Brooke Shaden

Titling a piece of art can, in some opinions, make or break the work that it is paired with. Others will say that the title makes no difference in viewing the work, while another lot will claim that a title only enhances their view of the piece. There are so many different opinions on the relation a title does or should have with a piece of artwork, yet many people ignore the basic questions that I hope to raise here. There is a certain stigma that accompanies a title in any shape or form. Along with a title comes an implied specificity to the artwork. If someone takes a photograph of a flower and titles it “Photograph of a Flower”, the viewer will, more than likely, look at that photo and see little depth beyond the obvious title. Alternately, the same photo of a flower could be titled differently and thus be given a completely different meaning. The same shot of the flower might be titled “Birth” and would therefore carry connotations of the start of life. The viewer might look into the piece of art and think about the ways in which a flower relates to birth, and that flower might take on a completely new meaning that it would have otherwise lost without the title. There is always the elusive “Untitled” which is, in my opinion, often an poor excuse to not think of a title for the work. However, there is a fine line between the ways in which we think of titles.  Some people would say that a title is a hint in regard to the authorial intent. Yet perhaps the author is working to force the reader to question the art rather than clarify it. Sometimes a title does little to clarify perspective and works to create even more questions out of the art. Is the visual itself not just as much of the artist’s intent as the title?

It would seem that our generation (or perhaps it has always been the way) has a tendency to look for supplemental information regarding a piece of art. On photo-sharing websites in particular, it is common to use the space almost equally as a blog as well as a space to share art.  Many people on flickr who use the space to document their lives will gain a following almost solely of people who are looking to know them as a person rather than appreciate the art. This applies to titling an artwork; much in the same way that we are drawn to knowing people personally, we are always looking for another way to understand the art. Those people who share abundantly about their lives give insight into their art, whether intentionally or not. By sharing personal stories, your art becomes intricately woven into your life, and vice versa. We are constantly looking for meaning behind art, whether the author intends one or not. Titling a piece of art quite often points the viewer in a direction that is often closer to understanding the authorial intent of the piece.

I will use my own photos as example now, in order to better illustrate my point. Yes, titles can be “helpful” for those who cannot grasp the meaning of art. However, we can never know what the author of a piece of art was thinking when titling the work. One might consider the circumstances of the author when naming it. Speaking personally, I try to give my photos names that raise questions rather than a title that will get the viewer closer to understanding my intent. I often do not want people to understand my intent; that will only cloud the interpretation of the person viewing my photos. Instead, I might hint at a certain emotion, or a certain path that I might like the viewer to follow. For example, in my photo titled “Fetus”, I felt strongly that I did not want the photo to elicit responses that focused on death; instead, I wanted the viewer to think about life and rebirth.

"Fetus"

However, not all of my photos work to guide the viewer. Some of my photos do the opposite, or rather, they work to elicit an emotion and attempt to not guide the viewer on any sort of “helpful” path. I think it is important to raise questions in the viewer, because by raising these questions the only answers will be honest answers within the viewer. By asking questions, the viewer is forced to answer them for him/herself and will therefore read the image based on his/her own experiences/thoughts/beliefs. In my photo “An Imitation of Form”, I do not believe that the title says anything very directly about the photo. Instead I hope that it will raise the question of why the form of the figure in the photo is an “imitation” rather than simply a form. I would like to raise the question of why the title refers to the person in the photo as a “form” rather than classifying the subject as “human”.

An Imitation of Form

These questions could be answered a number of ways by the viewer, and thus their path of understanding the photo would be set based on their own views, how they answer the questions. Certainly my newer piece, titled “A Story in Older Terms” does not lead the viewer to any sort of answer as to what the piece is about. Instead, the very nature of this title forces the viewer to come up with their own story. The title implies that the photo is a representation of a story, yet I am not about to say in any definite terms what story that is. You, as the viewer, must create your own story.

"A Story in Older Terms"

I think that there are a great many stories implied in this piece. The visual of a girl in a white dress will imply different meanings to different people. The vast landscape will affect some differently than others; the inclusion of fruit as well. There are many different paths (excuse my pun) that the viewer will travel down when viewing this photograph.

Clearly, when viewing my work, the viewer will more than likely not take all of these things into consideration. Some might look at my title “A Story in Older Terms” and consider it to be a direct indication of what I meant by the piece. Others might look at the title and think that it has nothing to do with my intent, or the meaning of the photo. This brings me to the point of how much a viewer should read the title in relation to the art. Since when does art not speak for itself? Since when do we need titles and descriptions and artist statements and dialogue to fully understand a piece of art? Why not look at the art for what it is? Why do we assume that the artist titles art to make the viewer see the “correct” meaning of a piece?

I realize that, in all likelihood, most artists are in fact naming their art for this very reason! Most artists want the viewer to understand why the piece was created. But I hope to challenge that view of a title, even if for this brief moment, to consider the beauty of reading art personally. It makes me wonder if artists should not title the work. Would that be the only way in which a viewer can personally connect with art?

I think not, because fundamentally I believe that a title is no different than the art it accompanies. The title is an artform just as much as the “main show”. My photographs go hand in hand with the titles I have prescribed for them, but if I left out a title, the way in which you see the art should not change. There are so many elements that go into creating the work that people leave out when reading the photo. When I create a piece of art, I have to have some connection with it. I choose my camera angle, my subject matter, my editing style, etc. all in the hope that the final product will be what I was hoping to create from my mind.

Why is it that people look to the title to read the image? Why can we not delve deeper into the elements of a photo? Does a camera angle not tell as much about a photo as a title? Perhaps not, but I believe we are overlooking many elements of art by believing that the title has more authorial insight into a piece of art than other elements of that piece. I encourage you to look at my art once more and consider all of the elements that went into it. Why those colors, that angle, that subject, that outfit, those props, that texture, etc.? For me, those things are just as important in reading an image as the title itself. After all, a title is only a preview of the book.