The Influence Fo Titles

7/27/2019 The Influence Fo Titles...

1/7

Leonardo

The Influence of Titles on How Paintings Are SeenAuthor(s): Margery B. Franklin, Robert C. Becklen and Charlotte L. DoyleSource: Leonardo, Vol. 26, No. 2 (1993), pp. 103-108Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1575894 .

Accessed: 12/09/2013 06:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Press andLeonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Leonardo.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1575894?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1575894?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress


2/7

GENERAL ARTICLE

T h e Influence o f T i t l e so n H o w Paintings A r e S e e n

MargeryB. Franklin,RobertC. BecklenandCharlotte . Doyle

THE INFLUENCEOF TITLES ON HOWPAINTINGSARE SEENDo titles contribute to the meaning that is seen in paintings?This controversial question lies at the center of several recentdiscussions of title/artwork relations. According to formalistdoctrine, words beyond the picture frame are not supposedto influence the understanding or appreciation of visualform. As Gombrich [1] explains, the "idea of visual artpurged of words" developed partly as a reaction against theelaborate anecdotal titles favored by many Victorian painters.Formalists such as Clive Bell and Roger Fry [2] would haveargued that titles should function simply as identificationtags, not as sources of meaning for the viewer.Several distinguished contemporary aestheticians havearticulated views at variance with the formalist credo.Moreover, in the spirit of the times, they have moved awayfrom elitist pronouncements on how art should be viewed tomore open-ended inquiry that focuses on conceptualizingthe possible functions of titles. Fisher [3], for example, isconcerned with showing that titles are not mere tags butnames that have a unique purpose; they "determine, to adegree to which significant attention has never been given,interpretations and other acts." Concurring with Fisher onthe central interpretive role of titles, Levinson [4] asserts that"Whata work of art is titled . . . has significant effect on theaesthetic face it presents and on the qualities we ... perceivein it." Gombrich, like Levinson, emphasizes that titles are asignificant contextual factor in the viewing of artworks andthat different kinds of titles engage the viewer in differentways. In some cases, such as Brancusi's Bird in Flight orDuchamp's NudeDescendinga Staircase, itles provide explicitdirectives for interpretation; the attempt to achieve fitbetween title and visual image becomes part of the viewer'sexperience. In other cases, such as Van Gogh's Cypresses tArles, he title seems simply a straightforward description thatadds little to the meaning of the work. To demonstrate theforce of such "neutral"titles, Levinson proposes the thoughtexperiment of imagining Cypressesat Arles with the title"Sinister Trees," or Ingres's Portraitof Louis-FrancoisBertinwith the title "AGentle Soul." Historical perspectives on howartists have used titles to guide the viewer's attention andinterpretation have been written by Bann [5] and Gombrich.In these discussions of title/artwork relations, a hypotheti-cal viewer is assumed. This hypothetical viewer seems moder-ately well educated, but is not necessarily a specialist in art;she attends to the title while looking at the painting; a differ-ence in title generally affects the meaning she sees in thework. We are told that titles may function in any one of sever-

al ways-for example, to under-line, focus or clarifymanifest con-tent of the visual image [6].Phenomena are illustrated but,except for Levinson's thoughtexperiment, not demonstrated.Further, the possibility that titlesmay influence a viewer's interpre-tive reading but not perceptualorganization per se is not specifi-cally addressed.We were interested in knowingwhat happens when viewers seepaintings with one title ratherthan another. Does the differ-ence in title affect what peoplesay about an image or which partsof a picture they attend to? Do

ABSTRACT

Recently,aestheticiansavebecome nterestednquestions bouttitle/artworkelations. ollowingbriefdiscussion f issues,the authors eportona study hatexplored owviewersrespondedo a paintingnder ifferenttitlingonditions. iewingheprojectedimageof a painting hilehearinghetitlespoken,ndividualubjectsalkedaboutwhat heywereseeingandused aflashlightointero indicatewhere heywere ooking.n hisstudy, hechangeof titlesaffected ndividuals'nterpretivereadings, s determinedytheirdescriptionsf thepaintings,utnotwhere hey ooked.These indingssuggestthatwith hangeoftitle,spatialorganization ayremain elativelystablewhile theraspectsof theperson's xperience f thepaintingchange.Theauthorsuggestthat hefindingsf thiskind f researchbearonbroaderheoreticalssuesofword/image elationss wellasquestions bouthow o display rt npublic laces.

