- Regarding presentation of your drawings, what (if any) are the decisions behind how they are presented (by this I mean framed/unframed, in neat rows/scattered, etc)?

I just want them to look nice. I don't want to make any big statement by the way I present them.

- An early intention of yours was to be a cartoonist, which you went on to do in The Independent. How is it determined that your work is received as Fine Art and not Cartoons?

I have always shown my work in galleries. It was salable art before it became widely recognized as cartoons, thus the people who sell it have a vested interest to make their clients see it as fine art. Personally I don't really care what people call it.

- You said in an interview with Bill Kenny that you liked Raymond Pettibon's work, although he was not really an influence. I often hear the two of you compared to eachother - how would you say your work and/or position is different to his?

I don't really know. I'm not a scholar of Pettibon's work, though I like what he does. I think that superficially our work looks similar which is why I get mentioned along with him. I think we have rather different sensibilities though.

- Why do you produce paintings, sculptures and animations as well as drawings?

Because I can.

- How do you decide which of your works to show or publish, and which to reject?

As a student leaving art school what would you say were the most important steps you took towards becoming a professional artist and making a living doing what you love?

The most important thing I did was to keep making art. Everything else was relatively unimportant.

How important was your portfolio in achieving this? What was your portfolio like?

I don't think I have ever had a portfolio as such. Perhaps the books I published served this purpose. They were pocket-sized and amusing and people enjoyed looking at them. These days I think it's important to have a web site.

Being on a photography course the most common pathway after university is to assist in the larger cities for several years, but I shudder at the thought of this, particularly as my work is increasingly edging away from true "photography" - I draw, animate, construct etc - as an artist who often uses photography but is not 'a photographer' what would your advice be to a student like me on leaving university?

My advice would be this: Find a way of making your art that can fit into your new situation. You probably will have to work at home and will only have a couple of days a week to do it and you will have to make your art on the cheap. If you are resourceful you can do this. In terms of doing a job; I guess it's good to do something in keeping with the the art world, but it's important to see a job as just a means to an end. I had a job installing exhibitions and as a gallery guide. This was badly paid but was good because I had very little responsibility and I was able to be 'somewhere else' mentally a lot of the time. I know a lot of people who went to art school and managed to get fairly decent jobs associated with art, however they ended up having no time to make art and thus ceased to be artists.

What really motivates you to spend eight hours a day drawing? /What drives your desire to express yourself like this?

I suppose I have a lot of professional commitments (exhibitions, books, etc.) so in some ways I don't have a choice now, but ultimately making art is what I like doing most. I'm happiest when I'm left alone to do my thing. I guess I always have been.

You've been asked before about the vast quantity of work you produce and the fact that many works never go further than the bin. The work you throw away: do you feel it was contrived or silly or what? What makes you not like what you have just drawn or made? What in your opinion makes it no good?

I always want to surprise myself to some extent. The drawings which don't surprise me go in the bin.

Spontaneity is an integral part of your practice, however, this makes 'justifying' or theorising your work quite difficult. As a student did you find this problematic (as I do!) - I'm aware you were unhappy with your degree mark...?   Now you are an established artist do people still ask for detailed explanations of your work and is there a danger, in some cases, of being over-analytical?

I have never been keen on theorising about my work. I think it would be dishonest of me to theorise since my work is all intuition. I have nothing against theory, art theory is a very interesting subject and I am aware that some of my work touches on aspects of it, however I feel that if I were to use theory to justify what I do I would be making it elitist in some way, which is the opposite of what I want my work to be. I like it when people speak about art in an intelligent way without mentioning Roland Barthes etc. (because I have never read Roland Barthes, etc.). John Berger is as far as I've got in art theory.

As for my degree mark; I guess it was a long time ago now. Degree marks are not important. I am proof of this.

Apart from the shopping list, diagrams and other found items of this sort, do you collect anything (not specifically work related)? If so what and why?

I guess all I collect is art, whether it be found art or 'real' art. I keep a lot of things (tickets for gigs, letters, etc.) though this is more to do with superstition.

