Untitled
July 20, 2012 10:58 AM Subscribe
We've all seen various works that are "Untitled". Reasons given for leaving works "Untitled" include Edward Hopper's "If I could say it in words there would be no reason to paint." Others simply wish the art to "speak for itself". Some consider a title a necessary part of enhancing a work's commercial value. Others would never cop to contaminating their art with such a consideration. Some artists speak of "unease" and are conflicted about the subject while others are apparently under the influence of the post-modern tradition. Others think that it is evidence of "laziness" on the part of the artist, or in some way "selling their work short". Even when titles are given the creator has a fundamental choice to make. Some argue against "Untitled" out of sheer practicality.
Intersting, nice post!
I haven't gone through many of the links yet, but I wonder if any of them make the comparison with classical music, where works have traditionally just been named by category and number?
posted by Anything at 11:08 AM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
I haven't gone through many of the links yet, but I wonder if any of them make the comparison with classical music, where works have traditionally just been named by category and number?
posted by Anything at 11:08 AM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Actually the artbusiness link would seem to explicitly miss that angle.
Title it. Can you imagine a book or a film or a piece of music without a title? Of course not. Art should be no different.
I guess you could say that 'Violin concerto no. 1' is still a title, but I would say that to relevant degree it is not.
posted by Anything at 11:12 AM on July 20, 2012 [4 favorites]
Title it. Can you imagine a book or a film or a piece of music without a title? Of course not. Art should be no different.
I guess you could say that 'Violin concerto no. 1' is still a title, but I would say that to relevant degree it is not.
posted by Anything at 11:12 AM on July 20, 2012 [4 favorites]
I like titles, and I think they add a level of meaning to pieces of art of all stripes. I had a writing teacher once who, if you turned an untitled piece into his workshop, would title it "Dog Shit On A Stick" for you, and it would be referred as such in all discussion. Only one person per class would ever try turning in a piece untitled.
On the other end of that spectrum, I have a good painter friend who will often title his works "Untitled (for X.Y.)", where "X.Y." are the initials of the person who inspired the piece. I have often pointed out to him that that makes the pieces not actually untitled, to which he just grins.
And don't even get me started on the Memphis band called The Unbeheld. I mean, I was standing there, looking right at them!
posted by vibrotronica at 11:15 AM on July 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
On the other end of that spectrum, I have a good painter friend who will often title his works "Untitled (for X.Y.)", where "X.Y." are the initials of the person who inspired the piece. I have often pointed out to him that that makes the pieces not actually untitled, to which he just grins.
And don't even get me started on the Memphis band called The Unbeheld. I mean, I was standing there, looking right at them!
posted by vibrotronica at 11:15 AM on July 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I've seen pieces that have been named things like "Blue Ceramic No. 3" or "Study In Red 4" and such, and those have always felt to me to be slightly more informative than "Untitled", but manage to leave context and interpretation to the viewer in a way which an actual title would not.
Again, there are plenty of music pieces which the composer did not give a title to, but which has been given by someone else. Beethoven's Pathétique Sonata is a good example of this.
posted by hippybear at 11:16 AM on July 20, 2012
Again, there are plenty of music pieces which the composer did not give a title to, but which has been given by someone else. Beethoven's Pathétique Sonata is a good example of this.
posted by hippybear at 11:16 AM on July 20, 2012
I wonder if this difference in (not) titling in music vs visual arts is that nonrepresentationality has been such a dominant element in music from the very beginning whereas in visual arts, apart from things like ornaments, it wasn't very prominent until the modernists.
posted by Anything at 11:21 AM on July 20, 2012
posted by Anything at 11:21 AM on July 20, 2012
My favorite are truly abstract modern art pieces which have titles that are completely unrelated to what I'm looking at.
