Nau mai, haere mai, welcome to EyeContact. You are invited to respond to reviews and contribute to discussion by registering to participate.


Liz Maw Portrait

View Discussion
The painting's installation at ARTSPACE. Photo by Sam Hartnett. Liz Maw, Francis Upritchard, 2010, oil on board, courtesy of Ivan Anthony, Auckland. Photo by Sam Hartnett. The painting's installation at ARTSPACE. Photo by Sam Hartnett. Liz Maw, Francis Upritchard, 2010, oil on board, courtesy of Ivan Anthony, Auckland. Photo by Sam Hartnett.

In many ways it is the narrative of Upritchard's success that is the true subject of Maw's portrait. In this case, the strange figure of Upritchard becomes a vessel for our aspirations - she is an eerie mixture of successful artist and mystical seer.



Liz Maw

Francis Upritchard


4 December 2010 - 19 February 2011

It is a bold move to leave a large gallery bare save for a single near-monochrome painting. Liz Maw’s dramatically sparse exhibition at ARTSPACE consists solely of a portrait of the expatriate artist Francis Upritchard. In a space that has hosted memorably epic sculptures and installations - Peter Robinson’s Ack and Fiona Connor’s replica staircase from the 2008 show You Are Here come to mind - it is more than a little unnerving to be presented with just one portrait. More unnerving still is that Maw has painted Upritchard, in her characteristically skilful brand of realism, without eyes. The acclaimed artist is the only thing in this big room to look at and yet this figure does not return your gaze.

In a fitting turn, Maw’s minimal installation is reminiscent of Upritchard’s own stellar show Doomed, Doomed, All Doomed of 2005. Like Maw, Upritchard left ARTSPACE’s main gallery completely empty apart from an intriguing taxidermy sloth. With its long arms stiffly outstretched and its fingers decorated with bejewelled rings this somewhat mythical creature was all too strangely human.

Doomed, Doomed, All Doomed was Upritchard’s first substantial solo show in New Zealand and undoubtedly boosted what has become a highly successful international art career. In many ways it is the narrative of Upritchard’s success that is the true subject of Maw’s portrait. As with many of her paintings, their superb and seductive rendering of form and detail belies a web of symbolism and association. In this case, the strange figure of Upritchard becomes a vessel for our aspirations - she is an eerie mixture of successful artist and mystical seer.

I am reminded of another of Maw’s art star portraits of the famously elusive Bill Hammond. Wearing a white suit replete with cape slung over one shoulder Hammond gleamed like an alabaster sculpture against the dark background of his portrait. Like the painting of Upritchard, the numinous figure of Hammond held court in the small, darkened room in which his portrait hung. In this way, Maw’s figures command the space in which they are presented. No doubt drawing on her Catholic upbringing and the rich history of portraiture, she demonstrates an innate understanding of the theatrical potential of art. The dramaturgy of fame, religious veneration and spiritual mysticism all collide in this showpiece.

While Maw’s portrait of Upritchard offers less visual drama than that of Hammond - indeed many viewers might find it tame compared to her previous work - the painting has a reductive vacuity that is intriguingly unsettling. Unlike Hammond’s full-bodied depiction the eyeless Upritchard is two-dimensional and mask-like. Her arms are held strangely aloft almost mimicking the awkward dancing poses of the figurines that populated her work Save Yourself at the 2009 Venice Biennale.

Maw’s portrait has Upritchard wearing a simple black dress that also seems to reference the basic shifts and swathes of cloth that these figurines wore. Like any good consumer of best-dressed lists, I can’t help but think of the extraordinary multi-coloured diamond shirt that Upritchard appeared in for her Venice publicity shots. Nor could I help but note that one of her strange little figurines was entirely covered in a similar diamond pattern. Like Hammond’s notorious elusiveness, Upritchard’s chic persona hovers around her work. Maw taps this realm of reputation, appearance and charisma that often maintains a peripheral presence in our consideration of an artwork.