Bill Kenny: Though my essay is in no way intended to be a biography, I would like to sketch some cursory information concerning you early on. I think it would be most relevant. I do not wish to infringe in any way on your privacy - but can you provide me with a quote concerning your formative years? If you do not wish to discuss such matters that is fine. I am just distressed that the available biographical resources are so sketchy. Why is this? for example, why do you not reveal the name of your home town but refer to it vaguely as a 'town in the east midlands'? Does it not matter to you?

David Shrigley: I was born in Macclesfield in 1968 and moved to Leicester in 1970. I did Art Foundation at Leicester Polytechnic in 1987 and went to Glasgow School of Art from 1988 to 1991. I still live in Glasgow.

BK: How do you feel about the way certain aspects of your style have been assimilated by the advertising industry and other artists?

DS: Flattered.

BK: Is the above an accurate statement?

DS: Don't know.

BK: Do you feel that others working in a style similar to your own have ‘devalued’ your work in any way?
DS:No

BK: Do you think that your work is a ‘symptom rather than cause’ in the sense that commercial layouts and typography have been becoming increasingly chaotic as time has passed? Or is that a load of bollocks, considering Paul Rand’s abstract ideas of the 50s and 60s? (That isn’t a question really).

DS:Yes possibly.

BK: Is producing artwork a cathartic experience for you?

DS: Very much so. I get unhappy if I can't work.

BK: Do you enjoy the opportunity to ‘say the unsayable’ on occasion? How do you feel about the notion that artwork is a form of communication where the sender and receiver are a great distance apart and may be strangers to one another?

DS: I like it, now you mention it.

BK: Originally your work only appeared in black and white, photocopy-style. Was this because that was your only means of producing and distributing work on a low budget?

DS: Yes.

BK: Now we see your work appearing in colour, in sculptural form and even animation. Are you considering utilising any other media or producing merchandise of some sort?

DS: I don't think about merchandising. Other people can think about that. I'm very into the idea of making animated films. It's something I want to pursue.

BK: It is remarkable the varying textures your work achieves when presented in different ways – for example the ‘now in its fourth printing (wow)’ cover sticker on ‘Err’. I think you could make a mint having stuff engraved on cigarette lighters and other bits of ephemera.

DS: Maybe.

BK: I would like to discuss your animations in some detail. Your promo for Blur’s ‘Good Song’ is really elaborate and looks amazing. How did this collaboration come about?

DS: I was asked by the animators (Shynola) if I'd like to do it. They did the previous video for Blur so had carte blanche to do what they wanted for this one. I know Shynola from working on a couple of other things with them, so we took it from there. The video is very much a collaboration but I feel it is very much how I wanted it to be. Obviously I did all the drawing and probably contributed the most to the script, but they gave all the character to the animation and did all the sequencing. I'm not really sure whether Blur were aware of my work. I think they are just fans of Shynola.

BK: Why does the squirrel and the pixie have to die?

DS: Death comes to us all in the end.

BK: Its amazing how the main ‘plot’ of the promo is abandoned, with the apparent ‘heroes’ disappearing into obscurity and the final scenes being a series of childish pranks.

DS: Glad you like it.

BK: I’m being chucked out of the library – sorry – will have to write again tomorrow.
Take care, Bye.

next day

BK: Do you have any thoughts to share on the nature of humour? What do you feel is the role and function of jokes in relation to the arts?

DS: Don't know, don't care.

BK: Were the Dadaists ‘just having a laugh’ in your opinion?

DS: I think the Dadaists probably did have some laughs, but as far as I am concerned Dadaism was very much a product of the time. I think Dadaism was very political in a way which most art these days is not.

BK: Do you feel that producing work that is humorous causes you to be taken ‘less seriously’ as an artist?

DS: Maybe for some. But it doesn't bother me too much.

BK: Do you think your work displays a worldview? Would you describe such a worldview as misanthropic?

DS: Probably it is. But I am not.

BK: Are we all mad?

DS: No. Just a bit stupid.

BK: Do you feel that a pessimistic, negative or ironic attitude is seen by tastemakers as a more ‘legitimate’ one than an optimistic, sincere one?

DS: Probably.

BK: Should we try and transcend such limiting and narrow worldviews?