different people respond differently? To investigate thesequestions, we designed and carried out an exploratoryresearch study. Viewers were shown each of two paintingstwice-on one occasion with their original titles and onanother occasion with fabricated titles. While viewing theimages, subjects described what they were seeing and used apointer to indicate which parts of the images they were look-ing at.The paintings used in this study were Monet's TerraceatSte.Adresse Fig. 1) and Arshile Gorky's Agony (Fig. 2). Thealternate title for Terraceat Ste. Adressewas "The ComingStorm";and for Agony,"Carnival." Throughout this article,the true title appears in italics, and the fabricated titleappears in quotes.) The following excerpts from two sub-jects' protocols illustrate the effects of different titles.

[Gorky/Agony] This is freaky.It's a painting of a girl screaming.I don't know what this object is. it struckme as a butterfly,but itcould be another person and these animals around, they looklike some kind of birds. The girl seems to be isolated somehow.Colors arevery strong, expressing anger of the painter maybe.[Gorky/"Carnival"]This is a clown-shaped figure here, dancinglike a courtjester. Large shoes. A stop sign. Triangle like a tentover here. Butterflyover here. This is some kind of round circular

MargeryB. Franklin (psychologist, educator), Psychology Department, Sarah LawrenceCollege, Bronxville, NY 10708, U.S.A.Robert C. Becklen (psychologist, educator), Department of Psychology, Ramapo College,Ramapo, NJ07430, U.S.A.Charlotte L. Doyle (psychologist, educator), Psychology Department, Sarah LawrenceCollege, Bronxville, NY 10708, U.S.A.Received 13 September 1990.

LEONARDO, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 103-108 103

II

O 1993 ISAST

This content downloaded from 140.122.42.82 on Thu, 12 Sep 2013 06:03:20 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7

Fig. 1. Claude Monet,Terraceat Ste.Adresse,oil on canvas, 97 x 130cm, 1866-1867.(Collection of theMetropolitan Museumof Art)

Fig. 2. Arshile Gorky,Agony,oil on canvas,40 x 50 /2 in, 1947.(Collection of theMuseum of ModemArt, New York.A. Conger GoodyearFund.)

104 Franklin,Berklen nd Doyle,The Influeice of Titles



4/7

thing like the tub of water a high diverjumps into. Perhaps a juggler here....Lotsof carnivalpeople.In this pair of examples, the same

part of the painting is designated as ahuman figure. But the figure and itssurrounding parts are interpreted dif-ferently under the two titles. Does sys-tematic analysis show that title tends toaffect "readings" but not necessarilyperceptual structuring per se? Further-more, from what subjects said, can wegain insight into how they broughtimage and title into relationship?Before addressing these questions, letus clarify the experimental design ofthe investigation.MethodThirty-one Sarah Lawrence College stu-dents participated in this study.Participants were seen individually.They were told that this was a study ofhow people see paintings; no mentionwas made of our interest in titles.Seated in front of a large translucentscreen on which transparencies wereback-projected, viewers were allowed topractice using a flashlight pointer.When the slides of paintings were pro-jected, viewers were asked to describewhat they were seeing and to use thepointer to show where they were look-ing. A video camera recorded verbaldescriptions and the movement of thepointer light on the screen (see Fig. 3).In each case, the subject was asked torepeat the title when the imageappeared on the screen. In the first ses-sion, after some practice with the point-er, each participant saw one of the twopaintings with one of its two titles. Next,he or she saw the other painting withone of its two titles. In the second ses-sion, the subject was shown the paint-ings again, in the same order. For thefirst painting shown, the title was thesame as in the first session; for the sec-ond painting, the alternate title waspresented. The design of the study,along with the sequence for one sub-ject, is shown in Fig. 4.FindingsThree questions guided our inquiry.First, do titles affect the interpretivereading of paintings, as reflected inhow images with different titles aredescribed by participants? Second, dotitles affect the spatial organization ofimages, as reflected in patterns ofpointing? Third, are there identifiablydifferent ways in which image and titleare brought into relationship?

