriously difficult to paint without drawing focus away from the human subject or descending into sentimentality. Edie Bound, a full-time artist from Wiltshire, was identified early on as someone who might thrive with this element, given her self-proclaimed love for dogs. Her heat-winning portrait of the rock star Youngblood had been praised for its lightness of touch and slight “wonkiness,” a quirkiness that the judges hoped she would bring to the semi-final.
Edie made a bold choice to paint Mary with her eyes closed, capturing a fleeting moment of serenity as she interacted with Freddie. The judges found this pose to be psychologically complex; the dog looked out at the viewer, establishing a direct connection, while Mary remained in her own private world. This setup suggested a deep intimacy between the human and the animal. However, the execution became a point of contention.
The judges felt the portrait became “too sweet,” lacking the eccentric edge that usually defined Edie’s work. While the relationship between the figures was touching, the judges worried that the painting leaned too heavily into the saccharine nature of the scene, missing the requisite “bite” or structural integrity expected at this stage of the competition.
Paulina Kritnjevska, who splits her time between London and Poland, also grappled with the portrayal of the dog and the sitter. Her style is typically cool and contemporary, but the lighting conditions in the studio led her down a different path. She painted Mary with a strong backlight creating a halo effect through her hair, which gave the portrait a “vision-like” quality.
While technically proficient, the judges felt this lighting choice contributed to an overly soft, almost angelic interpretation that did not align with Paulina’s usual modern aesthetic. Furthermore, while her depiction of Freddie was lauded as one of the best in the room, questions were raised regarding the likeness of Mary herself, with the judges noting discrepancies in the shape of the face.
Strategic Risks and Time Management
In a four-hour competition, time management is as critical as brushwork. Lauren Ross, an art tutor from Edinburgh, adopted a strategy that caused significant anxiety among the onlookers. Known for her vibrant storytelling and use of palette knives, Lauren spent the vast majority of the session painting the background, the clothing, the flowers, and the dog—everything except Mary’s face. She compared this approach to a child eating their dinner, saving the best part (or the most difficult part) for last. This “vegetables before sausages” strategy meant that with only an hour remaining, the central element of the portrait was still blank.
The judges recognized this as a high-stakes gamble. If Lauren failed to capture the likeness in the final sprint, the elaborate work on the rest of the canvas would be rendered irrelevant. However, this approach allowed Lauren to “warm up” on the less critical areas, establishing her color palette and the pop-art flatness that defines her style. When she finally committed Mary’s features to the canvas, she did so with a confident, distinct language that matched the rest of the piece. The resulting image was luscious and compositionally sophisticated, justifying her terrifying time management strategy.
Uthman Wahab, a Nigerian artist living in Kent, faced a different struggle with time and scale. Accustomed to working on large canvases, he felt constrained by the smaller format required for the competition. Throughout the morning, his work appeared sketchy and unresolved. In his previous heat, Uthman had pulled the painting together in the final moments, but the semi-final proved less forgiving. He aimed to capture the sadness and strength in Mary’s face, but the painting seemed to fight against him. By the end of the session, the judges felt that while he had enjoyed the process, the likeness had not materialized, and the painting lacked the cohesion he had previously demonstrated.
The Final Verdict and The Road to the Royal Society
As the four-hour whistle blew, the eight artists stepped back to reveal a diverse gallery of Mary Berries. The sitter herself was overwhelmed by the variety, noting the color and fun present in the room. In a break from the usual format where the sitter chooses the winner, Mary’s role was limited to selecting one portrait to keep for herself. She ultimately chose the work of Chloe Barnes, the aluminum monotype.
Mary was drawn to the contentment and happiness she saw in the image, stating that she would make room for it in her home despite a lack of space. This selection validated Chloe’s risky choice of material, proving that an unconventional medium could capture the essence of a traditional subject.
However, the power to decide the finalists rested solely with the judges. They reviewed the day’s output, looking for the artists who had successfully navigated the “cliché minefield” and delivered a portrait with weight and artistic integrity. They quickly identified that some artists had played it too safe, while others had taken risks that didn’t quite land. The judges were looking for clarity, strength, and a painterly quality that would translate well to the upcoming commission for the Royal Society.