DS: Yes.

BK: Personally, I think there are many levels to your work, and to describe it as misanthropic would be overlooking other important features. The work is as multi-layered as the artist is – showing happiness, sorrow or anger accordingly. But there is a tendency to undermine moments of happiness (the squirrel and the pixie die horribly in an apparent war). Does this reflect a pragmatic attitude on your part (they are allowed a moment of happiness, but death comes to us all and is inevitable), and a wish to undermine and devalue the all-pervasive corny cultural clichés?

DS: Yes, I think so.

BK: ‘When the candle burns down to here we are all fucked’ – how far off do you think extinction is for the human race?

DS: Don't know.

BK: Would you like to ‘demystify’ the artistic process or do you feel that the audience wants to be fooled?

DS: I wouldn't want to be seen as the Jamie Oliver of the artworld but I think that making it easier for people to engage with contemporary art, making it more accessible is a good thing. I think more people should be encouraged to make art themselves. Self expression is also a good thing.

BK: Do you feel your work simply reflects the world ‘as it really is’ or as you see it? (this may be the same question as above).

DS: It reflects what is going on in my head at a given moment. And I guess that what goes on in my head is shaped to a certain extent by things going on outside.

BK: Through such methods, do you feel that you are able to provide moments of profundity? I.e., you play on the audience/viewers expectations that a given set of events will be resolved in a certain way then turn them on their heads?

DS: Maybe, but it is something I do intuitively.

BK: This brings me to the matter of horror films. Do you feel that horror has a relationship to humour?

DS: I think so.

BK: In a much-remarked upon plot device used in ‘Psycho’ and ‘Night of the Living Dead’, the apparent heroines are rendered, respectively, dead and incapacitated – a break with convention that leaves the audience disorientated. Would you agree with the following statement: true ‘horror’ films behave much as a joke does in the sense that they are not really about particularly deep themes but are devices that play on expectation and go SNAP at just the right time?

DS: Don't know.

BK: But a joke is always about something – funnier when the subject matter ‘hits a nerve’.

DS: Don't know.

BK: I like the fact that the violence in your work is often gleeful carnage – it is enjoyable. What are your thoughts on this matter?

DS: I think violence can be funny in an anarchic kind of way.

BK: I like your use of the questionnaire format and official language. Considering the number of forms one has to fill out at any given time, this influence is much appreciated. Did you consciously choose to incorporate such language or did it ‘creep in’?

DS: Crept in I guess.

BK: Are you well read on psychology?

DS: Not really. But I have an A level in Sociology.

BK: I understand (from reading up on you) that you have ‘no interest in children’s art, naïve art or art brut’. I feel that in your work you fulfil Picasso’s maxim of drawing ‘as a child’ (which I take as meaning intuitively, spontaneously, for its own sake), informed with an adult sensibility and content. It is not a contrived facsimile. How does that statement grab you?

DS: Fine.

BK: A few more questions on influences: (I have to ask). I have spent time in the midlands and can well imagine how an artist such as yourself could spring form such a place. Are you from Leicester? Why are you so unspecific about your place of birth in interviews and so forth?

DS: I didn't mean to be unspecific. Maybe it's because I have lived in Scotland for so long that England is another country which one doesn't need to be too geographically specific about. What part of the East Midlands I am from does not make much difference to most people.

BK: Having spent a Saturday in Leicester, I have renewed empathy for ‘Dawn of the Dead’.

DS: Try Glasgow on a Saturday night.

BK: Also, having spent much time in Scotland, I can detect that influence in your work, also! Not only in the urban violence on show, but also an element of mysticism – I am just being daft?

DS: No, but it's not something I've ever analyzed myself.

BK: Are you religious?

DS: Not practicing. But I am interested in religion. I think religion in a good thing.

BK: Are you affiliated with any political organisations?

DS: Same as my answer about religion.

BK: Do you feel your work is specifically male in some ways?

DS: I guess.

BK: Are any films an influence on you?

DS: Lots. I like 'Unforgiven' the Clint Eastwood movie because of the moral ambiguity.

BK: What kind of music inspires you? Do you work whilst listening to music? Did you ever learn to play the guitar?

