To title or not to title?
January 4, 2023
I listened to many artists, who spoke about choosing a title for an artwork. Some people were for giving the abstract art titles and some were totally against it. Of course both sides had their own reasoning and their own arguments, so if anyone had looked for any advice in them, they would have found more opinion, than actual help. I, myself, went through both phases: giving the title and not giving the title, for various reasons. So let’s explore the topic.
Arguments for, against & ambivalence
Art is usually personal - there’s no objection here, so giving it a title brings another level of individualism into it. It connects the artwork to its statement and to its author. In many cases it also gives an inkling about emotions and thoughts of an artist, a subject an artist was moved by, an idea they wanted to explore or simply a thing that was on their mind while painting. It gives us hints on how to look, and what to look for. Yet, as the opponents of the titling point out: it has a downside. According to them, it limits the perspective of the viewers and forces them to certain reactions, often similar in nature. It takes the choice away from the viewer and therefore prevents them from establishing personal uptake and from following individual thought/emotion pathways. It deprives the viewer of responsibility, whereas the artist keeps it entirely. Someone said that an untitled work is like a book, whereas a titled work is like a film based on that book, where the director chooses for the viewer what to show. To me, it’s rather a strong opinion, considering the fact that the art viewer can think for themselves, while having the body of work in front of their eyes.
Which approach to titling is better or worse? Hard to say. But perhaps it’s not the right way to bite this problem. Perhaps the choice should be available without judgement?
My meaning, your meaning
There’s a brilliant abstract painting by Joan Mitchell, entitled: “City Landscape” (1955). It’s one of those vivid, dynamic works, Mitchell is so famous of. And as she didn’t prioritize self-expression, she left this job solely to her paintings. Her works, as she once stated, were: “about the landscape, not me.”
I summon this painting not only because of its quality, but also because of the title. Mitchell decided to name it, thus she added the guidance for interpretation. She made a choice to deliver the meaning to the viewer, albeit it might have not corresponded with the viewers’ experience. As some viewers had concluded, the title here seems somewhat limiting. I heard the opinions that people would prefer the painting to remain untitled, so it would give them more freedom to form the meaning by themselves. “It’s abstract, after all…” We see swirls of color, intermixing, merging with one another, a vivid pink underlayer, some intense blues, fast brush strokes of a wrist in a rush. They can be taken as anything, not necessarily as a city landscape, can’t they? And yet, perhaps it is all about subjective approach anyway? Mitchell called it “City Landscape.” The end. Nothing to do about it. But do we have to see the same, despite the title? Is there any constraint? Any compulsion? Shackles of convention or decorum? Not really.
Feel entitled to title… or not.
I read the opinions like: “titled works sell better,” or “titled works attract more attention.” But to me the quality of a painting, the subjective impression that artwork invokes in viewers, or the richness of experience the viewers take in, have got nothing to do with the fact it’s titled or not. Titles may serve many purposes. One of them is the final stage. It’s like a bonus message, a signature, a hint and/or an information. The last letter. Full stop at the end of a story. Or the opening - an adorned initial. It may or may not complete the painting. It may or may not make it whole. Furthermore, it may or may not spark interest, discussion or feeling. There are some masterpieces sold on auctions for tons of money that don’t have titles. Take some works of Zdzisław Beksiński, Mark Rothko or Jackson Pollock:
How to title if you don’t want to title?
There may be many reasons why you don’t want your works to be titled. Maybe you just don’t like to narrow down the meaning. Or perhaps you have no ideas about a proper title. Or your painting doesn’t fit into a conventional body of work or traditional message. Or, alike me, you don’t want to feel restrained. Fine, and yet you don’t want to use the word “Untitled” all the time. What then? If your work is a part of a larger series - it’s a hint on how to approach it. Sculptor Magdalena Abakanowicz is famous (among other things) for her series of human figures. One of them is titled: “Seated figures.” Eighteen sculptures in this group are named respectively: “Seated figure.” In her paper studies, on the other hand, she frequently uses the word “composition.”
Numbers, combinations of numbers and letters, or your name and the above, are somewhat the most popular. Painters like Roman Opałka or Wojciech Fangor are only two examples. They, by all means, create the most logical order, some viewers may consider cold or emotionless. But are they really? Take a moment to watch these paintings. What do they mean to you? What do you think about them? What do you feel?
The other approach is just to name your painting for what it actually is. Like Kasimir Malevitch and his iconic work: “Black square,” which is, well… just that. Or Willem de Kooning’s “Abstraction” - the title that embraces the style. Or Joan Miró with his “Triptych Bleu” I, II, III - three large, striking blue paintings.
There are limitless possibilities not only in titling, but also in not titling your work.
So what to choose anyway?
Someone wise once said: “do your own thing” and I second that notion. Titles may live as the integrated parts of artworks, or they may not. They can top the meaning up, or limit it. They can be a good choice, or a bad choice as well. But, no matter how we approach it, it’s your choice, nonetheless. It’s up to you, entirely. After all, it’s your art. You don’t have to follow the suggestions of others. If you paint an abstraction that you want to call “Swan”, then call it “Swan.” Do not change your mind just because someone tells you they see an elephant in it. They are free to see it, obviously, but the decision about the title remains the artist’s prerogative. And as each choice, this one, too, has consequences.
Therefore, when I watch art, I simply go for the canvas first. Reading the title comes second. By this, I limit the limitation, so to speak. There is only the impression. The title is a statement of an artist, and as such, it’s personal. It doesn’t force us to do anything, but it may intrigue us, as it explains something about the artist’s mind. Not the viewer’s. Therefore, an artist has the only right to title or not to title their work, but the experience, the feeling and the impression depends on the particular viewer anyway.