On “untitled” artworks
What is the reason behind the prevalence of untitled artwork that I encounter every museum I visit ?
Is being mysterious or unknown and not providing a name for the viewer become the standard in the art world ? —Hope not.
Is it a form of act or protest against the traditions of art ?
Untitled artworks are not new, although they have become increasingly popular in recent years. The reasons for the untitled artworks are mainly to avoid interpretation which I believe is the huge part of creating something and its inevitable outcome when an art is presented to an audience. Second reason is that the focus on the art itself; the composition, style, form, materials, elements and the process. Artists claims that name shadows the actual work of art. I believe that this will of unnamed is due to the fact that artists cannot fully capture the meaning or the emotion behind a work. Otherwise, it leads me to my third question which is a form of act against traditional way of making art. It is known that artists throughout the history have always challenged the existing norms and traditions by presenting new ideas or shifting the recognized ways of creating art.
However, the artwork requires a background and context to hold on to although it wasn’t always existed that way. We are aware that, in the European medieval period art existed only for the spiritual and religious context there was no space for experimentation. It is based on Cristian content such as scenes from the Bible, saints, the Virgin Mary, and depictions of Jesus. Medieval art really did not care about the proposition, the precise figures or the anatomy. They were busy with the expressing the Christian beliefs through canvas and the capacity of moving emotions of the society to better appreciate the Christs’ sacrifice for the sake of Christianity.
From the late 14th century to the mid-16th century Renaissance brought the idea of humanism and a world slightly separated from religion and based solely on reason. With the classical art and philosophy reawakened; the act of creating art and the role of the artists have changed from being an artisan to being an artist. Unlike the medieval art, Renaissance artists have cared for the composition, perspective, chiaroscuro, line and figure. The topics that are depicted were not significant than how it represented.
When we look at a Renaissance painting or a sculpture we do not find ourselves fascinated with the context that is given we usually admire how the figures are drawn or carved in this perfect form and how artist has established the composition. Moreover, these artworks are always supported with a title some of many were assigned later by historians rather than the artists themselves due to the lost of original titles although it is evident that the name suggests a meaning and leads the viewer to understand and interpret the art better.
The modern and contemporary artists are not keen on this habit of naming, is it due to the fact of modernism and post-modernism ? Since the idea of modernism have changed the idea of art and the artists substantially. The contemporary artists’ reaction against the “naming” might be linked to the their roots which is the art of reacting against something and embracing the irony, unknown and uncertainty.
Sometimes titles suggests more than the artwork itself
Paul Gauguin, Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?, 1897-98, oil
The title initiates more than what we see in the painting, “where do we come from?” refers to origins of the humanity, both physical and spiritual ways. Gauguin was highly fascinated by the indigenous cultures. “what are we?” questions the essence of the human existence and experiences in a deeper level. “where are we going?” reflects on mortality and the afterlife who was in a poor health condition and contemplating about unknown future.
Richard Hamilton, Just what is it that makes today's homes so different, so appealing?, 1956, collage
Hamilton was mocking consumerism and mass media by using words like “different” & “appealing” when in a period of peak consumerism and mass production. He is giving the audience the freedom to determine if the pictures are visually appealing or merely pointless diversions. The idea of “home” is filled with consumer goods that questions whether these things really making life better, or are they just flashy distractions?.
Even sometimes artists do not wish to name their artwork and believe it will surpass the the art itself. There are some examples of artists who didn’t want to provide a title instead numbered them.
Jackson Pollock's representational painting had avoided literal interpretations. His own drip-method methodology for creating art has emphasized that the paintings are about the act of painting itself—movement, texture, and emotion—rather simply storytelling. Pollock challenged the notion that art required a "story" to be valuable. He moved from subject matter to physicality.
e.g., Number 1A, 1948 or Number 5, 1948
Pollock's method impacted later abstract artists such as Mark Rothko's "No. 14" and Agnes Martin's grid paintings, who also valued direct visual experience over narrative.
Overall point is attributing an identity to an artwork, the use of “untitled” is so common and so misunderstood that the works without a title has diluted its own value. When an artwork lacks a deliberate title, it loses a powerful tool: the potential to direct, provoke, or deepen engagement. A name is more than just a label; it serves as the starting point for communication between the artist and the audience. Without it, the work risks becoming a passive object, devoid of meaning and reduced to purely aesthetic values.
