This term has been a struggle identifying my practice and the understanding of how to develop new work.  I realised that I need to explore and identify the properties of materials and processes and not refer to descriptive formations. What is Sculpture? What is my understanding of Sculpture? I’ve lost what questions I ask myself in regards to my practice, the making and my own personal point of contact of enquiry.  How can I explore and push those materials and processes further in my work? I need to consider and analyse how artists work and their exploration of process and materials. I began looking at ‘Tate  shots;’ watching videos of artists in their studios and how they engage with material. Eva Rothschild, Carl Andre and Alison Wilding were a great starting point in understanding their method and ways of thinking. There is a real sense of materiality in their works, contrasting materials and forming relationships. Sculpture as a form demands time and experience. This is completely true and is a clear explanation to focus on. Rothschild mentions ‘You use what you need to get what you want’ sometimes I find that I overcomplicate materials and feel the need to find a reason for the usage; however my work tends to develop from materials and objects that are within my surroundings or that I can get my hands on easily. Does this matter? Do materials have to come with an explanation for their use? Material; a crucial point of contact as a sculptor, it’s interesting to use materials that somehow don’t have an inherent form, purpose or function and discovering new ways of exploiting their qualities.

I began thinking about my practice and what are the key focal points that I wish to reference in my work. My work has always involved a focus on materials and the physical relationship I have with the making process. Recently I’ve become more concerned with my role as a female sculptor. This could be due to my tendency to use ‘masculine’ associated materials such as steel, buoys, rubber etc. however the work is non-gender and I don’t wish to focus on masculine/feminine qualities but rather on materials, space, scale and form. There is a distinct threshold between the ‘made’ and the ‘unmade’ and how I can continue to push, develop and rethink the relationships between material and form.  I began to think of ‘process art’ and whether the work sat in this category but again does this matter? Does the work need to sit in a particular category/ discipline? The question that was asked last term was whether the work was sculptural or installation based? I found this difficult to answer; the work has sculptural qualities but conforms to site and space where I explore defining space rather than to occupy. The problem I faced was that I overcomplicated the work and began referencing gender; gender is not significant or important to the work. The focus now needs to involve the continuous engagement with materials and objects. Sculpture has this ability to arouse complicated feeling about materials and/or objects and their state of mind and condition. There are three key areas I wish to focus on over the next few weeks; location of work, materials, objects and process and the interaction of both artist and viewer with the work.


Blurring the Boundaries: Subconscious Collaboration at The Roath Park Pub.

Last night was the first collaborative show by me and fellow CSAD student and friend Natalie Ramus at Roath Park Pub. We had a fantastic and supportive turnout; all came to explore and submerge themselves into our work in an unusual, abandoned and rustic room. The harsh red, half stripped wallpaper and rotting wood resembled a fleshy, phallic aesthetic on appearance. When we first came across the red room, we were instantly drawn to its bold, harsh context which was the inspiration for the RAMUS|EVANS photograph. ‘Blurring the Boundaries’ stemmed from our continuous dialogue in our studio spaces and subconscious connection through our work. This exhibition became a journey through the last few months of our time on the MFA course and formed relationship as female artists. Natalie comes from a more conceptual background whilst I focus on sculpture and installation. The processes used within our practices are very different from each other. Natalie is conceptually driven and works in a multi-disciplinary and sometimes performative way, whereas I am much more driven by process and engaging with juxtaposing both organic and industrial materials.

We included a range of media and work; sculptural forms, photography, objects, live audio of weekly conversations me and Natalie have in the studio space and a live one to one performance by Natalie which involved domestic objects and personal space behind a closed curtain. The aim was to achieve a journey of the unknown. The work was not labelled but cohesively feed off one another; creating dialogue between objects and materials. The evening allowed for us to curate a space that explored shared space and how our practices have informed and influenced one another. As female artists we are interested in defining space rather than occupying space; engaging in dialogue in relation to gender, body and form. Having a ‘one night only’ formed an exclusive taster of shared space and a collaborative show.

Untitled (Lard) 2016. lard, soil, grass, steel

Untitled (foam) 2016. foam, bungee ropes, meat hooks, steel, tarpaulin, halogen flood lights

Natalie Ramus. One to One performance. 2016


Over the last week I’ve been trying to clarify, simplify and break down my practice and refocus the qualities. What is the work? What is its purpose? What’s its clarification? How do I read the work or how the work is read? I previously addressed how feminism was a focal point for the work; however I have now realised that this isn’t the case. Instantly a physical appearance; aesthetic; approach with the use of the steel. Do I class materials with gender? Is there a general association of steel linked with masculinity? The work involves such physical application; submerging the foam into large buckets of water and suspending them from the steel frames. The weight of these forms and the process itself creates a sense of performative objects. What interests me are the qualities of materials and that tension, relationship between materials; how they interact with one another. The foam possesses this raw, flesh like, fat appearance and to touch; when I introduced the water, this elevated the work, emphasising weight, depth, gravity and the natural sagging of the material. The water seeping through the foam, gushing from height and bouncing off the floor is visually and aesthetically pleasing on the eye.

I’ve been exploring where the work is placed and situated, whether it becomes site specific? The work has been placed in Chapter’s dark studio in Cardiff, an outside space and dark space (evening time) using the halogen flood lights.  All three spaces created a different tension and atmosphere around the work; the use of the flood lights creates an aggressive dynamic atmosphere, a rawness quality of the cables left exposed as an extended version of the work. That rawness aesthetic in the foam, the rusting steel and visual impact of the flood lights has a very alluring and unsettling quality. I had previously addressed the presence/absence; whether this resides in the work? What exactly am I referring to being present or absent Again, this is a reoccurring question that needs further attention. Does the work possess gender? Does the work need to possess gender?