oil on wood / 20 x 25 cm

The very simple shape of the so called orbs is very interesting for me. This eccect mostly appears from reflections, snow, rain or dust. Many images of the orbs are visually very appealing, and often almost seem abstract.

The image I chose interested me because of the simple composition (horizontal line in the backround & dots in the foreground) People who don´t know about the orbs-phenomenon will probably rather see an abstract painting, but as in many other cases in this series, the surrounding paintings form the context and content of this painting.

oil on wood / 40 x 40 cm

This painting seems to be from a planet, or the moon. Actually it is a close-up of an orb - probably a reflection of something. I chose this image as it is hard to read correctly, even if it is very realistically painted, almost withoout visible brushstroke. The viewer probably tries to find the meaning of this painting in the mystery of the moon. This deliberate isleading of the viewer interests me very much and is contained in many of the paintings in this series.

oil on wood / 25 x 20cm

One of the most ridiculous & absurd paintings in the series. It´s not based on a template, completely made up. The actual UFO is made by two simple marks, obviously painted and it´s also obvious, that this image never existed as a photo. As images of UFOs always have a certain will to be authentic, this painting in its obvious, absurd way seems quite funny in a ridiculous way. It´s farcical to forward this image as a proof for anything´s existence, but (I hope) it still questions images and their credibility in general.

oil on board / 40 x 60 cm

This painting is based on a selfmade template I made in my back garden. The actual UFO is a tealight on a string, moved to get a motion blur and unsharpness which is typical for these inages. Tha actual UFO was only ca. 60 cm away from the camera lens, but as it´s backround is the sky, there is no optical relation, so i seems far away and big. Perspective, and optical illusions in context with fore- and backround are often being used to create images, that are not what they seem, and deliberately mislead the viewer.

40 x 25 cm / oil on board

This is one of the classics in the series. The template for this paiting was Adamski´s invention and formed the stereotype of most of the ufo-fakes that came afterwards. It shows an Venusian scout ship. but his descriptions of the technology aboard the space ships suffer from an electromechanical view: plausible in the 1950's industrial hopes but surely not with ours. Adamski described no microchips, no fiber optics. his descriptions of the inside of the spaceships also stay mostly very general.

here is a graphic explanation of space-ship.

20 x 25 cm / oil on board

In 1934, Marmaduke Wetherell had his son-in-law Robert K. Wilson photograph a toy submarine with a sculpted head in order to pass it off as a picture of -the loch ness monster-. Most people fell for it at the time, and an entire cottage industry of nessie hunters was born. The photo I used as a template is probably the most famous of the loch ness monster.

Baselitz in the White Cube

This exhibition has been one of the best ones, I´ve been to so far. the space of the white cube is ideal for baselitz´s massive paintings. They were quite simple though, but very precise. he repeated the subject of the eagle many times, so this was banging into the head. it reminded me to printing. It´s almost, that he is acting like a human printing machine, doing his motives again and again. The urge to produce stuff is incredible. But It seemed to me, as he would simplify his paintings, in order to produce more of them, and not to lose the equality of them by adding too many details. the stroke on top acted for me like a landscape, grabbing for the eagle to get him back on the ground. the fact, that the image is upside down works in a strange way, as he is depicting an animal, which is quite independent of -up- and -down-. also the fact that the eagle is a important national sign/symbol in germany (and other countries as well).

Here is an image of the german reichstag.

Mc Collum-Robbins interview

McCollum Robbins Interview

Mick Finch about Gerhard Richter

article here

tutorial donal maloney

NAME OF TUTOR: donal maloney

DATE: 23.6.11

STUDENT TO FILL IN:

1. What points were discussed during the tutorial?

It was refreshing, to talk to someone, that did not see the diversity of painting-style as an error, but as a chance. At first we talked about the big -the fight- painting. Donal mentioned, it looks almost artificially constructed. The smaller painting was quickly decoded from him as the tomato fight painting that it actually is, but he said he could not see that as easily in the big one – which shows me, that it´s more successful in terms of being hardly de-codeable. (which I want it to be).

Donal mentioned some neo-expressive painters, like Julian Schnabel. He recommended to insert all painting styles into one painting, however I did not want it to be a painted-collage. (maybe just because I never saw my work in this direction). When I showed him the self-portrait-with-a-toilet-roll painting I made, he noted, that he already sees this direction in my work.

2. What issues will be thinking further on as a result of this conversation?

I will think about ways to insert diverse painting styles in one painting. I´m thinking of quite photorealistic, but out of focus backgrounds, with expressive marks on it. Maybe it would make sense to start by overprinting photos? Ridiculous “proofs“ of e.g. U.F.O.s would maybe be an option. For example a photorealistic landscape as a background with a childish-doodled ufo in a corner....just thinking.

3. Any other comments

It was nice to meet you at white cube. A damn strong exhibition.

STAFF COMMENTS:

We discussed differences between the two ‘Spanish festival’ paintings and how the scale of the larger painting made reading the interaction between the figures more ambiguous (could have been a battle rather than a celebration). Throughout other paintings such as the ‘bucket hat’ paintings and ‘toilet roll’ painting Max continues this interest in how the translation from photograph to painting shifts the narrative. We talked about ways to further develop this. One way we discussed was to introduce crossovers between the more expressionist works and the more detailed U.F.O./paranormal phenomena paintings. Whilst there were four/five different approaches to painting being explored we talked about particular combinations that could cover many of his separate investigations. The main concern would be how to produce results that reflect his interests and generate others, whilst not weakening each separate inquiry through their combination. We discussed different ways of doing this like drawing into the wet paint with subtle drawings that come from images in other paintings. Rather than on overt and brash clash of styles Max discussed his interest in the centralized image. Further analysis of the role of photography in his work will help to identify and clarify his interest in the translation and manipulation of images.

See D.A. Robbins interview with Allan Mc Collum for a discussion on painting as non-transcendental and the gesture used as an ironic sign of modernist reproduction-http://homepage.mac.com/allanmcnyc/amcpdfs/McCollum-Robbins.pdf

See Andrew Otwells article on Richter’s paintings as simulacra- http://www.heyotwell.com/work/arthistory/Richter.html and Daniel Yacavone’s paper on reflexivity- http://www.forumjournal.org/site/issue/01/daniel-yacavone and Mark Finch’s paper ‘Gerhard Richter: The Polemics of Paint’ -http://www.mickfinch.com/texts/gerhard.html.

Following on from our discussion on humour and irony/wit in painting see the work of Albert Oehen, Peter Davies show in the Approach gallery (online) and Andrew Stahl’s paintings in the 1980/90s.