Titles

[obseq]

"I have trouble with titles for my own pieces, because I feel that Torso I, II, etc. are remote and possibly ostentatious, whereas more specific ones may be arbitrary. I won’t get offtrack with titles; I just wanted to say that this one seems to suggest a real, if imagined subject. On my original reference, clouds, mountains, rocks, and other natural objects, despite being more or less accidental in shape, often suggest specific, real objects. That’s part of the way the human mind works."


Fritchie touched upon something in another thread concerning Jwebb's work. I did not want to detract from the dialogue in that thread so I transplanted the thought here.

What are appropriate boundaries for titles? Logically, it might appear that abstract work would carry a more specific title and realistic work, perhaps out of a lack of necessity, would carry a less specific title.

Broadly, I would assert that a title in either portrayal should not serve as a substitute for a pruely visual analysis but oftentimes this this does not hold true. Inadvertantly, we are often steered in an intrerpretive direction by virtue of certain titles bringing the spectator, as a consequence, to a more rapid conclusion about a given piece.

[Araich]

It makes precious little difference if abstract or not. The title is your chance to be any number of things.

And whatever your choice, it is likely to be a source of balding, ingrown toenails and/or flatulence.

My experience being such that at any minute they will begin in the form "Number ..." But having said that I think I've done very well through the first 140.

It's the next 140 that I have my doubts over.

[obseq]

"It makes precious little difference if abstract or not. The title is your chance to be any number of things."


I am not trying to insinuate value differences between abstraction and realism--I think this was part of the miscommunication from the Web Forum thread.

The point I am trying to make, however, is that broad tendencies do exist in annointing art with a title. Certain instances lead to a premature judgement about a piece, while other times, the sweeping possibilities of other titles alone can prevent a spectator from arriving at any sort of conclusion altogether.

Bluntly, at what point should the art alone do the talking and not the title?

[Araich]

Damn this has become a humorless place.

:(

At what point? I say at the start. The title may add in a narrative or descriptive way, but does little to influence the visual experience.

[obseq]

Originally posted by Araich
Damn this has become a humorless place.

:(

At what point? I say at the start. The title may add in a narrative or descriptive way, but does little to influence the visual experience.


Hmm. Not sure why you are chiding me about humor or a lack thereof. I just asked a sincere question about titles, Araich.

I have to disagree with your comment at the end. It is a contradiction to claim that any title with a descriptive and more importantly, *narrative* quality meant to act as a segue into viewing, will not influence a spectator's interpretation of a piece.

[Araich]

I was not chiding you.

And I simply believe the catagorisation of the work holds no influence on the nature of the title - with no invitation or provocation implicit in my initial statement.

As for my assigned contradiction. I did not say "interpretation", I said "visual experience". That is, the more valueable qualities in the sculpture, over and above literal meaning. As in, the title does not transform a bad work to a good.

And further, I found humor and a common bond in fritchie's
'trouble with titles', hence my attempt at being light-hearted and my obvious frustration at your reply.

[anne (bxl)]

would your musical experience be different if beethoven has called one of his symphonies just symphony nr6 or symphony nr6/the pastorale or nothing?

you may decide to give a name to a work (not really a title) just because everyone gives a name to what he loves.

but an artist may decide to put a title as part of the all concept. and he may want them to interact with the visual experience. (roy lichtenstein is an example).

there are as many attitude as there are artists, that's why we are artists. but if the title is just an ad, a necessity to understand the work then I am under the impression that the work is not achieved or the visual language is too poor.

[obseq]

Sculptorsam wrote--

"I just completed this work today. Had to rush to beat the oncoming blizzard so I could get a couple decent pictures. I will withhold the title for a bit as that seemed to throw some people off with my last piece. ". I will withhold the title for a bit as that seemed to throw some people off with my last piece. "


I do not think that my concerns were entirely unfounded........


:)

[sculptorsam]

Obseq, it took me a bit to understand you there but I think I have it now, maybe. :)

Just to clarify, I think there was definitely some concern about the title of my earlier piece (Jacob's Ladder) but I think they were exacerbated by placing the title in the heading of the new thread. This way, the viewer saw the title first, then the work, so the influence was marked. I don't think it would have been as *bad if the work was seen first. Oddly enough, I think of that work as rather abstract and I gave it a rather specific title. That may be one confirmation of your theory above.

I tend to use titles just as a way to identify the work for convenience. It is a lot easier to call my current work ... instead of "that triple seed form radiating from a hub bolted to a steel plate." I have used titles more creatively to try and aid the visual meaning though. The most noticable is the oversized, steel leg trap I made with three jaws instead of two. As it is, it looks like an interesting trap. But after I named it American Lotus, I am definitely trying to bring out the american (and perhaps worldly) tradition of redemption through violence, as well as the seductive and deadly possibilities of the search for enlightenment. Among other interpretations...

Sam