The first artist selected for the final was Katie Jones. Her portrait was praised for its stark, clean background and the coolness of its execution. By stripping away the clutter and focusing on a precise, modern representation, she had demonstrated a confidence that impressed the panel. The second finalist was Lauren Ross. Despite the nerve-wracking delay in painting the face, her final piece was celebrated for its beautiful tonalities and sophisticated composition. The way she combined different stylistic elements into a cohesive whole proved she had the range required for the final.
The third and final spot went to Chloe Barnes. The judges were unanimous in their admiration for her ability to turn a piece of industrial metal into a radiant work of art. Her composition, her handling of the unique material, and her ability to capture a strong likeness without relying on traditional shading techniques secured her place. The judges noted that her work was “spectacular” as a piece of art, transcending the mere requirements of the likeness challenge.
The elimination of talented painters like Edie Bound and Courtney Bay highlighted the brutal nature of the competition. Edie’s focus on the dog-human connection was touching but ultimately deemed too sweet, while Courtney’s muscular style clashed with the sitter’s persona. Similarly, Vincent’s complex drawing and Uthman’s expressive but unresolved painting failed to make the cut against the precision and innovation of the top three.
The episode concluded with the stage set for the grand finale. Katie Jones, Lauren Ross, and Chloe Barnes had proven themselves capable of handling the pressure of the Portrait Artist of the Year 2025 environment. They had survived the semi-final by making smart choices, sticking to their unique artistic visions, and delivering portraits that went beyond simple replication. As they looked toward the final challenge, the prospect of the ten-thousand-pound commission and the chance to paint Professor Hannah Fry loomed large.
The semi-final had tested their technical skills and their ability to handle a national icon; the final would test their ability to create a legacy piece for one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions. The journey from the heats to the semi-final had been arduous, but the final three had demonstrated that they possessed the requisite blend of talent, strategy, and artistic courage to compete for the ultimate title.
FAQ Portrait Artist of the Year 2025 episode 9
Q: What made the Portrait Artist of the Year 2025 episode 9 semi-final particularly challenging for artists?
A: The semi-final required artists to capture Dame Mary Berry, whose familiar face created a cliché minefield where any portrait risked becoming merely saccharine. Furthermore, the judges demanded both perfect likeness and an unusual artistic element that would propel portraiture forward. The four-hour time constraint intensified this pressure, eliminating any margin for error while artists navigated Mary’s delicate features alongside the distraction of her dog Freddie. Additionally, the ultimate prize—a ten-thousand-pound commission for the Royal Society—meant judges sought historical significance rather than simple pleasantness.
Q: Why did the judges consider Mary Berry a complex subject beyond her public persona?
A: While millions recognize Mary as warm and grandmotherly, judges emphasized her immense strength and professional acumen forged through personal tragedy. She brought a wooden shoe-cleaning box made by her late son William, who died in a car crash at nineteen, containing a Valentine’s card with elephant drawings representing his siblings. This heartbreaking inclusion underscored that artists needed emotional intelligence to capture depth of character. Consequently, the challenge tested whether portraitists could look beneath the surface rather than simply replicating her comforting television image.
Q: How did Chloe Barnes’s unconventional medium stand out in the competition?
A: Chloe worked with etching ink on aluminum plate, using rollers to subtract and add pigment while sculpting light across the reflective metallic surface. The judges had never witnessed this technique in the competition’s history, noting how the aluminum’s radiance created unique luminosity impossible with traditional paint. She polished areas back to bare metal to generate depth, positioning Mary’s head low with vast negative space filled by shimmering texture. Mary herself selected Chloe’s radiant portrait to keep, validating this risky material choice, while judges unanimously awarded her a finalist position for transcending mere likeness requirements.
Q: What strategic risk did Lauren Ross take with her time management approach?
A: Lauren adopted a terrifying strategy by spending most of the session painting background, clothing, flowers, and Freddie—leaving Mary’s face completely blank until the final hour. She compared this to eating vegetables before sausages, warming up on less critical areas to establish her color palette and pop-art flatness. This high-stakes gamble meant failure to capture likeness would render all elaborate work irrelevant. However, the approach allowed her to commit Mary’s features with confident, distinct language that matched the piece, ultimately producing luscious, compositionally sophisticated work that secured her finalist position.
