Changing titles

I listened to a presentation by a young contemporary artist who titled his works in a way which really didn’t, at least to me, have anything to do with the ordinary, realisticly rendered, subjects he painted. My conclusion was that the titles probably sounded better in the original Klingon.

What a subject, titles! I enjoy titling, often have one before the picture is painted. I like “different” titles, something that will grab the observer’s interest. I have yet to paint a successful “Will the real egg please stand up”, one of those occasions when the title was far better than the painting! Rather than just label one “Iris” I looked up the Latin name and called it “Iridacia”. I think the artist has every right to change a title if they wish, buit not too often! They should keep track of the title in their files as well, so they know which painting is being discussed. A recent painting of mine, I called “Not Niagara”. It so happens that I discovered half way through the painting that I had already painted it twice before. The miniature version sold, the large version was still under the bed. So I pulled it out dusted it off and looked to make sure it wasn’t better than the new one. nope. It was called “Summertime 2”. I am hoping that version 3 is a winner at a local show, but won’t find out for a couple of days. Why? Because I reached “the zone” while painting it, and have to believe it is a winner, even though I know it is not “perfect”. If I get no awards, it will still hang, and I will (and am already) spurred on by that wonderful feeling of being “in the zone”, and know if I rush off and start painting NOW I may just achieve it again! Your forum provides a wonderful stimulus for artists like myself who are for one reason or another “Sunday Painters”. When someone’s letter irritates me, I realize we need a variety of opinions. I don’t like all the pictures people send in but cannot state “nothing” inspires me as the French reader did a short while ago. As artists we need to experience as much as we can of other people’s views, styles, ideas..it’s part of our “education”. Thanks again Robert for all you do.

My titles often vary but they are always descriptive. So I never thought much about it. They are all similar to each other.

Only time I titled art “cleverly” was when I had an art gallery and the artist asked me for help. Some titles did help sell the work.

Probably proof I was much better at selling the work of others than I am at selling my own!

quote “Sentimental titles are the last bastion of scoundrels, and can add significant barf to an already barfy work.”

I forwarded this article to my painting friends and said ouch..he’s talking to me but after emailing back and forth I’ve decided I like my barfy titles ’cause I get a lot of them listening to country music and I bet you think country music is pretty barfy too. I liked your other comments on titles as they always give one pause. The next time I title something like “I Can’t Let Go” I’ll think of your disapproval.

Dear Robert

It’s frustrating at times dreaming up titles for paintings but once I’ve got one no way am I going to change it for any reason. I do get annoyed with artists who conveniently title their paintings, “Untitled”. I don’t know why but maybe they just couldn’t be bothered especially when their next painting is “Untitled #2 and so on.

I rarely remember the title of a painting even though I vividly recall the work. We tend to refer to the artist rather than the title of a specific work. “Oh, that’s a Vermeer.” Or, “Georgia O’Keeffe painted that.”

Titles are important with iconic works by historically significant artists. I can’t imagine buying a contemporary painting just because it has a clever title. It’s the work itself that speaks to me, not the title. “A rose by any other name …”

For all that, I really dislike “Untitled” works. What inspired the artist to paint it in the first place? If it demanded a painting surely it deserves a name, however mundane.

Here is one thing you can use the barfy remark for. Next time you create a barfy painting (and we all do from time to time), give it a barfy title and show it to your family. Chances are that your average spouse or relative will love it. Then the next time he/she cringes at your good work, remember the barfy one and smile to yourself.

I loved this discussion and it’s something I think about a lot myself. Please add my ‘two cents worth’ if the discussion is still open.

In many cultures, at the end of a martial novitiate, the novice is turned out into an unsympathetic wild with only a few items at his disposal, to undergo a survival ordeal, so that everything he or she has learned might be put to the only test that really matters. I’ve found this reductive logic can be successfully applied to many creative blocks and bottle-necks; it is necessarily devastating to give up your toys and tricks, to disable your technological crutches, to limit yourself to a single room, a single subject or material- demand creative survivalism from yourself. There’s no faster way to discover the unvarnished truth about your own gifts and limitations.

Once you’ve regained some inspiration, the best advice I ever received from any tutor was the simple directive to ‘take up the whole page’ with whatever you are doing. Force yourself to expand the execution- hidden elements are often revealed this way. And if you want to know how someone else sees your work, hold it up to a mirror for another, impartial perspective.

I finally found something to disagree with you on after all these years! There are so many variables to this- e.g Mona Lisa to Susan Brown-no, no, But a painting that has not been out there- why not? We are at liberty to go back and make a few improvements or changes on our work as we see fit, why not a better title if it is more fitting? I think you were cranky when you wrote that, I noted your reference to “barfy work” you usually find kinder ways to reference the awful!

I love your newsletters. I have even purchased your book and another book based on your newsletter.

I have been an artist my entire life, but it has not been my business. I have worked in advertising and other industries.

Nevertheless, this morning I received an email from a friend and at the bottom she said, “I think about you everyday because of that beautiful portrait of Lily (her Yorkshire terrier) that you did for me.”

