Giving works of "Art" a title

davej

What do you guys think about this ?

I'm generally of the opinion that art should speak for itself and not be given a title or caption. Obviously there are the practical issues of how to refer to a piece if it doesn't have a name. But in general I feel the whole idea of art is to express something that cannot be expressed with the written word. Adding an explanatory title often defeats the purpose.

For example check this photograpy site out:

http://www.efn.org/~hkrieger/mallaise.htm

Some really interesting photos here and yes some of the titles are witty but personally I find them a bit distracting, don't you ?
Ideally for me, works of art, if they must be "labeled", should have factual titles only. In the case of the above just give the location and the date.

Anyone else have any thoughts on this subject ?

davej

DadaKopf

Hmmm, some of these photos are pretty cool.

Well, sometimes titles work and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they're just not needed and sometimes they are. It all depends on the approach of the artist in question. A lot of the time, the title is intrinsic to the artist's approach and philosophy.

Take Piet Mondrian for example. He was one of the first truly abstract painters. He was attempting to achieve aesthetic harmony in the abstract so he erased the object from his paintings. Consequently, he had to either use abstract titles or do away with titles altogether. He chose abstract titles. His later paintings were called things like "Composition Number 10" - this was for the purpose of 1) identification and 2) process. Since it was Composition Number 10, presumably many like it came before it so the title itself indicates his approach: Mondrian was a process artist; every painting he made was a progressive step toward achieving perfect aesthetic balance. In this way, I'd say on one hand that titles aren't essential to Mondrian paintings, but on the other hand they're important because they inform the viewer about the artist's intentions.

Alternatively, Renaissance paintings and sculptures are given names like Titian's "Bacchus and Ariadne"; they're called that, probably by art historians, because that's the story it represents so obviously it's mainly for identification. The name isn't neccessary because the all the information needed to understand the painting is contained within the painting - it's a visual representation of a story.

Then you've got conceptual art where, often times, the title is everything. Take Michael Craig-Martin's "An Oak Tree" (interview about it here). He claimed to have transformed a glass shelf and a glass of water into a fully grown oak tree without altering the shelf's or glass' physical appearance. Here, title is everything because it's language and its relationship to the world that's the subject of the work of art. This is the turn that conceptual art took in the 1970s. It's both funny and serious and it's a strategy that a lot of modern artists have continued to employ (consider Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain"). Titles can be perfectly superfluous, though. Damien Hirst's shark in a glass tank of formaldyhide was called "The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living". Talk about overstating the obvious - if you think, you live. Simple. But what has the title got to do with the dead shark? The point here, I think, is that there's a canyon-like disconnection between title and object. This conceptual gap opens up the mind to many different inquiries concerning the meaning of birth, life, art and death. So in this case, the artwork's title operates differently here, too.

Personally, I don't mind things with or without titles so long as they work. All I've really pointed out here is that there are lots of different reasons for using, or not using, titles and that they're all equally valid. But some are just crap.

Ok, so they're some arty examples. What about that guy's photos?

Well, some of them are really good - if a little clichéed. Most of the good ones have all the right elements needed for a good photograph and to provide the viewer with enough information to decipher the photographer's point (of view). I think some of them work really well with titles because they add an extra layer of humour, which is cool. Some of them, though, are totally unnecessary and some titles make me cringe like I do at over-earnest song lyrics.

I take a good few photos and the only time I ever name them is when I scan them so I can quickly identify them. I don't title my photos 'cos, frankly, I'm not clever enough.

Monkey

"But in general I feel the whole idea of art is to express something that cannot be expressed with the written word. Adding an explanatory title often defeats the purpose." art does not have to be purely visual. It can easily, and often does, inlcude text. Sometimes a copule of words put a piece of art in a context, the image might not make sense taken out of context. Other works may need text to explain what it is you are seeing if the person uses unusual techniques like Andy Goldsworthy for example.

davej

art does not have to be purely visual. It can easily, and often does, inlcude text.

Of course, I totally accept this point. And Contextualisation of a work is often the essence of what that work is. DadaKopf's point about using titles to convey the idea of a process is well taken too. In many cases the accompanying text to a work is an integral part of that work.

However, all too often it appears to me that titles or captions are cheaply tacked onto works of art, both in the metaphorical and literal sense, in a rather shoddy fashion.

davej

DadaKopf

I totally agree, but most people can tell whether the title is there just because or if it's actually part of the piece. Like, either it works or it doesn't.

Then a thought just came to me: an artist could quite easily use tacky names as part of the piece, as a technique. Actually, that'd be pretty cool. All the same, time would show it to be either good or pad - y'know, part of the concept as opposed to just being tacked on.

Panda

some good pics there,
the photographer obviously has a sense of humour and chose to show it, imo it works.

the collection also shows that obesity is alive and well in america.

HermanKrieger

Some people may not like captions on photographs which
are thought of as works of art. However, I consider myself
to be a photographer, and not an artist. For me, a caption is part of the photograph. For the series, "Churches ad hoc", at www.efn.org/~hkrieger/church.htm, the photos would not be meaningful with the captions.

Thecageyone

Personally, I only stick titles on my images so I can remember them all easier. Helps when someone refers to an image of mine they say they like, better to say the name on it than "D5937362" or whatever.

HermanKrieger

The photo series, "Mall-aise" was exhibited at the Clotworthy Arts Centre in Antrim in May, 2003. I guess they liked the photos, captions and all.

Prenderb

The caption or title can be very important to give context to an image that without it, might be meaningless - well not meaningless, but difficult to interpret.

sineadw

HermanKrieger wrote: »

Some people may not like captions on photographs which
are thought of as works of art. However, I consider myself
to be a photographer, and not an artist. For me, a caption is part of the photograph. For the series, "Churches ad hoc", at www.efn.org/~hkrieger/church.htm, the photos would not be meaningful with the captions.

Hi Herman, and welcome to boards I had a look through your site there. Some very very interesting photographs. On the subject of captions alone though, for me they were a little heavy handed? Whilst I would agree that in your case in some they added greatly to the reading of the image, (I use titles in a lot of my photos) in a lot they actually subtracted? There is a great narrative in many of your shots, and in including a caption you're actually exposing the 'punchline' before the viewer gets a chance to make the cognitive leap.

Might I be so bold as to suggest allowing the viewer to see what you see, without jumping the gun so to speak. Not in all, but in some.

5uspect

8 year old thread is 8 years old.

sarkozy

Meaning?

sineadw

5uspect wrote: »

8 year old thread is 8 years old.

And is no less relevant?

5uspect

sarkozy wrote: »

Meaning?

This is a thread started 8 years ago by people who no longer even post on this forum or even this website. It is generally frowned upon to resurrect "necrothreads".

sineadw wrote: »

And is no less relevant?

Surely start a new thread?

Do I post a cat picture or something now?

sineadw

I don't know about anyone else, but in cases like this I just skim to the most recent incarnation. If anyone feels the need they can scroll back for context. I don't see the major harm..

grif04

whatever ye say about resurrecting this thread, those photographs are gems and im glad to of read this. the trends one is very symbolic. nice.