The first question (do differences intitles affect how subjects talked aboutthe images?) was examined in two ways:by studying the responses for the groupof subjects as a whole and by discover-ing whether subjects changed theirdescriptions when a painting was pre-sented with a new title in the secondsession. For these analyses, each verbalprotocol was divided into units, andexplicit references to the titles weredeleted. Two independent judges ratedthe units of each protocol in terms ofdegree of consonance with one title orthe other. Judges were informed ofwhether the subject was talking aboutthe Monet or Gorky painting, but didnot know which title the painting hadbeen presented under. Since interraterreliability was high, the ratings ofjudges were averaged to yield a singlefigure for use in statisticalanalyses.For the group as a whole, differencesof title affected what subjects said aboutthe projected images. Statistical analy-ses of judges' ratings of subjects'responses to the Monet painting asTerraceersus "Coming Storm,"and theGorky painting as Agony versus"Carnival,"n both first and second ses-sions, showed the differences to behighly significant statistically (T-testsyielded p values of less than .0002).The influence of titles on the descrip-tion of images also came through inhow subjects responded to change oftitle in the second session. In this ses-sion, one of the paintings reappearedwith the same title and the other with anew title. Our findings show that the

Carousel -' C/ aiadeoProjector L camera

//.~~~ ?_ ~\. ~Translucent- ' , /-- I Back-projectiorX Screenxx , ~/\ * /\Ax" / --Flashlight' ?O\ Pointer

Viewer

Fig. 3. The arrangement of the viewer andthe projected artwork during theartwork/title experiment.change in title led subjects to changetheir descriptions in the direction ofthe new title. Again, the findings arehighly significant statistically (T-testsyielded p values of less than .01).Do titles affect the spatial organiza-tion of images, as reflected in patternsof pointing? To analyze the subjects'pointing while they talked, one of us(Robert Becklen) wrote a computerprogram that records pointer positionat the rate of seven times per sec. Thisprogram made it possible to examine

Fig. 4. Experimental design for testing how titles influence the ways in which paintings areseen. The asterisks (*) mark sessions that were counterbalanced in a 2 (orders) x 2(paintings) x 2 (titles) = 8 subgroups design.SESSION 1

1. POINTER PRACTICE*2. PAINTINGA [TITLE]*3. PAINTINGB [TITLE]

SESSION 2

1. PAINTING A [SAME TITLE]2. PAINTING [NEWTITLE]

A SAMPLE SUBJECT SAW:

1. POINTER PRACTICE2. MONET "THECOMING TORM"3. GORKY "CARNIVAL"

1. MONET - "THE COMING STORM"2. GORKY- AGONY

Franklin, Beklen and Doyle,The Influence of Titles 105



5/7

the spatiotemporal pattern of pointermovements over the course of a session.Using the program, we printed out thepointer records and asked two indepen-dent judges to determine which recordswere of the Monet painting and whichof the Gorky. Four such records areshown in Fig. 5. Both judges were ableto tell which pointer records were ofwhich painting, with a very high level ofaccuracy. But when they were asked tosort the pointer records according totitle, they performed at only chance lev-el. In other words, judges could tell thedifference between pointer records forpresentations of the Monet and Gorkypaintings, but could not consistentlydifferentiate between records for thesame painting presented with differenttitles.

