---

Why Do Artworks Need Titles?

Do all artwork have titles? What is the point of them? Does it add anything to the painting? I think the answer is yes and no.

A hallmark of the pejorative “modern art” is a sense of obscurantism, where the more metaphorical your work, the better—though it devolves to meaninglessness. Having a title in this situation is helpful, in so far as having the artist themself explain the work. For all I care, paint a rock and title the piece “me.” Having the title, there is at least something to work off of.

On the other hand, I feel like there are artists that can paint the “ineffable.” There isn’t a need to title a painting of a Tree “Tree 06.23”, unless the work is within a collection where the context does indeed add meaning. The distinction here is iconic vs. symbolic.

“Realist” paintings can be thought of as “iconic” as they aim to mimic our perception of the world. It’s not hard to make out what the drawing is. On the other hand, “modern art” works on the “symbolic” level. The painting is not of perception but representation. That’s probably when I would want a title.

After all, “the map is not the territory” and “Ceci n’est pas une pipe”