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 cancels out the other. What happens in between the material and the semantic process?

DT: I suppose when material and semantic implications intersect a continuous 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 an 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: What does your work have in common with imperceptibility?

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: 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: Could you bring up the melancholic and lyrical proportions involved in your whole production? Do you think that Sp. 1 (2007) is a melancholic piece, like marks of a desperate act?

DT: If any melancholic proportions would arise I think it would only halt all production in my practice. I see Sp.1, which stands for soot-plexi 1 is matter of fact gesture rather than a desperate act of sorts.

TC: How important to you are the movement of Arte Povera, Scatter Art and Process Art?

DT: Very important in a linear historical sense.

Timothée Chaillou: Is Jules Marquis a fictional character created to use his eyes and creativity instead of yours?

Colin Snapp & Daniel Turner: Yes although we never think of Jules as masculine or feminine but rather a platform to launch our collaborative projects.

TC: Why did you choose to use some furniture supporting bodies, like the child carrier (Cambridge, 2010) or the vinyl folding chair (Rachel, 2009)? What does the sorry state of this chair symbolize?

CS & DT: Mimicking a human temperament. For instance, Rachel is a reflection of a personality type. Perhaps a waitress living in Miami who's is not happy with her life - stressed out, sunburned, far too many cigarettes.

TC: Could you please talk about your performance The Smithsonian Broadcast (2009), a three-hour sit-in meditation whose aim was to be broadcast on NBC?

CS & DT: It seems there is no right or left as if the media has been mediated or modulated to a center counter point. The character in the performance was fabricated to exemplify this melting point, and what better thing to broadcast than a silent mediation back to the audience.

TC: Could you please talk about 沒有權利的輕的皮表現 (2011) and its context of presentation?

CS & DT:沒有權利的輕的皮表現 originally came about as a commentary on light pollution in NYC. The work was streamed on a video billboard in Times Square as the context seemed most appropriate for this work.

TC: What are the characters of Community Sculpture Seminar (2010) doing? What did you do with the things they use?

CS & DT: The images you have seen are selected from a seminar held at Jericho Ditch, where the local community shared a dialogue amongst selected objects. After the seminar the tools or objects went directly back into daily life. The water sprinkler continued to water the lawn, the chain saw continued to cut trees.

TC: Could you please talk about the use of found images you make, like the Arabian women cover by jewelry (Marrakech (2011), Vanna White (2010)) and could you also explain your reference to the art world, for example the framed catalogue for a jewelry sale by Sotheby’s (Sotheby’s (2011))?

CS & DT: Marrakech was printed as a wall paper border to enhance a collection of decorative works perhaps purchased through a major auction house such as Sotheby's. Vanna White is a large vinyl print of a found image dealing with similar themes of global decor and consumption. 

TC: Why did you choose to make these two videos about sport: Panthers vs. Giants (2009) and Wild Horses (2010)?

CS & DT: Athleticism.