DS: I can play the guitar, but not so well. I like lots of music. The last records I bought were Melt Banana, The Mountain Goats, and some early Fall re-issues.

BK: What is your opinion on the work of Jean-Michel Basquait?

DS: I like it. I think the works on paper are the best. I think he painted large canvases for economic reasons rather that artistic ones.

BK: Are you aware of the US artist Gary Panter?

DS: Yes. Like it a lot. But have not seen that much.

BK: Can you elaborate a little bit more on the Magritte influence?

DS: I like the illustrative style and I like the simple images. Dali's paintings were too complicated.

BK: I could imagine your animation being a big hit on Channel Four, before the news or at midnight on a Saturday. Do you have any such plans for world domination?

DS: Every man has his price.

BK: Can you provide me with a brief list or Top Ten of your most relevant influences?

DS: Here's some in no order off the top of my head;
Donald Barthelme
Found lists, drawings, signage, etc.
The Fall
Philip Guston
Rory Hayes
Human conversation
Graffiti
Joseph Conrad
Rene Magritte
Eric Hobsbawme
The Social Sciences

BK: How would you help a person who was having difficulty understanding your work?

DS: I wouldn't.

next day

BK: Are you influenced in any way by Kurt Vonnegut? I am thinking specifically of his book ‘Breakfast of Champions’, which features drawings humorously integrated into the text and an amusing, skewered take on life.

DS: Never read it. But I did read SLAUGHTERHOUSE 5 which I liked. But no, I don't think he's an influence.

BK: I read in your recent interview with Neil Mulholland about a commission you did for Allianz Risk Transfer – can this work be seen anywhere (preferably in its original form)?

DS: I have one copy of the book they made which I guess I could loan you if you're really desperate to see it. Otherwise try search engine ALLIANZ RISK TRANSFER MIND MAPS.

BK: In that same interview you state that you are ambivalent about advertising, but you are not averse to accepting commissions for companies. What is your opinion on the relationship between commerce and art? At what point would you feel your work was being compromised, and would you refuse the work in such a case?
Your work will always be compromised and diluted by advertisers.

DS: I used to always say no when they asked me to do something. But then I realized they got someone else to do it in the same style and people thought I'd done it anyway. So now when they ask I always say yes (though they don't often use what I come up with). If somebody's going to get paid it might as well be me.

BK: Can you outline briefly what you feel motivates your art?

DS: Everything.

BK: Do you find that through working intensively, i.e. producing huge numbers of drawings, you are able to reach places and produce funny drawings that you wouldn’t have been able to if you had consciously set out to do so?

DS: Yes. I make a lot of work. Some of it is good and the rest goes in the bin. I never want to be afraid of making a mistake or of wasting paper.

BK: Do you consider your work to be an exploration of your own psyche?

DS: Yes. Or maybe no. Don't know.

BK: Can you describe your working methods and practice?

DS: Get up at 9.30
Breakfast
Shower
Answer e-mails
Make phone calls
Work for 8 hours
Dinner
Telly
Bed
Except on weekends when I play football and go to the pub.

BK: I imagine you produce a lot of drawings, far more than are ever shown – is this correct? Similarly, do you make sculptures in large quantities before selecting the pieces that will be shown in public?

DS: Yes.

BK: I like the anthropomorphic quality of your sculpture. It’s amazing how versatile the concept of sticking a pair of eyes on an inanimate object is, probably because we respond to a human face and the incongruity is amusing. It seems almost Hindu (or is it Buddhist?) – the notion that everything has a soul. I feel that the sculpture, which to quote Neil Mulholland ‘looks like your drawings come to life’, adds a new dimension to your other work – makes it more tangible. Are you attempting to create a ‘Shrigleyworld’? With your animations as well, I could envision you rivalling Walt Disney someday.

DS: What's the difference between Bing Crosby and Walt Disney ?
Bing sings and Walt disnae.
(Helps if you have a Glaswegian accent)

BK: Are you aware of the books of Glen Baxter? If so, are you influenced by them?