Several additional explorations ofpointing records also failed to revealdifferences related to title. The findingson pointing patterns indicate that theconfiguration of the painting stronglyinfluenced where subjects looked (and

pointed) while titles did not have suchan effect.To explore the third question (arethere identifiable strategies throughwhich image and title are brought

together?) we examined the verbalprotocols qualitatively, consideringwhat viewers said about titles and title-image relations and how they des-cribed the image. We also looked athow title change in the second sessionwas handled.We identified four Orientations tothe Title: framing bytitle, dialoguingwithtitle, metaphorizingand not attending totitle.In the following discussion, we giveexamples and also illustrate severalapproaches to describing the image.The most prevalent orientation wasframing by title. In such cases, thedescription was guided by title mean-ing, although the subject did not explic-itly mention the title in the course ofdescribing the painting. Some titlewords may even have appeared as partof the description. In the following pro-

tocol, the image was brought into rela-tion with the title in two ways. First,areas of the image were designated asobjects and figures that could be partof a carnival scene. Second, expressiveproperties consonant with title conno-tations are indicated ("festive . . . fall-like . . . celebration of summer").

[Gorky/"Carnival"] Looks like we havea dancer over here. ... In the middlehere, looks like a drum. This could be amusician here, playing the drum. Theseare two people actually,the bottom oneis one person, and the other one . . .looks like the head chief ... The restof it looks like stuff that'sjust filling upthe picture. And it's carnival ... prettyabstract.The colors are festive, orangeand red, fall-like almost. Like the cele-bration of summer....The following excerpt illustrates

another way of framing by title.[Monet/ Terrace] our figures on the ter-race. Looks like early morning or lateafternoon. The sun is shining strongly.One couple is conversing. It looks likethey just finished brunch or cocktails.

Fig. 5. Printouts of viewers' pointer records: (above left) for Gorky'sAgony; below left) for the same Gorky painting, with the title "Carnival";(above right) for Monet's Terraceat Ste.Adresse; below right) for the same Monet painting, with the title "The Coming Storm."..................................................... ................t~~~~~~~U'.-~- .--'.~ - '

L . - :l

" _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~',i

..................................... .............. .......... . .

GORKY AGONY

',GORY CARNI

GORKY "CARNIVAL"

, ........................................................................

? ______--...

. ... ....F-......................................... ............- ..........- ..J

MONET TERRACE

/a&ri----- '

106 Franklin,Becklen nd Doyle,The Influence of Titles



6/7

It's interesting how the terrace stopsbefore the water, and there's a gate onthe way.The terrace is verywell plannedout, and pruned. It could represent howpeople can have an effect on nature....Here, a narrative line is introduced

("One couple is conversing") and, at thesame time, the scene is elaborated("The sun is shining strongly"). Littleeffort is given to designating forms asobjects, suggesting that the identity ofobjects and persons is taken for granted.In other protocols, designating appearsalong with narrating or elaborating thescene. In dialoguing with title, explicit ref-erence is made to the title and to itsconsonance or dissonance with theimage. In the following excerpt, conso-nance is grounded in expressive proper-ties of shapes and colors.

[Gorky/Agony]If it's called "Agony,"allthe red could mean anger or pain. Youcan see that there would be a lot of painbecause of the sharpness of the objects,the colors ....In the next example, expressive prop-erties again come to the fore. Here,

they conflict with title connotations,generating dissonance that is resolvedby two interpretive moves: construingone area of the painting as an agony-like figure and another as blood-like,suggestive of pain.

[Gorky/Agony] I don't see why it's"Agony"because most of the colors arereally warm, but I could look closelyand ... say that this looks like a womanand here's her head and that's hermouth . . . and her legs and her bodyare all hunched up. If it's agony, thenall this red could be blood . . . some-thing painful, bruises.Dissonance is not always resolved.

The next excerpt illustrated a viewer'sstruggle to reconcile the meaning ofthe title with specific aspects of thescene depicted.