There was a piece I saw in the 90s like this, and it was called "Metaphysical Graffiti, with Biscuit", which has to go down in the pantheon as one of the greatest titles of anything ever.
posted by mcstayinskool at 11:25 AM on July 20, 2012
There was a piece I saw in the 90s like this, and it was called "Metaphysical Graffiti, with Biscuit", which has to go down in the pantheon as one of the greatest titles of anything ever.
posted by mcstayinskool at 11:25 AM on July 20, 2012
A great deal of visual art operates on metaphor and intuition and an exploration of meaning, much in the same way that poetry does-- and I've seen any number of untitled poems.
posted by shakespeherian at 11:27 AM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by shakespeherian at 11:27 AM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Some of my favourite painting titles are from Kienholz's Barter Series.
For A Fur Coat
For $25.00
For $475.00
Watercolors
For Timex Electric Watch
posted by zamboni at 11:30 AM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
For A Fur Coat
For $25.00
For $475.00
Watercolors
For Timex Electric Watch
posted by zamboni at 11:30 AM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Singer Eliot Smith's excellent first album, "Roman Candle" had 9 songs, including No Name #1 (live), No Name #2 , No Name #3," and "No Name #4."
Either/Or has No Name #5, also great. The B-side of the Division Day single was "No Name #6."
I think of them as, respectively,
"Leave alone, you don't belong"
"killing time, won't stop this crime"
"Everyone has gone, home to oblivion"
"Let's just forget about it"
"Everybody's gone at last"
and
"Oh, a new song I didn't know about!"
posted by msalt at 11:30 AM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Either/Or has No Name #5, also great. The B-side of the Division Day single was "No Name #6."
I think of them as, respectively,
"Leave alone, you don't belong"
"killing time, won't stop this crime"
"Everyone has gone, home to oblivion"
"Let's just forget about it"
"Everybody's gone at last"
and
"Oh, a new song I didn't know about!"
posted by msalt at 11:30 AM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Once, for the playwriting contest I run, we had an entry which bore a "title" consisting of a couple lines of pure, randomly-mash-your-fingers-on-the-keyboard gibberish, and in parenthesis below it, the subtitle "Titles are More Self-Involved Than Masturbation."
I don't recall that we ever went on to read the play.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:34 AM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
I don't recall that we ever went on to read the play.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:34 AM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
You'll never guess the name of the new cafe in the Whitney Museum in New York.
posted by mark7570 at 11:37 AM on July 20, 2012
posted by mark7570 at 11:37 AM on July 20, 2012
"What kind of titles are these? These are all numbers!"
posted by oneirodynia at 11:42 AM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by oneirodynia at 11:42 AM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
I should start an art project where I name Untitled works.
"A Small Smattering of Goose Splatter"
"A Brief Glimpse Into the Death of a Coffee Cup"
"A Hunger for Justice and Popcorn"
"After the Endoscopy"
"I Was Fucking Paid for This"
I think I would be good at this. Thanks metafilter. I've found my calling.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:49 AM on July 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
"A Small Smattering of Goose Splatter"
"A Brief Glimpse Into the Death of a Coffee Cup"
"A Hunger for Justice and Popcorn"
"After the Endoscopy"
"I Was Fucking Paid for This"
I think I would be good at this. Thanks metafilter. I've found my calling.
posted by cjorgensen at 11:49 AM on July 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
I hate coming up with titles for paintings. Most of the time, I resort to just numbering them, or naming them based on their major color.
posted by Thorzdad at 11:51 AM on July 20, 2012
posted by Thorzdad at 11:51 AM on July 20, 2012
Something about untitledness - and its cousin, self-titledness - meets resistance in our nature.
Would you trust someone who referred to the White Album as The Beatles?
posted by Egg Shen at 11:55 AM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Would you trust someone who referred to the White Album as The Beatles?
posted by Egg Shen at 11:55 AM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Most people I know who talk about music in much depth at all refer to that particular double album by its proper title, actually. They're all pretty trustworthy in my experience. YMMV.
posted by hippybear at 11:59 AM on July 20, 2012
posted by hippybear at 11:59 AM on July 20, 2012
When I picture traditional Chinese painting I always see writing integrated into the work itself.
