Have you ever been in front of a painting or a photography for which the title was paradoxically : “untitled” ? Because it’s pretty common in museums and when you face it, a frustrating feeling emerges within you. You wonder what was the intention of the artist, what did he wanted to show, what did he had in mind ? Usually, artists can explain everything when it comes to their work, but sometimes, it’s just a composition that is perfectly balanced. A kind of beautiful object that has no real meaning or purpose, something that comes from inside the artist’s guts.
Too often we try to give a reason and a meaning to anything, because we feel like it has to be meaningful to even exist, but art is not necessary a part of that giant rational cake. Art if free, art can make oneself elaborate its own reading of a piece, assuming that the artist’s point of view is only one way to see a painting, when in fact, the interpretations are infinite. As intellectual as it can be, Art is first about visual instinct, aesthetics has a major rôle in it: you can hate or you can love at first sight a piece of art, without knowing its meaning or anything related to its history.
What is interesting here is that the title becomes itself the painting, there is no distance between them. The boundaries are blurred, title and subject are blend into one another. As if the title would give the meaning of the painting when it actually doesn’t. It only gives to the readers some informations about the whole piece: the title “Sans titre” (untitled), the country of the author, followed by the year of production, the mediums: acrylic and canvas, the size : 50cm x 60cm and the author’s initials: BC. In fact, what you see is exactly what you get.
Leave a Reply