[Monet/ "The Coming Storm"] I don'treally see how it's 'The Coming Storm,"because it's a nice day. Water spreadout ... sunny, a lot of light in the fore-ground. The distant clouds on the hori-zon are not clouds like storm clouds.There are a lot of boats in what seemsto be a harbor. That seems ironic. Ifthere is a storm coming, the boatswould get off the sea .... The waterlooks choppy but it doesn't really looklike a storm is coming. It just lookschoppy because of the wind....Instances of the third orientation,

metaphorizing the title, occurred in onlyone of the four situations-when theMonet painting was presented with thetitle "The Coming Storm." These in-stances deserve consideration because

they show that in the process of bring-ing title and image together, viewerssometimes explored alternative ways ofconstruing title meaning. The firstexcerpt below moves from a literal to ametaphoric reading of the title. In thesecond, a metaphoric reading resolvesinitial dissonance between the title andappearance of the scene.

[Monet/"The Coming Storm"] There'san umbrella. She's waiting for the com-ing storm . . . The storm is obviouslycoming from this direction. Maybethere's no storm at all and it's just astorm between these two people ... anemotional storm....[Monet/"The Coming Storm"] It'spretty.The clouds are kind of dark. Myfirst impression-it's peaceful andserene, very nice. However, in the dis-tance, ships are coming. It might besymbolic of war. Maybe that's why it'scalled "The Coming Storm.". . . Thesepeople are just sitting here when thoseships are coming. War is going to breakout....

As shown in both quantitative andqualitative analyses of our data, titlesentered into viewers' constructions ofmeaning in the majority of cases. But anumber of protocols suggested that notattending to title was a possible orienta-tion. In the two illustrations below, theviewer designates parts, moving fromone to the other without developing animplicit or explicit organization. Thereis no indication that the title played arole in what was said.

[Monet/"The Coming Storm"]Womanin white dress. Sailboat. Flag in breeze.Pretty orange flowers. Sunlight. Onewoman and beside her a chair. A wom-an and a man sitting next to the wom-an. Empty chair next to him. Lots ofships in water. And a French flag.Water is blue....[Gorky/Agony] Yellow and black. Andsomething that looks like a leg with along red foot. A horse's leg. Red, black,and white. A bird here. Beak and eye.Yellow,blue, black,orange.... This is themain thing, whateverit is. Here a purpleblotch and red. Lots of square shapes.Lines track to thiswhite thing....

Viewers varied not only in their ori-entations to the titles, but in how theydescribed the images. We identified sixmodes of description: "simple designa-tion," "interpretive designation," "nam-ing expressive properties," "sequencingrelated parts," "scene elaboration" and"narrativeconstruction."In "simple designation," the viewernamed aspects of the image that have aspecific locus on the two-dimensionalsurface, aspects that everyone wouldagree on. In the Monet painting, this

included identifying people, flowers,flags; in the Gorky painting, designationinvolved mentioning specific color areasor shapes (e.g. "reddishblob"). In "inter-pretive designation," specific identitieswere given to abstract forms (e.g. a por-tion of the image named as "clown" nthe Gorky) or attributeswere assigned toobjects ("a storm cloud" in the Monet).In "naming expressive properties,"view-ers referred to qualities of energy, moodor emotion perceived in inanimate aswell as animate objects or in entirescenes. For example, under the titleTerrace t Ste.Adresse,he Monet paintingwas described as "relaxing,""bright"and"calm"; under the title "The ComingStorm," specific parts of the paintingwere described as "dark,""threatening."In "sequencing related parts,"the viewerdesignated parts and properties of theimage that form a meaningful whole butrelations among parts were not indicat-ed; thus, in one of our examples, thesequenced designation of dancer, drum,musician and head chief built a sense ofcarnival. In "scene elaboration," partswere described in relation to one anoth-er and qualities of the whole might havebeen mentioned. "Narrative construc-tion" refers to the introduction of a sto-ryline, with a more-or-less explicittemporal dimension. Sometimes charac-ters were developed through attributionof mental states, as in the followingexcerpt illustrating both "scene elabora-tion" and "narrative onstruction."