I can hardly imagine a successful Western painting doing that.
posted by jamjam at 12:10 PM on July 20, 2012
I can hardly imagine a successful Western painting doing that.
posted by jamjam at 12:10 PM on July 20, 2012
Seems silly to get caught up in any debate about the value of titling works of art, because to title or not, or to use "Untitled" or numbers, etc, for the title, does not make an art work interesting in itself. Good artists produce good works, and there is great variety among these good works regarding approach to titling.
One of the values that many artists share is to keep a work of art open enough to avoid illustration, yet not so open that the work is impenetrable. Titles can have the negative effect of leaving little to the viewer imagination or a positive effect in giving the viewer something to grasp on to so that they can enter into the artwork.
Some artists are comfortable and have a talent with words and use them, some do not and do not use them.
But in the end, a compelling work of art is engaging, whether it has a title or not.
posted by snaparapans at 12:11 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
One of the values that many artists share is to keep a work of art open enough to avoid illustration, yet not so open that the work is impenetrable. Titles can have the negative effect of leaving little to the viewer imagination or a positive effect in giving the viewer something to grasp on to so that they can enter into the artwork.
Some artists are comfortable and have a talent with words and use them, some do not and do not use them.
But in the end, a compelling work of art is engaging, whether it has a title or not.
posted by snaparapans at 12:11 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
I can hardly imagine a successful Western painting doing that.
40+ years of concert poster art tells a different story.
posted by hippybear at 12:13 PM on July 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
40+ years of concert poster art tells a different story.
posted by hippybear at 12:13 PM on July 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
(Trying to conjure up a definition for a "successful painting". Deciding on the same definition the Supreme Court used for pornography: I know it when I see it.)
posted by spock at 12:13 PM on July 20, 2012
posted by spock at 12:13 PM on July 20, 2012
There was a piece I saw in the 90s like this, and it was called "Metaphysical Graffiti, with Biscuit", which has to go down in the pantheon as one of the greatest titles of anything ever.
I wonder if that was a play on Metaphysical Interior with Biscuits.
posted by jedicus at 12:25 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
I wonder if that was a play on Metaphysical Interior with Biscuits.
posted by jedicus at 12:25 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Like children, artworks should name themselves.
posted by R. Mutt at 12:26 PM on July 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
posted by R. Mutt at 12:26 PM on July 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
One of my favorite songs from M83's album Dead Cities, Red Seas & Lost Ghosts is titled Unrecorded. When my iPod serves it up from shuffle I get a little frisson of pleasure after the moment of realization that what is currently playing is Unrecorded.
posted by Babblesort at 12:29 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Babblesort at 12:29 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
I can hardly imagine a successful Western painting doing that.
40+ years of concert poster art tells a different story.
NTM Toulouse-Lautrec
posted by LionIndex at 12:29 PM on July 20, 2012
40+ years of concert poster art tells a different story.
NTM Toulouse-Lautrec
posted by LionIndex at 12:29 PM on July 20, 2012
Part of the problem is that there isn't (nor never was) a firm classification scheme for the fine visual arts.
A distinction is made in classical music between programmatic and non-programmatic music -- stuff that has a theme and stuff that is just pure music. Programmatic music -- which arrived quite late, btw -- often has titles, like "The Moldau River", or "Danse Macabre" and so forth. Pure music was always named by its genre, key and serial number. So we have "'Little' Fugue in G Minor, BWV 578" (because Bach never organized his works) or "Violin Sonata in A Major, op. 12" (because Beethoven was keeping a proper sheet library already). In the former example, 'Little' was appended by later generations to differentiate it from the "'Great' Fantasia and Fugue in G Minor". More the Symphony no. 3 in E flat minor op. 55 by Beethoven received the moniker "Eroica" (heroic) against his wishes -- it was initially dedicated to Napoleon, but Beethoven was disgusted when Napoleon crowned himself emperor. These names are incidental; genre, key and op. describe the piece entirely.
