With TITLE without TITLE
An interesting debate that has accompanied the art scene and me for a long time revolves around the question of whether works of art should be titled or not.
In the early history of art, artworks were created by anonymous artists and their works usually remained untitled. Few works were given a title because of a known mythological story or to refer to people or events.
The practice of titling artworks varied from culture to culture and was refined over time. In the visual arts, especially in contemporary art, many works are titled. Artists want to communicate their intentions, add a narrative dimension or change the viewer’s perception.
On the other hand, many artists advocate the beauty of the unnamed. An untitled work of art is like a blank sheet of paper, free for interpretation, stories and dreams. Sometimes artists leave their works untitled in order to deliberately focus on the purely visual, material or conceptual aspects of the work.
At the end, there are no fixed rules. The decision for or against a title depends on many factors – the artist’s intentions, the context and the nature of the work.
What is your view on this topic?
- Do you think a title enriches or limits the experience of an artwork?
- Is a clear guidline in the form of a title necessary?
- Do you think that art should remain untitled to allow room for individual interpretation and creative freedom?