DS: I know Glen Baxter quite well. He is one of the finest human beings ever to have walked on God's earth. People don't seem to be so interested in what he is doing these days which is a tragedy because he is great talent. I wouldn't say I'm influenced by him as such but I am certainly in awe of some of his finest comic moments. "That's Mr. Smollet's eyebrow!" shrieked Janey.

BK: Are you familiar with Spike Milligan’s books? Was he an influence?

DS: Not inflenced but in admiration of the poems for children. Some of which are genius.
Doctor O'Dell fell in a well
And broke his collar bone
The doctor should attend the sick
and leave the well alone

BK: Are you familiar with US punk rockers The Ramones? Have you seen the strange drawings that adorn the sleeve of their 1988 release ‘Ramonesmania’? If so, would you care to comment?

DS: Never saw it.

BK: Well, that’s all for today. Many thanks. I have one final question, one which I will elaborate upon further in my next e-mail. I have noticed several references to horror films in your work, for instance VIRULENT PLAGUE FROM SPACE THAT BRINGS THE DEAD BACK TO LIFE is from Night of the Living Dead, isn’t it? Will you give me a few words on your opinion of horror films? Is this the source of the gleeful carnage apparent in your work? I feel your best stuff contains in equal measure doses of horror, humour and an element of tragedy.

DS: I like horror films though I don't think I've ever consciously referenced one.

BK: I recall reading in ‘Frieze’ magazine some time ago that you originally produced work in drastically different style to your present one, and that your work was vandalised – prompting you to adopt aspects of these defacements into your own style. Is this story true?

DS: The first two books of drawings I published myself were a bit formalized because I was trying to make cartoons rather that 'art'. I can send you an example if you send me your address. There were vandals but I was not influenced by them.

BK: Can you describe the style of your early work?

DS: See the book.

BK: Is your drawing ‘…I am lucky to have a studio space…’ from ‘Why we got the sack…’ based on this incident?

DS: No. Not consciously.

BK: What is your opinion of vandalism?

DS: Good graffiti is good as long as in is not near my house. Vandalism is only good if it constitutes a political act endorsed by the majority.

BK: What kind of pen do you use? Do you use any special materials for your artwork?

DS: Uniball eye medium. Acid free paper. Preferably 150 gsm minimum.

BK: What was the first work you produced in your present style, or is it difficult to place an exact point on what has been a continuous evolution?

DS: As you say.

BK: Did you draw as a child? What were your earliest influences? Have you always drawn ‘silly’ drawings to amuse yourself and others?

DS: Can't remember by earliest influences. Though I do remember by childhood drawings being quite dynamic and gory. Usually to do with monsters, dinosaurs, aliens, spaceships, excecution, etc. I think I realized it was possible to amuse people with my drawings quite early on.

BK: What form did your early work ‘Slug Trails’ take? Is it available anywhere?

DS: No. But I'll send you a copy of MERRRY ECZEMA.

BK: I do not wish to over-analyse your work in my essay – I am aware that a lot of stuff you do is selected primarily because it is funny. But I am interested in your obtuse relationship to the Fine Art establishment. I know you do not consider yourself a ‘Fine Artist’ as such. Why is this?

DS: You're wrong. I do consider myself a fine artist. It's just that I don't mind when people see me as something else (a cartoonist, for instance).

BK: Do you have a particular audience in mind when producing your work?

DS: Me.

BK: Do you consciously attempt to work more profound themes into your work at times?

DS: I guess I just want to be profound. The theme isn't important.

BK: Do you appreciate the jarring effect viewers of your work experience when they see something profound juxtaposed with something apparently immature or trivial?

DS: I guess not.

BK: Do you consciously avoid references to specific events, current affairs / politics and celebrities and media figures?

DS: Yes. I try not to make my work too culturally specific. I like my work to be able to travel.

BK: Are you familiar with the television series ‘Vic Reeves Big Night Out’? If so, was this programme an influence on you?

DS: I liked it at the time, but I don't think it was an influence on my artwork. Wouldn't it be rather tragic if it was!