On the flip side, the visual arts started out as being entirely pictoric, and whatever genre was stable for a while (memento mori, danse macabre) became the title of the painting. When visual art became abstract, it also became unhinged from genre, which didn't happen to "pure" 20th century music. So there's no referential for titling non-pictoric works. What, you take a blob of ink and call it "Blood and vomit"? Titles for pure works in music traditionally emerged from the public's reception. Maybe it would be easier if a classificatory scheme emerged, and "Mixed horse-hair brush strokes in light blue, op. 17" would give both the artist and the public that sense of closure that "Untitled" may not.
posted by syntaxfree at 12:32 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
A distinction is made in classical music between programmatic and non-programmatic music -- stuff that has a theme and stuff that is just pure music. Programmatic music -- which arrived quite late, btw -- often has titles, like "The Moldau River", or "Danse Macabre" and so forth. Pure music was always named by its genre, key and serial number. So we have "'Little' Fugue in G Minor, BWV 578" (because Bach never organized his works) or "Violin Sonata in A Major, op. 12" (because Beethoven was keeping a proper sheet library already). In the former example, 'Little' was appended by later generations to differentiate it from the "'Great' Fantasia and Fugue in G Minor". More the Symphony no. 3 in E flat minor op. 55 by Beethoven received the moniker "Eroica" (heroic) against his wishes -- it was initially dedicated to Napoleon, but Beethoven was disgusted when Napoleon crowned himself emperor. These names are incidental; genre, key and op. describe the piece entirely.
On the flip side, the visual arts started out as being entirely pictoric, and whatever genre was stable for a while (memento mori, danse macabre) became the title of the painting. When visual art became abstract, it also became unhinged from genre, which didn't happen to "pure" 20th century music. So there's no referential for titling non-pictoric works. What, you take a blob of ink and call it "Blood and vomit"? Titles for pure works in music traditionally emerged from the public's reception. Maybe it would be easier if a classificatory scheme emerged, and "Mixed horse-hair brush strokes in light blue, op. 17" would give both the artist and the public that sense of closure that "Untitled" may not.
posted by syntaxfree at 12:32 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
Paul Klee kept a detailed catalog of his works. A few current artists do as well; for some, the numbering is part of the piece.
posted by ardgedee at 12:38 PM on July 20, 2012
posted by ardgedee at 12:38 PM on July 20, 2012
I call this Blue Comment #2.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:39 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:39 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
When I picture traditional Chinese painting I always see writing integrated into the work itself.
I can hardly imagine a successful Western painting doing that.
Basquiat sez hi.
posted by juv3nal at 12:54 PM on July 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
I can hardly imagine a successful Western painting doing that.
Basquiat sez hi.
posted by juv3nal at 12:54 PM on July 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
"Kitten on Fire"
posted by ZenMasterThis at 1:10 PM on July 20, 2012
posted by ZenMasterThis at 1:10 PM on July 20, 2012
I call this Blue Comment #2.
But what about people who use the professional white background?
I call this comment The Treachery of CSS.
posted by jedicus at 1:25 PM on July 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
But what about people who use the professional white background?
