Replies: 37 Comments
on Sunday, June 5th, chris said
I guess every artist is different in their 'naming'. For me, the name is integral to any piece I create, however, I feel my work represents larger ideas or concepts that can be interpreted on different levels. At times I have named the piece before creating it (at least in a sense), other times the name comes about in the process or at the end. I have one piece still unamed & have never considered it finished!
Those who look at my art always seem to get more out of it once they ask to know or see the name. In my work, I feel the 'name' provides a further point of entry for viewers (who are also usually interested in how it came about from me). I see that as viewers having a deep interest in each artist as an individual & wanting to know how a piece emerged from that particular psyche instead of just perceiving the work in a vacuum.
on Saturday, May 28th, Bernard F.E. Besson said
untitled was a fashionable name ...
does your collection have a name ?
etc etc etc
on Tuesday, May 24th, heather said
Sometimes a good title can make a piece-- as in the case of Sue Webster and Tim Noble's work for
example, the things they make are not only fascinating, in the case of their shadow pieces, but conceptually tight due to the titles they give the work-- like "useless white trash"-- but alot of titles can be a bit coy, and detract form work which may be held together by it's enigmatic qualities-- Also, visual
artists are not writers-- and creativity is not necessarily bound by language.
Painters, it seems, unlike sculptors or other artists who need a strong conceptual base, sometimes need to avoid the cleverness that a title imposes on work in order to create something that holds up on a two dimensional surface.
on Tuesday, May 24th, mike said
i don't title things. i don't really see the point. i mean, if i did something, then looked at it afterward and said 'this is what this means'. then i wouldn't be naming it as the painter. i would be naming it as a spectator. just like anyone else who looked at it.
on Monday, May 23rd, ashok said
hallo my dearWRITER AND AVID ART COLLECTOR ,
my viw at this topic is titled a painting is like end of that creation,At his mission of create something artist do many attempts(paintings). this stage he even cann't think about a title.that so most of these paintings titled as UNTITLED.you cann't find an artist do title-less paintings allthrough his carrear.
this is all about matter of involbment with creativity in the way of creation.
on Sunday, May 22nd, gauhar said
hi,
i myself give titles to my work,though sometimes i just leave it off with a date marked on....
titles can be used in a creative way, to either enhance the understanding of the viewer,in a poetic way,as a continuation of the work, in an emotional way to simply name something u have given birth to, in a experimental way or in a practical way, well just because it is practical and useful.depends if the artist thinks these or some of his reasons are enough to give the work a title, though the integrity and value of both the artist and the work of art cannot depend on naming of his work.i mean just because, a work of art does not have a name,doesnt make the work less creative or sincere.
gauhar
on Sunday, May 22nd, gauhar said
hi,
i myself give titles to my work,though sometimes i just leave it off with a date marked on....
titles can be used in a creative way, to either enhance the understanding of the viewer,in a poetic way,as a continuation of the work, in an emotional way to simply name something u have given birth to, in a experimental way or in a practical way, well just because it is practical and useful.depends if the artist thinks these or some of his reasons are enough to give the work a title, though the integrity and value of both the artist and the work of art cannot depend on naming of his work.i mean just because, a work of art does not have a name,doesnt make the work less creative or sincere.
gauhar
on Friday, May 20th, Donna said
Titles are sometimes too pretentious or even leading/misleading to me. But I find myself trying to "see" that concept in the painting, which often is not there to begin with. Yes; I like names, but some works I have seen seem to be totally unconnected to their titles, and who can define art works through the eyes of other people? Like other people I think that what you see is the definition, but of course I don't know that much about artwork. And titles DO give some insight into the ego/mentality of the artist... And titling things whether they are stories, poetry or my paintings are a plague to me!
on Friday, May 20th, Geri said
I've decided to title myself Bastard Child #3. Let "titles" fall where they may. I admit to being a title sinner. I'm guilty of many sins and with any luck, will be guilty of many more. Thanks for the look inside.
on Friday, May 20th, shreshtaart@hotmail.com">usha said
I read with interest all the comments.I own a gallery.I find that a title makes it that much easier to explain a particular art and selling it too.However many times the artists see things in a painting only after other viewers express the painting
on Friday, May 20th, walt said
While I hold to the idea that a work expresses itself in its own language and shouldn't need words to back it up I also know it is easier to remember a poetic and pertinant title than something like experimental drawing #3857.
