ARTS / Room for improvement: What are the ideal conditions in which to look at art? Dalya Alberge asks three experts to make an exhibition of their fantasy blueprints: The artist
ARMAN (Armand Fernandez), the French artist, is best-known for his smashed musical instruments and typewriters. He adopted the name Arman after a printer's error on a catalogue in 1958, two years after his first solo show. Among his large-scale monumental sculptures are the welded bronze suitcases and clocks at the Gare St Lazare, Paris.
If money were no object, I would have a design that would constantly change. I'd have walls that could turn like a James Bond film and be changed on a computer.
The luxury of my design would be in the lighting: it would be modulated for each work - a completely different lighting for each sculpture, each painting, each assemblage . . . That would make each piece look extraordinary.
I would not have too many windows, but the design should not be too closed either. Otherwise you would feel isolated, as if in a tomb. I'd have a neutral space with perhaps grey and off-white shades. If you show contemporary art, a heavy setting competes with it.
But I wouldn't want a museum set up for my own work. I've refused several offers, from several countries, to have one devoted to me. I don't think an artist should be involved in the creation of his own museum in his lifetime . . . It would suggest I'm not sure of the future if I have to do it in my lifetime. If a museum is necessary in the future, it should be built after I've died. Otherwise, it would seem as if I'd died. I've some friends who were involved in setting up a museum to their art: they mummified.
(Photograph omitted)
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies