1 1 0 4 3 7 7 9 2 8 (2018) explores the dynamic nature of the art object through its continual and varied interchanges that occur within its lifespan. In addition, the sub-themes of Capitalism, materiality and notions of decay play a substantial role in the conceptualisation of the pieces. One may assume that all we know is based and constructed through assorted types of interchange; interconnected networks that circulate and regulate information, blood and money. The word interchange is defined as (of two or more people) exchange (things) with each other. I am interested in how a artwork and its viewer change and warp according to certain contexts and aesthetic elements. According to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man”. Such a form of thinking has not only influenced the way I view the artworks that I have created, but the way in which I perceive the relationship between artwork and viewer. In particular, one may consider the complex conversation between ‘materials’ and ‘materialism’, for it is in these inherently conflicted terms, the meaning of this body of work lies.  

The medium I have chosen to work in holds the characteristics of distortion, degradation and inevitable change. Conceptually, the use of such a material is situated within the discourse of New Materiality, which recognises the sensuous immediacy and life force within materials. According to Donna Haraway (1991), the potential within matter is no longer realised only through the human subject but is rather “articulated within the human and the non-human, the social and physical and the material and the immaterial”. Similar notions can be seen in Jane Bennett’s Vibrant Matter (2009) and Katve-Kaisa Kontturi’s Following the flows of process: A new materialist account of contemporary art (2012), both of which explore the artistry and agency between subject and object, artist and material. In terms of agency, one may refer to Karen Barad (2009) who states that “agency is not held, it is not a property of persons or things; rather, agency is an enactment, a matter of possibilities for reconfiguring entanglements”.