Paddle8 - December 2011
Timothée Chaillou: The experience of your pieces is physically sensitive. Is the material always the starting point of all your pieces? Does the material prevail? Is your work materialistic?
Daniel Turner: Drawing is the starting point for all of my works. You could say the drawings physicalize to a material state.
TC: Sometimes one uses a material for its physical properties and sometimes for its semantic implications, which sometimes lead to a situation where one cancel out the other. What happens in between the material and the semantic process?
DT: I suppose when material and semantic implications intersect a continues revolution occurs. It's as if two mirrors held a conversation.
TC: Are you interested in the discourse that comes through the making process?
DT: Yes, but not in a external performative manner.
TC: The aesthetic of your work is minimal, ontologically poor. There is a lack of solidity in the materials you used, and using low material is a deliberate artistic gesture to tackle a sense of eternity, precisely because this creation is temporary and limited in time. Is it trying to “extract eternity from something ephemeral” (Baudelaire)?
DT: No. It is true that my work is minimal and ontologically poor. I would have to disagree with low material always tackling a sense of eternity. There seems to be a great amount of aesthetically linking "eternity" with poor material. Yet there have been numerous successful attempts of artist tackling this "sense of eternity" with polished chrome.
TC: Do you create a “whispering” sculpture, instead of a silence one - for example, on a scale where Jeff Koons or James Rosenquist works would be shouting at us?
DT: Surely my work is not as loud as a Koons or a Rosenquist, yet I don't see my work as a silence or a whisper.
TC: Marcel Duchamp talked about the infra-thin. Do you wish to get on imperceptibility in your production?
DT: Not entirely.
TC: What does your work have in common with imperceptiblity?
DT: Some of the pieces I have worked on in the past- specifically the wall rubbings are faint. The gestures may seemingly appear fleeting- creating a sense of imperceptibility.
TC: Do you create some trompe-l’œil?
DT: No, I try to refrain from any trickery of the eye.
TC: Could you bring up the melancholic and lyrical proportions involved in your whole production?
DT: If any melancholic proportions would arise I think it would only halt all production in my practice.
TC: Gedi Sibony says that he works with « abjection and elegance » as a starting point. Do you feel close to his point of view in your own practice?
DT: Yes, I do believe there is a particular abjection and elegance in my work.
TC: Do you feel close to Harold Ancart’s work? What about Yves Klein’s fire paintings?
DT: I have nothing to do with Harold Ancart’s work and rarely think of Klein. I feel closer to Homer, Whistler, and Twombly.
TC: What about Jannis Kounelis?
DT: I feel closer to Kounelis than Klein.
TC: How important to you are the movement of Arte Povera, Scatter Art and Process Art?
DT: Very important in a linear historical sense.
TC: Are your walls rubbing like a territory marking? Is there something linked to disgust - like, for example, sweat marks of a body leant a long time on a wall?
DT: I don’t see the wall rubbings as any sort of territorial markings, the works stemmed from occupying a space over a given period of time- yet they were never meant to directly relate to disgust or claim a space.
TC: Fire symbolizes passion. You only use leftovers and soot by your side: is passion over?
DT: I think passion is alive and well.
TC: Do you think that Sp. 1 (2007) is a melancholic piece, like marks of a desperate act?
DT: Again, melancholia like nostalgia, is something I also have little interest in. I see Sp.1, which stands for soot-plexi 1 is matter of fact gesture rather than a desperate act of sorts.
TC: Do you think that the meeting between two brass fireplace tools (Northfolk Southern (2009)) would appear like a loving embrace, a brotherly one, or maybe more like a fight?
DT: Rather a formal collapse.