While this portrait of Francis Upritchard is undeniably superb, the question I keep returning to is whether or not its sparse installation does anything for the painting itself. Artspace’s modernist architecture and minimalist white walls offer a neat contrast to the mystic appeal of Maw’s eyeless portrait. But where Upritchard’s installation of her anthropomorphised sloth emphasised its strange and somewhat lonesome character, Maw’s deadpan use of space seems superfluous to her intriguing painting. Ultimately this portrait doesn’t need a bold spatial statement - its amplification of Upritchard’s captivating art persona and its strangely enigmatic presence speaks for itself.

Kate Brettkelly-Chalmers

Print | Facebook | Twitter | Email


This Discussion has 5 comments.


Roger Boyce, 1:15 a.m. 21 January, 2011

I would submit that Maw's formal move to limit depiction to one life-sized and iconically singular figure is a finely and perversely calibrated decision driven by visual archetype.

Upritchard's lone, eyeless, divinity-like image, dressed, not incidentally, in a photo-negative neo-classical tunic, frankly references classical goddess figures in proportional relation to dedicated architectural spaces. i.e. cult temples.

In Karl Popper's How the Moon Might Throw Some of Her Light upon the Two Ways of Parmenides Popper recounts a blind goddess' revelation (to Parmenides) of 'The Way of Truth'. Truth which favors divine knowledge over fallible human conjecture. And recommends that, in a world filled with matter, "nothing ever happens."

Divine representation - in the form of cult temple statuary - was traditionally installed to be (literally) inhabited by its represented divinity. Animated matter. Matter wherein something quite dramatic transpired.

Maw's 'installed' portrait of Upritchard functions to, in effect, summon an international 'art-divine.' The fact that,as Brettkelly-Chalmers observes, nothing much happens in spite of its dramatic promise give's Maw's installation its compelling negative charge.

Huh? Wow!

Reply to this thread

John Hurrell, 3:16 p.m. 21 January, 2011

Maw's portrait of Upritchard reminds me of Hans Haacke's well known portrait of Margaret Thatcher,(Taking Stock [unfinished]1983-4). Both are crammed with symbolism, and both show no love of materials or formal manipulation of visual dynamic or humour. My view of Maw is the smaller her work the better it gets.

Reply to this thread

Kate Brettkelly-Chalmers, 10:16 a.m. 25 January, 2011

I realised when writing this piece that continually referring to Maw's work as an installation would raise some painting hackles. But I can't always ignore things that exist on the periphery of a work, even if they are just the frivolities of fashion. As with all of Maw's paintings there is a lot happening. An odd meshing of mythology and cringey celebrity idolatry that is entirely captivating. All of it more interesting (in my mind) than a boldly minimal spatial statement.

Reply to this thread

Roger Boyce, 5:55 p.m. 26 January, 2011

I've been off the grid since I posted 5 days ago. Although I experienced some dramatic weather and quartered a soft-hackle down and across in stiff winds I never felt my own hackles stir before, during or after posting about Ms. Brettkelly-Chalmers'piece. In fact I quite enjoyed it.


Reply to this thread

Andrew Paul Wood, 4:47 p.m. 27 January, 2011

I don't think sticking a painting in a gallery by itself makes it an installation. If a tree falls in the woods etc etc.
By the way, having now seen it up close, it looks nothing like Franny U. More like Danae Mossman. I still like it, though.

Reply to this thread

Recent Posts by Kate Brettkelly-Chalmers

Bice Curiger the Director. Photo courtesy of the Venice Biennale

Curiger’s Overview

The 54th Biennale of Venice



Directed by Bice Curiger


4 June - 27 November 2011

Thomas Hirschhorn at the Swiss Pavillion. Image courtesy: la Biennale di Venezia

Venice - Highlights and Lowlights

The 54th Venice Biennale



Curated by Bice Curiger


4 June - 27 November 2011 

Michael Parekowhai, On First Looking into Chapman’s Homer, bronze, stainless steel, two pieces: 2510 x 2710 x 1750 mm, 560 x 870 x 370mm,  Palazzo Loredan dell'Ambasciatore (54th Venice Biennale), photo credit: Michael Hall

Parekowhai in Venice

Venice Biennale 2011

Palazzo Loredan dell’Ambasciatore

Michael Parekowhai
On First Looking into Chapman’s Homer


4 June - 27 November 2011


David Clegg, the miserable idea of measurement, 2011, ARTSPACE.





David Clegg
the miserable idea of measurement


5 March 2011- 31 May 2011