I call this comment The Treachery of CSS.
posted by jedicus at 1:25 PM on July 20, 2012 [2 favorites]
My favorite "untitled" story, as it were, was when Miles Davis performed at the Isle of Wight festival, in, I believe, 1970. A Columbia Records exec asked Miles what was the title of his piece that was to appear on the album. Miles said, typically, "Call it anything". The piece was then titled on the record as "Call it Anything".
posted by Seekerofsplendor at 1:41 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by Seekerofsplendor at 1:41 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
The only thing more difficult at times for me than naming a painting is writing out a damned "artist's statement." It's maddening. Why on earth would someone want to know my "motivations and inspirations" or whatever? There is no way that I can get away with "at my day job I do tech support; in my free time I like to be a hermit and paint."
posted by lilywing13 at 1:50 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by lilywing13 at 1:50 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
For an artist's statement, I would think that usually "In the red" would suffice.
posted by spock at 1:52 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
posted by spock at 1:52 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
All the Instagram photos are untitled! Except when the first comment (description) looks like a title.
posted by floatboth at 2:00 PM on July 20, 2012
posted by floatboth at 2:00 PM on July 20, 2012
I know an artist (realistic, not abstract) who gives all the paintings incredibly cutesy titles. (The paintings themselves are serious still lives, not ironic or cutesy or pop-culture-y or anything.) The artist thinks they're very clever titles. They're not. I think this has got to cut into the artist's sales, because I don't think people want art with stupid, cringe-inducing names. "Untitled" would be better. "Still Life #348" would be better.
The only thing more difficult at times for me than naming a painting is writing out a damned "artist's statement." It's maddening. Why on earth would someone want to know my "motivations and inspirations" or whatever? There is no way that I can get away with "at my day job I do tech support; in my free time I like to be a hermit and paint."
I can't tell you how many author's bios make me absolutely cringe and then start disliking their books. Artist's statements don't get up my nose as much, but, yeah, I feel like they frequently take away more than they add. However, I'm in favor of yours, that would make me laugh, because at least it's honest and not pretentious!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:10 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
The only thing more difficult at times for me than naming a painting is writing out a damned "artist's statement." It's maddening. Why on earth would someone want to know my "motivations and inspirations" or whatever? There is no way that I can get away with "at my day job I do tech support; in my free time I like to be a hermit and paint."
I can't tell you how many author's bios make me absolutely cringe and then start disliking their books. Artist's statements don't get up my nose as much, but, yeah, I feel like they frequently take away more than they add. However, I'm in favor of yours, that would make me laugh, because at least it's honest and not pretentious!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:10 PM on July 20, 2012 [1 favorite]
If you come up with an interesting title the artwork makes a bigger splash.
This has always been my favourite.
posted by Flashman at 2:34 PM on July 20, 2012
This has always been my favourite.
posted by Flashman at 2:34 PM on July 20, 2012
I hate coming up with titles for paintings. Most of the time, I resort to just numbering them, or naming them based on their major color.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:51 PM on July 20
Yellow Number 5.
posted by Decani at 2:35 PM on July 20, 2012
posted by Thorzdad at 7:51 PM on July 20
Yellow Number 5.
posted by Decani at 2:35 PM on July 20, 2012
Back in my younger days, when I thought I might want to be a photographical artist, giving an image a title allowed me to put context and "art" into what would otherwise be simply a photograph.
posted by Windopaene at 3:03 PM on July 20, 2012
posted by Windopaene at 3:03 PM on July 20, 2012
My favorite are truly abstract modern art pieces which have titles that are completely unrelated to what I'm looking at.
See, that's the thing. It is related. It's how you refer to a particular painting. Everybody looks at the title of a painting they're looking at. That's why it's such a big consideration for thoughtful artists. I suspect that ones who haven't thought about it in depth are the same ones who don't address the sides of their canvas. Or they're pretentious.
To me untitled does feel like a cop-out. Personally, I tend toward purely descriptive titles that I hope only give enough context for the viewer to feel that what they're looking at exists in the world if that makes any sense. For example, I have an old series of totally non-figurative paintings that are actually somewhat accurate representations of a bunch of photographs I took of the sandstone at Petra in Jordan. They're just called Petra I" through "Petra IX" or however many I did.
posted by cmoj at 3:21 PM on July 20, 2012
See, that's the thing. It is related. It's how you refer to a particular painting. Everybody looks at the title of a painting they're looking at. That's why it's such a big consideration for thoughtful artists. I suspect that ones who haven't thought about it in depth are the same ones who don't address the sides of their canvas. Or they're pretentious.
