O but musicians often use names that function like "Untitled," such as Sonata in B, say. There is much less tendency to use "untitled" for works that are texts or function by articulating time like texts, because the titling moment is part of the temporal structure of the text, and the text is (unless musical) made of language, so the title (made of words) is continuous, part of, the text. Objects, particularly visual objects, are often doing their best to escape from, or defeat, the linearity, textuality, of language, and so avoid having any truck with it. Most artists whose work is called "untitled" are not calling it "untitled," they are not offering any word. So curators or book editors or gallerists are substituting this word to inform people that the space for a title should be blank. Unfortunately, the space is not literally blank, it's filled with this word "untitled."
AK Carol Starr wrote: > hi benjamin, > > it is interesting to think about. why wouldn't musicians and writers be > similarly affected? > sometimes i get a title for an artwork along with the idea but sometimes i > can't really think of a title. thus untitled. but i have adheared to using > untitled to promote 'participation mystique'. it comes and goes. > > bests, carol > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > I was just discussing this with a friend the other day. One, I think that > > your answer carol is one part. "Untitled" gives the viewer no preconcieved > > framework from which to view the piece. Also, sometimes the artist is too > > close to the work emotionally and doesn't want to reveal what they were > > feeling, or perhaps aren't sure what they are feeling so aren't sure how to > > express it in words. What I hate is when it seems lazy. Like the artist just > > didn't feel like coming up with something. That signifies that they don't > > care enough. > > > > Benjamin > > -- > carol starr > taos, new mexico, usa > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > web: http://www.CarolStarr.net