Q: Why did Katie Jones’s portrait earn praise despite its traditional approach?
A: Katie created a landscape-oriented composition with stark white background broken only by a block of color from the set’s blue wall, demonstrating coolness and cleanliness. She incorporated Mary’s hand—notoriously difficult to paint—while maintaining disciplined palette choices throughout the session. By avoiding temptation to over-romanticize the scene, she navigated the sweetness trap that ensnared other competitors. Judges found her modern interpretation of traditional setup refreshing and contemporary, praising the clarity and confidence that demonstrated she possessed skills required for the upcoming Royal Society commission.
Q: What challenges did artists face when including Freddie the dog in their compositions?
A: Animals notoriously draw focus from human subjects or descend into sentimentality, creating compositional difficulties for portraitists. Edie Bound painted Mary with closed eyes while Freddie looked directly at viewers, suggesting intimate connection but ultimately becoming too sweet without eccentric edge. Paulina Kritnjevska depicted Freddie excellently but struggled with Mary’s likeness amid backlighting choices. Meanwhile, Lauren Ross integrated the dog into her broader narrative successfully. Therefore, artists discovered that including the canine companion required balancing emotional resonance against avoiding saccharine representation that judges explicitly warned against.
Q: How did Courtney Bay’s muscular painting style conflict with the subject matter?
A: Courtney had impressed judges during her heat by capturing a ballet dancer with vigorous, broad brushstrokes demonstrating dynamic energy. However, applying this aggressive technique to Mary Berry proved problematic, as the sitter’s beautiful, feminine, and pink features contradicted Courtney’s bold aesthetic. She struggled throughout the session to reconcile her muscular style with delicacy required, finding it difficult to inject whimsy or twist that had secured her previous victory. Judges noted she was forcing her signature approach onto unsuitable subject matter, creating mismatch between artistic hand and sitter’s spirit that ultimately prevented her advancement.
Q: What was the significance of the Royal Society commission prize?
A: The winning artist receives a ten-thousand-pound commission to paint mathematician and broadcaster Professor Hannah Fry for the Royal Society’s permanent collection. This commission celebrates the eightieth anniversary of the first women elected to the society’s fellowship—Professors Kathleen Lonsdale and Marjorie Stevenson. Consequently, judges weren’t merely seeking pleasing images but rather portrait artists capable of delivering work with historical and institutional significance. The weight of this prize elevated the semi-final beyond television entertainment, transforming it into genuine examination of whether artists could handle high-profile commissions for prestigious scientific institutions.
Q: Why did Vincent Stokes’s detailed drawing fail to advance despite technical skill?
A: Vincent worked with dry media including mechanical pencils, rubbers, and protractors, attempting to include nearly every set element—table, plants, box, and dog—in his composition. His workspace resembled architectural drafting more than traditional easel painting, demonstrating singular line work admired in earlier heats. However, this comprehensive approach made Mary appear relatively small within fairy-tale clutter, while his drawing of her became too soft. Judges felt the narrative quality he projected—a man overwhelmed by life’s various things—got lost in compositional busyness, lacking the clarity and strength required for Royal Society commission work.
Q: What criteria ultimately determined which three artists advanced to the finale?
A: Judges sought artists who successfully navigated the cliché minefield while delivering portraits with weight and artistic integrity, looking for clarity, strength, and painterly quality. Katie Jones earned selection through her stark, clean execution and precise modern representation that stripped away clutter. Lauren Ross advanced because her sophisticated composition combined different stylistic elements cohesively despite terrifying time management. Chloe Barnes secured her position by transforming industrial metal into spectacular art that transcended likeness requirements. These three demonstrated requisite blend of talent, strategy, and artistic courage, proving they could handle both technical pressure and creation of legacy pieces for world’s most prestigious institutions.
Mary Berry was one of the best sitters they could have used for the semi finals. Positively radiant at 90 years of age, Mary did not disappoint and she even brought her dog, she did tell the artists they did not need to include him in the portrait. I really thought all the artists would have created a fantastic portrait. But four of them completely missed the mark. Courtney and the male artist who was next to her when they turned their easels, both produced very unflattering portraits. They were by far the worst of the bunch.