To me untitled does feel like a cop-out. Personally, I tend toward purely descriptive titles that I hope only give enough context for the viewer to feel that what they're looking at exists in the world if that makes any sense. For example, I have an old series of totally non-figurative paintings that are actually somewhat accurate representations of a bunch of photographs I took of the sandstone at Petra in Jordan. They're just called Petra I" through "Petra IX" or however many I did.
posted by cmoj at 3:21 PM on July 20, 2012
cmoj, I understand your point of view, but I wouldn't even call it a lack of thoughtfulness when an artist just doesn't know what to say once a piece is done. Some of mine have just had the title jump out at me before, during, or after the actual process of sketching, painting, etc. Others are named basic things like Lily and Shell. Others, I... I just don't know. If I didn't feel like they were finished, I wouldn't have shown them in public.
I've gathered together enough things now that I'm feeling a need to catalogue them in Excel or something. This is going to mean giving some sort of description and/or labeling on the backs of the paintings and drawings. I tend to date things, so perhaps that will become what I name them.
I assure you that I do address the sides of the canvas. Having shown paintings only in coffee shops and never sold a thing, I hope I'm not pretentious. I paint because I love it. I show stuff because I sometimes get the privilege.
posted by lilywing13 at 3:55 PM on July 20, 2012
I've gathered together enough things now that I'm feeling a need to catalogue them in Excel or something. This is going to mean giving some sort of description and/or labeling on the backs of the paintings and drawings. I tend to date things, so perhaps that will become what I name them.
I assure you that I do address the sides of the canvas. Having shown paintings only in coffee shops and never sold a thing, I hope I'm not pretentious. I paint because I love it. I show stuff because I sometimes get the privilege.
posted by lilywing13 at 3:55 PM on July 20, 2012
Oddly, one thing that is rarely untitled is a comedy bit. Most comedians name their bits with a one word, or short phrase title, which is helpful when you release an album, but mostly when you plan your set list.
posted by msalt at 4:09 PM on July 20, 2012
posted by msalt at 4:09 PM on July 20, 2012
Oddly, one thing that is rarely untitled is a comedy bit. Most comedians name their bits with a one word, or short phrase title, which is helpful when you release an album, but mostly when you plan your set list.
That's a great link. One time, a friend and I saw an improv show at the Edmonton Fringe, which had a longer game where they picked someone from the audience (my friend) and did the dream they would have that night; a free-association mashup of whatever info they had gotten from my friend, and the list of what she did that day. As it happened, we were doing a sketch show in the same venue; when one of the performers realized this, they ran backstage and grabbed our set list, then proceeded to create new versions of our sketches, based entirely on the titles. I think "Communist Elevator" was the main title they used. It was totally surreal. (And, of course, we had to name our bits, since it was a group doing a show, and we needed a handle to refer to them, so we could arrange the show and know what the hell we were doing next. Theatre is always a practical art.)
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 8:02 PM on July 20, 2012
That's a great link. One time, a friend and I saw an improv show at the Edmonton Fringe, which had a longer game where they picked someone from the audience (my friend) and did the dream they would have that night; a free-association mashup of whatever info they had gotten from my friend, and the list of what she did that day. As it happened, we were doing a sketch show in the same venue; when one of the performers realized this, they ran backstage and grabbed our set list, then proceeded to create new versions of our sketches, based entirely on the titles. I think "Communist Elevator" was the main title they used. It was totally surreal. (And, of course, we had to name our bits, since it was a group doing a show, and we needed a handle to refer to them, so we could arrange the show and know what the hell we were doing next. Theatre is always a practical art.)
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 8:02 PM on July 20, 2012
As a person who used to write for other people beyond Metafilter comments, I understand how titling can be overwhelming. But I do think they are necessary for most written word pieces.