And I think it is important to hear what a collector has to say on the subject. Like most of life, I want to do what I want to do but I want to find those who appreciate it. Thanks Michael for enjoining the frey here at absolutearts. I think most everyone appreciates hearing from collectors and gallery owners.
on Friday, May 20th, Brad Michael Moore said
Name your art or not, let it speak for itself, or add poetic interpretation. Title your work by number, or letter, or phrase. Sign it or not. It seems only natural to see people expressing themselves in the variety of demeanor they see fit.
on Thursday, May 19th, jose said
wasn't there some ancient taoist philosopher who said that naming is the beginning and the end of all things, or words to that effect? do i really need a label to feel what i see? does the title give me a greater understanding of what i feel or merely the assurance that i might have a chance of seeing what the others claim to see? do i really want what i see to be final and uncontested or do i want it to be a field of open possibilities? is creation what we get to experience without contestation or what we decide to make of it? more and more i prefer no titles.
on Thursday, May 19th, Han Stuster said
I did always wonder why some artists dont give it a name, I feel my painting is not ready without a name.
When you paint a painting you put so much of yourself in it, every painting leaves with a piece of your soul. Its good that that empty place is filled up later and makes you richer (inner-richdom not money) Its wonderful when somebody who buys the art see every time someting else in it, but the best is when he or she finds the real thoughts and emotions I did put in a painting. And why not give it a name than?
on Thursday, May 19th, Olga Dmytrenko said
I prefer to give titles to my paintings. But usually the title comes after the work is finished because I never can predict what outcome I'll get. My art is totaly emotional and becomes controlled only at the final stage when imagination suggested some concluding details. Often I ask my friends, my daughter and my husband, what do they see on my abstracts - this helps a lot with finding an appropriate name, which I think is a part of art... last detail to the finished work.
http://www.artabus.com/english/dmytrenko/
on Thursday, May 19th, jennifer said
i'm an artist who places some importance on words and titles. i find more often than not, that while i am painting/drawing some string of words comes into my mind and will not leave me alone...sometimes i find i am so inspired by someone else's word i feel compelled to draw my interpretation of those words. in his book "Remarks on Color", Ludwig Wittgenstein touched on how inherent definitions of certain words come tainted by individual interpretaions of those words; so, how do we know if we are truely communicating anything? you can take the titles, or leave them, because chances are even if you do spell everything out for you art viewer, they will still come up with whatever they want it to mean, anyway. i, personally, am trying to let the viewer into my world, see a direct interpretation of how i view our very UNcivilized civilization; anyway i can clear up my point for the viewer-- hard outlines and catchy titles-- the better.
then again, i haven't sold anything, and i don't exactly fit into any mold to show in many galleries, so what do i know? at least i have the freedom to make the art--and title it--I want to.
on Wednesday, May 18th, Paul said
Michael,Im reminded by your intro an avid art collecter of 'avida dollars'the ephitet made for dali by his old surrealist chum,these thoughts have come from another posting where we were all talking about collecting and one other collecter saying he differentiates between investments and pretty pictures or similar,and theres no way round it, its a bit like betting hoping ones stable of artists will get a name,or one of them,ie buying cheaply and realizing a maximum potential,or buying names if one can afford it,but in a way this gets away from the love of art for its own sake,contaminates it if you like,it would be much better if there was no money in art,rather that it was like collecting leaves or stones,this one more pretty than that one and so on,interesting only to the lovers of the art.
on Wednesday, May 18th, nelly said
See the work as your adopted child and not as a bastard and give the painting the name you wish. Sometimes a given title can trouble your own thoughts. Often I give a title just for my administration and don´t think a title is so important, it is sometimes just for fun.