BK: I do not really wish to draw parallels between the two of you, but what is your opinion of Vic Reeves book ‘Sun Boiled Onions’ and accompanying exhibition? It seems ironic that whilst you are, to some extent, feted by the Art establishment Reeves, an entertainer, seems to desire acceptance and legitimisation as a ‘serious’ artist. I think Reeves’ book relies too heavily on ironic references to celebrities – and over-used figures like Elvis, at that (plus it’s not very funny).

DS: I saw a book of his once a few years ago, I don't know if that's the one your talking about. I didn't really like it much. But I did like the big flip chart drawings they did in the show.

BK: Still on the subject of influences – are you familiar with the work of Raymond Pettibon? I mention him as there seem to be some similarities between the two of you – he works primarily in black and white, in a rough style, and began circulating his work via photocopied books and pamphlets.

DS: I like Pettibon. But again, he's not really an influence.

BK: On a deeper level, I think Pettibon shares your ability to condense an entire narrative into one panel, with the viewer ‘filling in the blanks’, as it were, as to how the situation arose and how it will be resolved. His work is also ambivalent/ambiguous, with no obvious editorialising concerning the artists’ moral opinions. Often, this can be disturbing – his depictions of Manson-type massacres and so forth where one does not initially know where the artist’s sympathy lies. Do you think this is an important element of your art, that the viewer is forced to look at a given drawing without being instructed ‘what to think’? Is this a reflection of the ‘humanism’ you appreciate in Alan Bennett’s work, getting us to see an individuals world through his/her point-of-view? He is perhaps the only person working in television today who would ask us to sympathise with a paedophile.

DS: To be honest I've never thought about it. If it's something I do then I'm not really aware of it.

BK: When you originally began producing work, what kind of outlet do you foresee for it? Did you imagine it would prove so popular?

DS: I can't remember. I don't think I ever thought I'd be popular in the way I am. I just wanted to make a living drawing pictures.

BK: What did you think of Will Self’s comparison of your drawings to those of notorious Serial Killer Denis Nilsen?

DS: I don't know.

next day

BK: Do you ever draw the same picture several times - revised drafts, if you will?

DS: I generally only draw things once.

BK: Are the drawings that we the general public see usually 'first drafts' - the only one of its kind?

DS: Yes.

BK: Does an idea usually lose its edge if it is subject to repeated overhauls?

DS: Yes.

BK: Do you prefer to surprise yourself with your drawings or do you ever approach a blank page with a set idea of how you want the finished drawing to look?

DS: I surprize myself. Occasionally I have an idea before I start but it's usually just a starting point rather than a finished drawing.

BK: Do you ever think of yourself as a kind of conduit for images that come from somewhere in the ether, maybe Jesus, and that you do not have control over what will appear on the page (kind of like an artistic ouija board)?

DS: Yes, sometimes.

BK: Do you prefer to work in black and white or colour?

DS: B/W.

BK: Is this aspect of your work merely chosen for practical reasons, i.e., ease of reproduction?

DS: It used to be practical reasons, but I think in general I prefer B/W.

BK: May I ask a little bit about presentation? I had not really seen much of your colour work prior to the publication of the new 'yellow bird' book. I was surprised to see that one of my favourites, the picture of a submarine with arrows pointing out various parts, was originally rendered in colour. In 'Do Not Bend' it is an indistinct black blob reminiscent of a sub. Do you not mind whether your pictures are shown in their original form?

DS: I think in general I prefer them to be shown in their original form.

BK: How do you prefer your work to be presented - in gallery exhibitions or books?

DS: I think books are better.

BK: What do you consider to be the most perceptive and enlightening critical writing on your work?

DS: Frederic Paul (Kerguehennec catalogue) Michael Bracewell (Freize 1995) and Will Self (introduction to WHY WE GOT THE SACK....).

BK: The sexual content of your work is funny, but often quite dark - for example, the two lovers stabbed by a mystery figure (who leaves his hat behind) and 'the miracle of birth' image, depicting a grotesque, painful spectacle. Cute little insect-like baby though. Is this intended as a dose of realism for all?

DS: Don't know.

BK: The 'centrefold' in 'Err' is hilariously unerotic. I was considering a men's magazine in comparison with this tuff, wherein sex is purely a diversion, all about prostitution, pornography and fantasy nonsense. Is the sex in your work a reaction to this kind of material?