But I do think Edward Hopper's quote is the nice way of saying how I feel about sticking around for "audience Q&A" for some (many? most?) choreographers or film directors. For example, I can't tell you how many dance pieces have been... well, not ruined but certainly tainted... by listening to somebody whose talent isn't in words try to explain something I've just seen in words. Likewise, unless you're a well-known film director, it usually pains me to hear you describe your movie. This is no fault of these artists and doesn't mean I don't find them talented -- just that they've chosen the correct medium to present themselves and talking isn't it.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:11 AM on July 21, 2012
But I do think Edward Hopper's quote is the nice way of saying how I feel about sticking around for "audience Q&A" for some (many? most?) choreographers or film directors. For example, I can't tell you how many dance pieces have been... well, not ruined but certainly tainted... by listening to somebody whose talent isn't in words try to explain something I've just seen in words. Likewise, unless you're a well-known film director, it usually pains me to hear you describe your movie. This is no fault of these artists and doesn't mean I don't find them talented -- just that they've chosen the correct medium to present themselves and talking isn't it.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:11 AM on July 21, 2012
I like titling my art. It's a way to add another layer of narrative to an image. I like narrative; I like to draw things where something is going on. Even my occasional abstracts are done with some kind of narrative intent.
Then again, I think of myself mostly as a cartoonist. My large projects are graphic novels.
I wouldn't claim that all my titles are good. But the best ones definitely add something to the piece. And are usually evoked by my better pieces.
I guess ultimately I kinda feel like we're drowning in an endless torrent of untitled images nowadays. Here's 500 photos from my trip. Here's last night's bar crawl. Oh look, Facebook auto-identified everyone in it. All these images with sequence numbers instead of titles. If I'm going to spend the time to create an image by hand, I'm going to take the 5-10 extra minutes to give it a title that adds an extra layer to it. Not doing that is foreign to me.
posted by egypturnash at 5:17 AM on July 22, 2012
Then again, I think of myself mostly as a cartoonist. My large projects are graphic novels.
I wouldn't claim that all my titles are good. But the best ones definitely add something to the piece. And are usually evoked by my better pieces.
I guess ultimately I kinda feel like we're drowning in an endless torrent of untitled images nowadays. Here's 500 photos from my trip. Here's last night's bar crawl. Oh look, Facebook auto-identified everyone in it. All these images with sequence numbers instead of titles. If I'm going to spend the time to create an image by hand, I'm going to take the 5-10 extra minutes to give it a title that adds an extra layer to it. Not doing that is foreign to me.
posted by egypturnash at 5:17 AM on July 22, 2012
Thanks for the post; I had just recently independently been thinking about how arbitrary titles (and the perceived need for them) can be.
Another good title story: The Polish avant-garde composer Krzysztof Penderecki wrote a shatteringly unpleasant work for string ensemble called 8'37", starting with an assault of fortissimo screeching violins. The publisher rejected it as too expensive to print (it had a lot of nonstandard notation). He changed the name to Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima, and it subsequently became one of the most famous pieces of contemporary music.
I'm pushing to name our band's next album "Peter Gabriel".
posted by dfan at 8:40 AM on July 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
Another good title story: The Polish avant-garde composer Krzysztof Penderecki wrote a shatteringly unpleasant work for string ensemble called 8'37", starting with an assault of fortissimo screeching violins. The publisher rejected it as too expensive to print (it had a lot of nonstandard notation). He changed the name to Threnody for the Victims of Hiroshima, and it subsequently became one of the most famous pieces of contemporary music.
I'm pushing to name our band's next album "Peter Gabriel".
posted by dfan at 8:40 AM on July 22, 2012 [1 favorite]
« Older Friday earworm | 'like a sort of soul-compass after I was dead.' Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by hippybear at 11:07 AM on July 20, 2012 [3 favorites]