Who makes up the names for works of art?
I hate all those pieces with names like “Natural and Man-Made Objects” or “Girl in Repose”.
I wish artists would put a little more effort into coming up with something interesting. Surely “Natural and Man-Made Objects” could be, “The Contents of Satan’s Pocket” or “Objects Moving Equally Fast Both Towards and Away From the Surface of the Earth”.
Likewise, “Girl in Repose” could be, “Demon Whore from the Horsehead Nebula” or “See What Rohypnol Can Do for You?”
Anything other than literal, obvious titles. It’s like naming a song using the first line of the chorus. If only the Beatles had named “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” something like “Lucy’s got Nits” or “Don’t Touch Me There”, things would have been a lot different.
Leonardo da Vinci has to take most of the blame though for starting the trend. His “Study of Hands” could have topped art charts in the sixteenth century if it had been named, “Fingers Dripping Foresight” or “Ravioli Made into Human Flesh by Divine Intervention”.
The 2006 Archibald Prize
Apparently there’s “controversy” over the painting chosen as the 2006 Archibald Prize winner. I’ve looked at this painting, titled The Paul Juraszek monolith (after Marcus Gheeraerts), and, speaking from the point of view of someone who knows less about art than about calculating the rotational velocity of orbiting astronomic bodies, the winning painting kicks arse.
Granted, it could have been titled “A Big Ugly Head Covered with Heaps of Weird People Including Sculptor Paul Juraszek the Most”, but the title as it stands works well too.