on Wednesday, May 18th, elaniii said
Art collectors get a lot of responses from artists, don't they!!!
on Tuesday, May 17th, gabe langholtz said
titles are a touchy subject, as they are in many ways works of art in and of themselves. creativity does not end for an artist. it goes beyond art, it goes beyond the confines of our "studios". it is our lives. it is who we are and we carry it with us infinitely. we are constantly making improvements to our environment, to functionality, etc. (mostly in our heads). assigning art a name isn't always appropriate or significant. Mostly it's something to publically identify with, which is the purpose of the art itself. "Starry Starry Night" would still be what it is with or without a title. Additionally, I'm fairly certain that most orphaned children are given names (last names anyhow) when they enter into new families, which is what our art is basically doing once it has been purchased. for simplicity sake why not just break out the baby name book and start picking names. This piece I call "Bob". a name is insignificant without something behind it, and it's what's behind it that makes the name. using my previous reference as example, publically it is first discovered as an image (a work of art), next we associate it with a title, behind that is the artists name... painting, Starry Starry Night, Vincent Van Gogh. Without the artwork, the rest is meaningless. perhaps we should just title our art with pseudonyms, perhaps that's what "untitled" really is.
on Tuesday, May 17th, Peter said
Man, what planet are you all on? Has anyone else here actually sold any work? I can't remember when anyone has ever even asked for a title! You guys are speaking metaphorically, right?
on Tuesday, May 17th, Rosemary said
Once again, I reread some of the artists comments and in a way everyone is right. Some poeple feel they don't need to give their creations a name- it is a gutsy decision on their part, since I myself could not bring myself not to name one of my paintings. I also understand the process for some artists who number their artwork to keep track of them.
As much as you want to believe collectors look at the art and don't give a hoot about the title- it does affect and influence their decison some way or another on a subconcious level- unless you want to purely decorate your home or office...
I sat on a jury and titles were very influential to the juror's decison making to my disbelief! They would connect to work if it had a title and said something or gave them a hint of something. Untitled works just made them flip through the slides quicker.
on Tuesday, May 17th, Rosemary said
Hmmm... interesting to hear an art collector speaking his mind for once! I understand that there are a lot of non representational or mixed media artists who mass produce their artwork and feel they can just number or not title their works. Someone who works like myself- months on end on paintings, gives a lot of thought to titles. They are important to me, because like you said, they are like babies and yes I do get attached to them and therefore they should have a name. After slaving over them I sure hope I can title them! It is a personal decision for the artist to make... there have been great works I have seen who surely could have had a title- but they were left untilted by the artist. It makes you wonder whether this intentional decision makes the viewer think more or raise more questions. Imaging a work such as a the "David" by Michaelangelo having no title? What would anyone call it? Would it have been so important had it not had a title? Some of Michaelangelo's others works are less famous and even rare to see, because they are untitled. Titles do play a role in how a work will get attention whether by the media, art collectors, or viewers of the work.
Another example "Guernica" by Picasso- we know it as Guernica and the whole history behind it. What if it was "untitled" by Picasso? It would not be as important I think.
I have a painting that I did a few years back called "David & Goliath". This work, everyone seems to cling to. Everyone who meets me says "hey you did David & Goliath"! This is how they connect me to my work.
Boys & Girls... our avid art collector has brough upon a very interesting point... titles may even become more of an issue than art works themselves. Example: "Mona Lisa"- is is really a woman or Leonardo depicted as a woman? Or more recently the scandalous notions that the "12 Apostles" by Leonardo Da Vinci has a woman( perhaps Mary Madalene) posing as Judas according to Dan Brown?
on Tuesday, May 17th, Craig Hawkins said
My work is representational. My titles usually turn up, at least in part, within the actual artwork because I personally love words and their meanings. My personal intention with titles or word(s) within my work is to leave a puzzle piece along with other marks or shapes for the viewer to assemble if they care too. I don't prefer to remain silent with the intentions or purpose of my artwork, but this doesn't mean the viewer is not allowed to apply the artwork to themselves on a personal level and completely disregard my title and/or personal thoughts. Plenty of people already take their own initiative on assuming they completely understand other things like how a VCR or TV works and they never decide to read the manual but the manual is still there for those who want to know. I feel it's a personal responsibility of the artist. However, I completely agree with Connie Noyes's view (above) in reference to her non-representational, process focused work. A numbered title serves it's purpose to identify and track it and may very well point the viewer's attention back to the artwork. With a catalogue of numbered works it would be easy to see the growth of the her process and accomplishment as an artist.
