“untitled” is a prevarication. there is a dialogue, a discourse, a thesis, a point-of-view, in all that we do. an artist may not want to reveal their intent & consequently “untitled no. 48” may be an appropriate moniker for the work of art you are contemplating. however, that does not mean the work is without a title.
i could have just as easily called this post “pink roses in a may garden” for all that it matters. you, the reader/viewer, will ultimately determine the title. If this post had been titled “pink roses in a may garden”, my discussion would still have centered around the issue of calling a work of art “untitled.”
the point of “untitled”, i imagine the reasoning goes, is that the artist does not want to interfere with the viewers judgment or dialogue with a work of art. but how can titling something “untitled” not title it? or even by giving it a number, not influence the viewer? “no. 48” puts all sorts of thoughts into my head as to why that number was chosen. is it no. 48 in a series? do 4 & 8 have a significance to the artist? oops! a dialogue has begun.
you might have surmised by now that i am in favor of titles. even something as simple as “arrangement in grey and black: the artist’s mother” or titling an upended urinal “fountain.” i welcome the dialogue the artist initiates when he adds his thoughts in words to a work of art.
i hope you enjoyed “untitled (pink roses in a may garden).