DS: Don't know.

BK: I am interested in the apocalyptic themes that sometimes crop up in your work. Is the teacher-pupil 'nuclear war' exchange in 'Who I am...' inspired by anything specific?

DS: No.

BK: You avoid editoralising; from having heard feedback concerning your work, do you feel that the viewer more or less imposes whatever s/he wants to see on one of your pictures? I mean, whether it is sincere/insincere, funny, tragic, etc...

DS: Yes.

BK: Are you surprised by what people see in your work sometimes?

DS: Sometimes.

BK: Do you think that the best artwork is produced intuitively?

DS: Not necessarily.

BK: Is this what grabs you about graffiti, found shopping lists, signage, etc.

DS: Yes.

BK: Do subconscious things emerge that make the work more compelling emerge when it is not so mediated?

DS: I guess so.

BK: I am uncertain of what path to take with your work sometimes. I want to resist over-analysing it. I would appreciate your opinion regarding whether I am barking up the wrong tree asking whether such and such a piece is influenced by such and such a thing.

DS: I don't analyse it myself, but you can do whatever you like.

BK: Similarly, what do you think about anlysis of a particular artists work in relation to their gender/ethnic background/social status?

DS: I don't really have an opinion.

BK: I was really proud to come up with this maxim: 'creativity is a side effect of being alive'. I enjoy found lists, signage etc. I also appreciate the sometimes bizarre manglings of the english language you find in places like pound shops - often, the packaging of toys and games is produced overseas and the translations into english throw up some bizarre anomalies. I find such things funny sometimes, but often I think they are like poetry - making art out of words, playing on delightful ambiguities and curious turns of phrase. Such things are not contrived - the writer may not have even realised s/he was doing it. We forget that even talking is a form of creative expression. Is this similar to what you like about found notes?

DS: I guess so.

BK: Would you prefer that your work spoke for itself without additional explanation from yourself?

DS: Yes.

BK: Would you prefer it that your work remained your primary 'public image'?

DS: Yes.

BK: Are you ever disturbed by some of the images you produce?

DS: On occasion.

BK: Do you make yourself laugh sometimes with your own drawings?

DS: Often.

BK: Does any 'high gloss' artwork appeal to you?

DS: No.

BK: Are there any artists you like purely for the visuals?

DS: I probably like most artists primarily for the visuals in the sense that there aren't so many artists I like purely for the ideas.

BK: Or do you think that the 'idea' behind a particular image is inextricably linked to ones appreciation of such?

DS: I guess.

BK: Is all art about ideas, in your opinion?

DS: It's all about something, that's for sure.

BK: 'Jokes and humourous sayings' in Human Acheivement is mostly text - was this intentional?

DS: Yes.

BK: Would I be right in stating that your two most recent books were planned as such and that prior to them you compiled a bunch of work from your archives?

DS: Yes.

BK: Am I being too serious about your work?

DS: Don't know.

BK: I am finding this essay quite difficult because I feel like I intuitively get your work and have felt an affinity for it since I first saw it, but it is tricky making sense of it for another person. What is your opinion of analysis of artwork?

DS: When you're writing an essay it's important to analyse. At other times it's not so necessary.

BK: I was thinking about good and analysis - is it pointless to harp on about themes that do not seem apparent in the work at question?

DS: Don't know.

BK: I was taught to look for gender/ethnic/social status issues in a particular work. Though I feel these are all matters of relevance, perhaps it is too political an approach. Would it be more enlightening to look at the artist as an individual instead of part of a faceless block grouping? (I must stress that I have no particular political axe to grind).

DS: Dunno.

BK: Being a young (would-be) artist, particularly one who has not atrracted any recognition, it is difficult not to lose faith in ones own abilities and start to try and second guess whatever is popular or follow a particular trend. Is this fatal, in your experience?

DS: It's a bad idea. Just do what you enjoy and do it well. If you make great artwork success will come and find you.

BK: I have one final question that I just remembered: why are squirrels and nuts so prevalent in your work? What particular attraction do they possess?

DS: I guess I just like squirrels. And nuts.

Top