Untitled art really bothers me. When I am visiting a studio or gallery and I see a great painting, my heart always sinks when I see that it has been left without a title. Or worse, when the art is actually a form of writing. Many poems, blog posts, sermons, even short stories are left without a proper name these days. Why is this? I think that somewhere down the line (probabably with a great increase due to postmodernity) someone thought that we shouldn't hinder a piece of art by slapping a title on it. I hear someone saying "...it is what it is, nothing more. I don't want to restrain the audience..." Since when did this become artistic?
I think that art should Christianly reflect creation. According to John Piper (an English major), writing is the closest that we can come to creating something from nothing. I believe the visual arts and music are tied at a close second.
After God had created everything, he allowed man, the creation steward, to name all of the animals. Naming something shows a certain dominion and creative control and I think that this concept of creation is very artistic. It also demonstrates an intentionality. Art should be pointed and intentional with its message. Some artistic experts suggest that the title should be the first thing an artist creates because it gives both the audience and the artist a sense of direction.
Titles are also good for merely practical purposes. It is ridiculously hard to refer to a piece of art that does not have a title. We tend to use physical properties (color, texture, medium) for visual arts and phrases and themes to describe written art. For someone who says they "don't want to hinder art with a title," I think that this is very ironic because they force viewers to refer to the piece as "that blue one with a yellow streak" or "that one that said something about conditions of the heart" or even "that really big one." Certainly this is more limiting to the piece than placing a title on it. In fact, the title can help people understand and appreciate it more because they have a handle to hold, and perhaps a theme to ponder.
About Me
- Gray
- Lincoln, Nebraska, United States
1 comment:
Gray- Really interesting post, I hadn't thought about that before :).
That said, I'm not sure I agree that art should be intentional.
I think often we sit down and create just for the sake of creating, sometimes I finish writing something and I'm not even sure I fully know what it means...
I think the basic difference comes down to a question of the purpose of art. If you're writing in order to express something that exists outside of the art ("Art should be pointed and intentional with its message.") then a title makes sense as a tool to point the observer toward that external reality.
However, if you approach art as an end in itself, then a title may or may not be appropriate. One of my favorite authors, Samuel Beckett, has a whole series of writings called "Texts for Nothing" whose only title is a number. Text 1, Text 2, and so forth. Pragmatically, it's not a problem b/c you simply reference the number and artistically it works as well b/c it gives the reader freedom interpret the text on a variety of levels (which is, I think, precisely what Beckett intended).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend the lazy pretentiousness of many avant garde poets and I do think art-for-art's-sake can become really ridiculous and condescending in a hurry, but I'm not sure I'm ready to come down where you are either... Hope that makes sense :). Thanks again for posting!
Post a Comment