298
David Chipperfield: William Tozer, ‘Crossing the Divide,’
Monument, issue 58
(December/January 2003/2004): 86–91.
[Copyright image removed. Refer print version in UCL library.]
‘Clearly the artist holds the trump card’ says David Chipperfield in answer to the inevitable
question about the new building his office has just completed for renowned English artist,
Anthony Gormley. The new Gormley Studio, which sits in a light industrial area of London just
north of Kings Cross, is one of only a handful of buildings that Chipperfield has completed in
England. Alongside the subject of the relationship between artist and architect is the broader
issue of the respective roles of art and architecture, and the specificity of the interaction of this
particular building and the artwork produced within it. These topics formed the basis of
a recent
public discussion between Chipperfield and Gormley, chaired by the renowned architectural
critic Deyan Sudjic.
Describing the discussion as ‘a conversation between an architect and an artist’, Sudjic
proposed that the main inquiry for the discussion should be ‘what architecture and art have in
common, if anything’. Positing the situation in less grand terms, Anthony Gormley simply stated
that, ‘for me the interesting thing is “Why did I choose David?”’ Putting aside David
Chipperfield’s humorous first response—‘Because John Pawson was too busy and too
expensive’—it is clear from their discussion that Gormley has enormous respect for
Chipperfield’s work. ‘He has an idea of how a building occupies a space … [and] as an artist I
don’t think you need a noisy building’, says Gormley, explaining why he feels the clean
backdrop of minimalism is the appropriate setting for his work. However, when asked why he
didn’t design the building himself, Gormley offers a response in tune with Chipperfield’s own
initial jocular answer and cites only the difficulty of negotiating building regulations and technical
construction issues. Broadening the discussion to the relationship between art and architecture,
Chipperfield observes that, ‘Probably the most free commission at the moment is a museum …
but artists constantly complain about the spaces architects create for them’. Reflecting upon this
in relation to the crisp white interior of the studio, Chipperfield concludes that, ‘If I lament
anything, it’s that this looks more like a gallery than a studio’. But, while art observation is a
pristine activity, the first traces of the detritus of art practise are already beginning to appear on
298
299
the floors, walls and ceilings of the space. Moreover, Gormley is quick to reassure the architect
that, ‘We’re going to make it look like a studio. We’re going to trash this place’.
Referring to the familiar saw-tooth roof form of the building, Chipperfield remarks cheekily that
one of the most notable things about the building it that, ‘It’s not a conversion. It’s actually a new
building’. Indeed, approaching the building one could be forgiven for believing that the studio
was a careful conversion of an old factory or warehouse. In response, Gormley seems almost to
feel the need to leap to the defence of
his new studio, and retorts that the form was ‘the
simplest and most conventional way to bring light into all the spaces evenly’. Responding to
this, Chipperfield reflects upon the fact that the building is in many ways a perfect version of an
existing space that the artist had searched for unsuccessfully for two years before deciding to
commission the construction. Resisting the architect’s characterisation of the design as ‘a
parody of an “as found” industrial building’, Gormley later remarks that, ‘It came about from
examining the existing building that I used to work in. There’s something very organic about this
solution’. The debate refers to the rejection of the architect’s original design for the building—a
flat-roofed corrugated steel form that brought shafts of light into the interior. ‘I think it should
have been a bit tougher’, says Chipperfield comparing his original proposal and the completed
building’. I gave in on everything to be honest, but I don’t see that as being a problem. It’s his
building’. Alluding to the cause of some of these compromises, Gormley points out that, ‘We
didn’t have any money [and] we have even less now’.
Contemplating the reciprocal relationship between his work and the studio space, Gormley
observes that, ‘art grows into whatever space is given it’ and speculates that the proliferation of
large gallery spaces may have caused the recent inflation in the size of modern art. Asked by
Sudjic what would happen if he suddenly took up small-scale work, the artist points out that
after years of working on enormous sculptural projects, the first thing he made in this new space
was jewellery. While it was the scale of his own work that necessitated a space of this
magnitude, the studio seems to have satiated this desire—at least momentarily. ‘I think it’s very
important that you go to work. Work is a place of serious endeavour’, says Gormley in reply to a
question from the floor about his decision not to live in the space and the erosion of the notion
of the artist’s garret. Referring to the scale of the much of his work, he continues by pointing out
that, ‘you couldn’t get one in your garret without the house falling down … [it’s] a demonstration
of what a place like this enables you to do’. With bemusement about the scale of personal,
financial and emotional investment that has been made in the new studio, he reflects that some
of his best work is done ‘when I’m on holiday in the Lake District or in my attic’. ‘This space is
much too serious for an artist to produce serious work in’, jokes Chipperfield.
‘I’m humbled and excited by having a building like this’, says Gormley, acknowledging that
David Chipperfield Architects have brought the studio ‘a sense of proportion, a sense of volume,
[and] a sense of how a building can possess its site’. Putting aside the complexities of
spatial
arrangement and construction, and connecting the production of art with the practise of
architecture, Chipperfield ponders, ‘What should something look like? That is the most difficult
question that faces us on every project’.
299