I would have loved to have made a real mark in the world, but instead, I have made a few marks in individual peoples hearts.

I have had three grown men step up to see their surprise birthday present portraits and watched them come to tears.

They are able to connect with their dog, child and horse with dogs etc. in a way that touches their heart so deeply.

So I will never be famous. But at least I know that my paintings have brought a special gift into some people’s lives.

One lady even gave me a horse because she was so touched. Before he passed away I was lucky enough to visit with Orren Mixer, famous horse artist in the Western Horse world. He painted the most famous Quarter Horses in the country (USA) from around the ’40s till his death last year. He told me he had horses everywhere, because he couldn’t bring them all home to his ranch, the people who gave them to him (on top of paying for the paintings) kept them for him.

What a funny world.

I so love your newsletter. Never stop. I am inspired, I am saved from the thought that I might never have time to paint and then I go paint! Recently I finished a portrait of a Russian horse breeder as a present from his American friend. I had terrible photos with that redish light from the interior of a cocktail lounge. The man was painted on a bay horse in Arizona. A place he had never been but in his mind the place he would like to be. I did it in acrylics in a record 9 days!!!! It was 20″ by 26″ and my friend took it off the stretchers so that he could fit it in his luggage and had it restretched and framed in Russia. Now that is a first for me.

Sometimes venue’s will title it for you – without your knowledge.

I am a believer in NOT biting the hand that feeds me. In the same vein I will supply a title if someone really wants something more than AB0012 or SV12 – which are really portfolio and piece in the portfolio.

I don’t keep records of what others or I have called pieces, so I am guessing that it is inconsistent. Which is fine by me the work is what it is and I want people to develop their own impressions of it. If they have more than one suggestion to think about, we great, but this presupposes that someone someday will put all the titles and the piece together and care about it.

Today, I’m just trying to survive and make art that people want to see and live with on their walls.

Interesting that your current letter arrived as I was naming a dozen new works…

May I offer the following:

When I feel the need to re-name an artwork, I keep the original name and “sub-title” with any alterations. This way, both names are available for accurate reference…

In my opinion, the art of titling is part of the total creative process of doing the art (painting for me…fill in the name of your medium here). Sometimes, it comes at the front end of the process, other times during the process as the painting evolves, or even after the paint has dried. Personally, I find that most of the time, the title comes to me as I am thinking about the painting, when I am seeing the “perfect” image in my art mind-zone. A good bit of my work is skyscape oriented, and generally (not always) I find myself naming the works with a time-place-feeling title. After looking at your titling catagories, like any list or set of rules, there are other options, or even combination of options. But your condemnation of the “sentimental” approach appears to be more revealing of a fairly strong personal bias, especially the comment about the “barf” quotient/ratio equating title styling to quality, even personality (“scoundrels”…!?!?). Seems like a pretty broad brushstroke to me. I’ve seen, in my judgment, some fantastic work that carried a pretty schmaltzy title, but it did not diminish the work itself–not like a bad frame does. On the other hand, I’ve seen some pretty lame art (again, IMHO) with a really cool title. So, there you go…hey, it’s your blog — you can say whatever you want! Everyone has an opinion, just like everyone has a…..uh,… nose. I happen to like word-play titles. Some would call them puns and others would call them creative use of language…again, with the opinion thing…but I’ve included one of my favorites. The piece, titled “Hay Ewe”, was bought at a show by a gentleman who has evolved into a collector. His name — John Lamb. You just never know… Just please don’t label me a scoundrel, at least until you know me.

I write on the canvas frame the title ,my inventory number,and sign again. What I wondered is if anybody out there provided a label to record the provenance. Such items as to when and where the painting was bought even what was paid for it. I note some experts can trace a works history through auction labels or even chalk marks. On paintings I buy we put the sales transaction material on the back in an envelope but even this has a habit of sliding out if moved and they yellow with age.

It is true that some titles are preconceived whilst others reveal themselves in the process.

Last year I agreed to a life-size portrait of an author/poet/playwright for an upcoming portrait exhibition. We knew each other from a long time ago and became re-acquainted on one of his lecture tours.

When he disappeared from the radar I put it down to his eccentricity but was surprised to be called three months later to hear he was being released from ” The Clinic ” and would I still paint him.

He stayed with me for a while and whilst I painted him he commenced writing an autobiographical account of his enforced stay at ” The Clinic ” ( the book is due for release in August ).

Upon proof-reading the manuscript I felt it necessary to completely alter my original portrait concept and title.

He was unable to see the completed portrait until the exhibition and I had some misgivings as to his reaction to the title as it had received a lot of press coverage but my concern was unfounded as he loved it and wholeheartedly agreed.

I used to have a boyfriend who always said about everything “there are X types of…” or “there are X ways to do…”

After a while I found myself wondering how many ways there are to murder a boyfriend – finally opted for dumping.

He used to say that there is always an “other” category – I hate to admit that actually makes you think creatively.