I understand that some artists would say, "if I could explain it with words, why paint it?" but when a work of art most likely will fall short of explaining itself to the viewer (because people are so different and approach a piece of art bringing their own personal experiences to the piece) I think a title could help prevent misleading the viewer. The artist's intent may just be to make a visual version of "white noise" and not truly be heard at all but I can't confirm that for obvious reasons.
on Tuesday, May 17th, Michael Fornadley said
Being an artist who creates narrative figurative works a title is needed, but not deep consideration for me. The theme of the works and the title is secondary to the painting themselves, in fact most of my works the title is not assigned till I show them in public. Sometimes up to a year or two after finishing them. Believing most artists would like the option for the ability to change their titles, especially with narrative or figurative works. Abstract or Non-Objective works, where the works themselves are the story have the right to be assigned Untitled or a particular date in time or series number. In my opinion realist, figurative, landscape or narrative works should be assigned a title. Just being considerate of the viewer, helps them explain the works to their friends, also a great opportuntity to expand your works with a literary well thought out title.
on Tuesday, May 17th, timmy@timdilbeck.com">Tim Dilbeck said
I think that for some artists titles are appropriate. I think that for some titles are a statement. For others titles have multiple meanings. Others are limited by titles....visual expression can be its own language. I think that title can be a tool to see a point of view that the artist can show you, make you see for yourself or... make you understand that not having a statement is o.k. too.
on Tuesday, May 17th, ricmar@webaccess.net">Mary Harnett said
This is all very interesting (although still untitled..is this "work" in progress?). Is there some implication that "untitled" has some mysterious depth of meaning and hidden layers of peripetic philosophic peels (or is it peals ..((of laughter)), as we all take ourselves (and our titles) oso seriously. The occasional stray goes untitled, but if we are so serious about ourselves we should title to give some proveneance, if for nothing else to keep track of it for posterity-and our accountants. To h with the viewers! Tell them your story, let them have their preconceived ideas, I've got mine, its only fair,let them have it all! Besides if all the gallery visitor wants is to read the labels then what does that say...and do we care? Seems like we have serious work to do thinking of titles...and adding to the mythical aspects of our lives...actually could be fun.
on Tuesday, May 17th, Peter said
This is funny. I mean who cares anyways? The only time a title seems to play any importance is when it's on that stupid little card next to the work in a gallery! A majority of buyers don't even ask for the title these days.
So what are you buying? A work of art or a catchy marketing phrase? Your choice!
on Tuesday, May 17th, shirley babshoff said
I thougth of a passage of Kundera myself. I still find the passage so appropriate for the subject of Michael's Blog that having read Jose's comment I decided to go back to the book (this time is not "Immortality") and quote the passage in full:
'...look at "Life is Elsewhere". The original title of that novel was "The Lyrical Age". I changed it at the last minute under pressure from friends who found it insipid and distasteful. I was foolish to give in to them. Indeed, I think it's very good thing to name a novel for its main category. The Joke. The Book of Laughter and forgetting. The Unbereable Lightness of Being. ...'
M. Kundera, The Art of the Novel
on Tuesday, May 17th, jose said
Could it be that we don’t choose/use titles for our paintings but titles/ideas choose us as a medium to gain expression and renewed attention? I’m reminded of that marvelous passage in one of Kundera’s books where the character is shocked when she realizes that her sister has ‘stolen’ one of the gestures she believed characterized her and was hers alone.
