The Danto Box
An Art Philoso-Blog
David Donohoe interviewed by Stephen Cadwell

Stephen Cadwell is a graduate student in University College Dublin working on Arthur Danto's semantic theory of Art. His Danto Box blog is a space for him to share some ideas and interviews that his research has thrown up. He asked me to answer some questions related to his research. I was happy to, as he is lovely.

Who is your work for?

Me predominantly. I think a lot of my work is possibly oblique. This is not to say that it is complex or difficult, just that it is highly personal.

Given that you work in a variety of ways and across a variety of media, what do the words 'art' and 'artform' mean to you?

'Art' is a convenient term to describe a way of processing the external and internal, particular to the individual. 'Artform' is a convenient way to describe the mode of this processing. I think all of my work (photographs, video, books, film, text, sound, music, drawings or whatever) is really about trying to be attentive to what it is to be a person living in this world. It's really about staying still and just noticing.

Do you feel part of an artistic community?

I don't feel part of any community! I've always been a bit of a square peg. Perhaps because I find it more rewarding to notice differences rather than similarities. Differences are active, similarities passive. I think there probably is an artistic community around me, but I don't identify with it.

If so who do you feel influenced by and how?

I don't think I really know how to answer this question. I could stream off a list of ideas, people and things I like, but that doesn't really answer anything, does it. Maybe it's just curiosity that influences me? I don't know Stephen, leave me alone.

How devoted are you to the tools of your trade?

Devoted? I really don't know how to answer this one. The tools of my trade are a combination of high and low technology and in terms of a working relationship with them there is a degree of reliance and I definitely develop affections and irritations with them. But I don't think I could honestly say I'm devoted to them. On a more fundamental level the tools of my trade could be said to be thought processes, ideas, observations, memories, opinions, languages etc etc. After all these are essentially what I'm using to make work, the implements are just bridges really. So on that level it becomes quite revealing to consider being devoted to these personal attributes. I'm suspicious of devotion to anything.

It might sound ridiculous, but do you ever feel like you work is making you?

I would hope that it is. To me my work is a daily practice, whether I am making work or not, the very process of living, is bound up in what I end up making. So I would hope that a work is not something discrete from me, but something which informs me.

Do you ever consider how your work is received?

Yes. All the time. Whilst as I say, my work is predominantly for me, part of the editing process involved in its creation is my imagined reception of the work by a vague shadowy audience. I don't know who they are or what they are looking for, but they definitely help me find the essence of a work

In the end, what are your satisfaction levels with your work?

I think I am generally satisfied with my work because it never seems definitive to me. It's all part of some ongoing practice really tied to just living. So there are things I'm not happy with, things I am, but I think both are vital and interdependent.

Do you believe that a definition of art is possible? If so, could it impact you in anyway?

If a definition of art is possible I don't think it will have much bearing on art. I think a major part of my work is in freeing myself from perceiving the world in definitions and definitive terms.

thedantobox