Titles are the hardest thing for me especially after thirty five years of work. It seems to get even harder when

I work in a series of paintings. The first one has the title of the initial idea, after that, well, it gets harder.

Some titles over explain what is being viewed and therefore seem redundant and superfluous. I’ve tried numbers but they don’t seem to take full advantage of what can be added with a real title. I’ve seen titles that confound and confuse me more and elucidate. Some titles contain what the artist tried to accomplish but needed the title to explain. It has been made clear to me that the owner of a piece changed my title to suite her needs from the painting. She obviously saw something completely different than what my title suggested which is okay with me as long as I know what the new title is.

I change a title when I can’t remember the original title and didn’t record it on the back. To help prevent this lapse in memory I now jot it down on some masking tape and attach it to the back. I have changed a title after the piece has not sold and sat around for awhile thinking maybe a change in title will help make a sale next time it views.

Back when I was less productive– and some folks find that concept unlikely– I used my date as reference and title. That was fine as long as I produced only a single work in a given month of any year. Then, seeing my 10/3 (10/2003 in sloth shorthand), someone said, This doesn’t look like a print. Anyway, how can this be impression 10 of 3. (“Is this what they call a gickle?” I kid you not!) Then I came up with venue or subject related titles, such as “Beach” or “Farm.” Eventually I had to elaborate and used “Beach 10” or “West Road Farm”. Someone might get the impression that I don’t care about titles. That would be correct. Perhaps I’m missing out on something. This week I’ll probably produce half a dozen plein air pictures. I’ll probably call them “Laid Off Again” 1 thru 6. I can’t wait until I produce “Finally Retired From My Day Job”, 1 thru ? On second thinking, that’s too long. I think I’ll just create the Freedom Series. Should there be an archivist with sufficiently week professional instincts to be interested in my oeuvre, he’ll just have to intuit the dates.

Dan the elder, that is hilarious! I guess I am presently painting the series “Still in the Cubicle Dungeon” and “The Mortgage Backbreaker”.

Tatjana

Sometime during my years of studying art, an instructor advised using no more than 3 words to name a painting. Whether this is because the viewer remembers no more than 3 words, three words fit neatly on the name tag or in the programme,the reasoning was never disclosed. However, I have found having that limitation has forced me to be more clever/creative in naming a painting and has been a successful approach.

What an interesting conversation with some excellent suggestions! I’m pretty much a title-dolt: as a landscape painter, I tend to name the painting from the general location, then move on to version II,III, etc. Boring! Since I make my living as a writer, this is a curious disability indeed.

I wish there would be more honesty in naming. I actually appreciate titles such as “Study #3” instead of some esoteric bunch of rubbish. I liked that “Tuesday Kind of Thing” (misquoted) because the artist did the work on a Tuesday and I can relate to doing things on Tuesday as opposed to Monday or Sunday. But, as an art appreciator, when I go to a gallery as a viewer, I make myself look first at the work and then (or never) at the title, description and artist (and price). I want my own experience of the work without getting ‘instructions’ on how to view it. Every once in awhile I’ll get more from a painting once I’ve read the title. but rarely.

p.s. this is a good website. thanks, Robert.

I have one of those resources that can be invaluable to artists: a spouse who loves to write. For one painting of mine here are some of the titles that he suggested: “Green Filter,” “Verdical,” “Standing for Sunrise,” “Welcoming The Sun,” “Shafts of Light,” “Bamboozled.” (The subject matter was bamboo.) I just go down the list and pick the one that I think describes the painting best.

Giving a ‘proper’ title to your work is sometimes really difficult, especially if you have painted in the same location several times and in the same season too, but somehow, when I’ve finished the painting I keep looking at it a bit and usually the feeling in the piece gives me the idea for the name. We have run our gallery Studio 737 with 60 artists for over 20 yrs. and it’s interesting to see how different artists have different approaches in naming their pieces. Some are ‘cut & dry’ to a point, and others more descriptive. It seems though, that in case of the sceneries, that most of our customers want to know, where the painting was done, so we have asked our artists, if possible, in addition to the title give us the location for it, so that we can answer these questions and satisfy their curiosity.

Personally, I feel that the paintings should keep their original titles, especially, if they have previously been displayed in a show or a gallery with that title and it has been written on the back, as it would look rather suspicious if title has been ‘erased’ or painted over and then renamed. I think anyone thinking of purchasing the said painting and noticing this would be a bit hesitant and suspicious, why it has been done.

I know quite a few artists that seem like they are serious about marketing and selling their art. However it seems like they are not aggressive enough and I wonder if that might be a fact in their lack of sells? Robert please comment on this topic. Do artists need to “wine and dine,” and be aggressive to make sells or should they trust their art to sell itself and attract customers?

I purchased a piece of fiber art that had a unique title/reference, and I understood right away what it was. Unfortunately, the artist decided to rename it for display on her website. The displayed name doesn’t do justice to the concept and execution of the work as it was originally referred to, from my perspective. I’ll be interested in what responses you get to this especially from artists who have changed names of pieces and whether they found the new name(s) more satisfactory/representative.