It is difficult enough to come up with a painting that is truly original and not a variation on something we have seen peripherally, relegated to the subconscious and revisited later, to claim without pangs of conscience that it is truly ours. But to fall into the trap of achieving something new and defiling it with words which are even more limited and have been used before is something I feel happy to be moving away from. If I put my mind to it I would probably come up with an unused permutation [I even tried using malay words when I first got here, which makes things sound exotic, but who am I trying to fool?]. But I have to admit that the reason I have stopped ‘naming’ some of my works is first and foremost laziness - and the fact that output seems lately to have exceeded my capacity to come up with sufficent suitable labels.
What I tend to do these days is to allow the people who see my paintings, whether at exhibitions or at the studio, to experience them without a title and to ‘christen’ them jointly when they’ve found their rightful owner. Michael, I see it the other way around: a work of Art only acquires real life [ceases to be an orphan] when it goes out into the world and somehow fulfills a purpose that is beyond the mere satisfaction of its creator. But thanks for your challenging thoughts anyway, these blogs would be boring if there was nothing for us to contest.
on Monday, May 16th, blah@blah.com">unknownartist said
Everybody has an opinion on this topic. When a painting is complete I feel like I am cheating - taking the easy way out if I don't name a piece. Maybe abstract paintings are one thing but even those are somewhat representational. You are an artist...a deep thinker right? Also you may find it pretentious to name a painting, but saying "I let the pieces speak for themselves" is cliche!
on Monday, May 16th, Connie Noyes said
As a extremely process oriented, non-representational painter I have stopped giving titles to my work. Instead I give them a code # or some generic name like "Wax Drawing #7" just so I will know what piece a gallery or collector is refering to.
Over the years with my own work, I have found that titles limit the experience of the viewer. Being so connected to the process, I want to give the viewer or the person living with the piece an opportunity to become part of the creative process. It's organic changing with each participant.
We all bring out own experience to a work of art..especially abstract or non-representational work, which can be so subjective - which, in my thought anyway, is the beauty of this type of work. By not giving titles to each piece, I invite the viewer to bring their own meaning, emotion or metaphor to the work
I have found that after someone really looks at a work and will ask me what I was thinking when I was painting it, or what inspired the work and I actually tell them they will often seem dissapointed. I imagine In their seeing of the painting they had become personally involved-attached to their own sense of the work. Their understanding was very different than my explanation.
Once a piece is completed my connection to that work is for the most part over. I have to let it go and offer it to others to become as much a part of the life of the painting as I once was.
on Monday, May 16th, R. Nelson said
As Mr. Corbin stated, a name is the least we can do for our creations before sending them out into the world.
I am a professional artist - on Monday, May 16th, Karen said
Michael: By stating that paintings for sale are orphans you have just devalued your whole collection. Artists sell their work in order to keep on creating their God given talent they were born with. I do not like work that is untitled as it makes me feel that the artist was NOT connected to the work during process; however, to title it so exact, there leaves little room for imagination and personal relations with the piece. Too much information takes away the viewers personal freedoms.
on Monday, May 16th, Craig said
Abstraction should remain 'Untitled', the gallery walls should remain blank. How many times have you seen someone going from label to label in a gallery, not work to work. An abstract painting is no longer abstract when it is titled, it becomes figurative / representational. I think painting in it's purist form, the Greenbergian ideal, should remain free of any suggestion of the 'outside world'. Untitled is best. Representational art is different. That can have a title!
on Monday, May 16th, Frank Ettenberg said
I agree with Mr Corbin. In spite of being a process-oriented
expressionist-type painter, I acknowledge that my paintings turn
out having themes or allude to certain meanings/attitudes, etc.
I have fun with the titles, in that they frequently allude to
several meanings and don't really pin down the meaning
and depth of the art. The title can still leave room for interpretation while still acknowledging the gist of the piece.
It can also mean that the visual artist is also involved with the
verbal/lirerary realm and can take responsibility for this
area of meaning as well. No need to stereotype what a particular artist wishes to do-as long as it contributes to the
total presentation.
on Monday, May 16th, rachel said
I often don't give my works names. I find it pretentious. I prefer to leave things untitled and just let the pieces speak for themselves..
