Thistle, oil on canvas, 10" x 10", 2007
I've recently received several new comments on a post about art and titles I wrote in 2006. I thought I'd revisit the subject and hopefully get a conversation going. Here are my thoughts on why I think titles are important. On this subject I offer my perspective as both an artist and a curator:
1. Titles are a courtesy to your viewer. Used well, titles offer a portal into the work. This is especially helpful with abstract work which many people find intimidating. Though visual art is a non-verbal medium, we live in a language based culture and are taught to learn about art, music, dance through both experience and interpretation. Interpretation is, by and large, done via the written language and discussion. Think of a title as a bridge and the work of art as the land on the other side of the bridge. The title doesn't propose to reveal the land, but it does help you reach it.
2. Titles are an immense help when documenting your work. Even more importantly, they help others document your work. As I've said before, ten years down the road a list of works labeled "untitled" can be confusing, especially if your visuals (slides, digital images) aren't excruciatingly well organized.
3. Titles help curators, gallerists, and journalists identify and promote your work. If I send a press release to a newspaper about an artist's work the art images that go with it are either submitted as attachments or separate email files. The titles and image information is listed at the top of the release. The first thing the editor sees is the written release without images. Compare "Photo images: Untitled, Shan Bryan-Hanson, oil on canvas, 2007 and Untitled, Shan Bryan-Hanson, oil on canvas, 2007" to "Thistle, Shan Bryan-Hanson, oil on canvas, 2007 and Dandelion, Shan Bryan-Hanson, oil on canvas, 2007". While my titles are not necessarily more exciting than "Untitled", they are more descriptive, thus helping everyone match the proper information to each image.
HD, whose recent comments inspired this post, asked the following:
"...In response to my naive questions about art and titles, a local newspaper columnist/reviewer informed me that “art is whatever you can get away with, and the same applies to titles” - any thoughts on that? As someone new to this business, I suspect the word “art” labels a process more than it does a product. HD"
I strive for authenticity in my art so I wouldn't want to "get away with" anything. That said, I'm admittedly a bit of a purist in this department. There are very successful artists who practice the "art is whatever you can get away with" theory. Only you can decide what your art is and means to you. Your art and title choices will reflect what you see.
When I look at art I generally examine the artwork first, then glance at the title. There have been times when that glance has taken me back into the work, perusing new paths and interpretations I greatly enjoyed and would have otherwise missed.
With my own new series of contemplation paintings I'm using titles in a simple, descriptive way because, for whatever reason, it feels the natural way to title this body of work. Also, in reference to HD's final sentence, for me art is both process and product, with process taking up a bigger chunk of the pie.
Labels: art titles, thistle