[Monet/"The Coming Storm"] Peopleout on a patio. They don't seem to bevery threatened by the storm. The skyseems rather calm, but the water is ruf-fled. Winds are blowing. There are lotsof boats on the water. The storm is com-ing in. Either heydon't knowabout tor theydon'tworry bout t.We also explored the possibility of arelationship between orientation to thetitle and mode of description. Framingbytitleand dialoguingwith titlewere realized

through all modes of descriptions, oftenused in combination within a single pro-tocol. The few instances of metaphorizingoccurred with "scene elaboration" and"narrative construction." Where notattending to the title prevailed, viewerstended to use "simple designation" or"interpretive designation" of unrelatedparts. Theoretically, a viewer could disre-gard the title and provide an integrateddescription of the image. Interestingly,this did not happen in this study.

Finally, we asked whether the abstractGorky image evoked different kinds ofresponses than the more representation-

Fanklin, Beklen and Doyle, The Infltence of Titles 107



7/7

al Monet image. Three of the four orien-tations to the title occurred in relationto both images under both titles. Thefourth, metaphorizing, ccurred only inresponse to the Monet painting underthe title "The Coming Storm." Twoforms of description, "scene elabora-tion" and "narrative construction,"occurred almost exclusively in relationto the Monet painting. "Interpretivedes-ignation" and "naming expressive prop-erties" were more prevalent in relationto the Gorky painting. For the Gorkypainting, larger meaning structures wereconstructed, primarily through "se-quencing related parts." Thus, for ourviewers, the two paintings, one represen-tational and the other abstract, tendedto evoke different modes of description.On the basis of two exemplars, we can-not say whether this differential use ofdescriptive modes has to do with theabstract/representational dimension orwith these particular paintings.

CONCLUSIONLet us return to the questions that guid-ed our exploratory inquiry into howviewers of artworks respond to titles.First, we found that images are de-scribed differently when presented withdifferent titles. This finding, based onquantitative analysisof our subjects' ver-balizations,provides support for the gen-eral thesis advanced by Fisher andLevinson that titles function as guides tointerpretation, not simply as identifyingtags. If titles serve as guides to "interpre-tation," does this mean that they influ-ence the perceptual structuring of theimage and, if so, in what ways?This ques-tion is implied, but not explicitlyaddressed, in discussions mentioned ear-lier. Our data on pointing patterns indi-cate that change of title does not affectwhere viewers look or, by implication,how they organize the visual array. Inother words, the spatial organization ofthe visual array seems to remain fairlystable across changes of title. Such find-

ings lend support to the view that visualqualities and forces of organizationinherent in the artwork determine howit is perceived, a view most eloquentlyarticulated by Rudolf Arnheim [7]. Inour view, it would be an error to regardspatial organization, reflected in pat-terns of pointing, as somehow morebasic than interpretation (the construedmeaning) expressed through verbaldescription. Rather, these representcomplementary aspects of the viewer'sexperience of the artwork.How should the relation of title toimage be conceptualized? In theoreticaldiscussions of titling, this problem isapproached by identifying kinds of titlesin terms of how they function vis-a-visthe artwork.Bann, Gombrich, Levinsonand Franklin all use versions of this gen-eral strategy. These formulationsassume an active viewer engaged inmaking meaning. However, in these dis-cussions, functions are ascribed to titlesin relation to images without consider-ing possible variations in how differentviewers might construct specifictitle/image relations. Working from theprotocols of our subject's verbalizations,we developed a preliminary categoryscheme for characterizing individuals'orientationso the title and modesof describ-ing the image. We were interested to seethat, among a group of college students,there was considerable variation in howa given title was related to a particularimage. We also discerned some relationsbetween orientations to the title andspecific modes of description.The college students who participat-ed in this study were not entirely naiveviewers. On the other hand, they werenot highly educated in the arts. Noneof them identified the specific paintingsthat we used as "stimuli,"although sev-eral spontaneously referred to theMonet painting as "French impression-ist" and to the Gorky as "modern"and/or "abstract."Their relative naivetemade it possible to use well-knownpaintings without having the fabricated

titles recognized as such. Viewers withmore training in the arts, art criticismor art history would probably producericher narratives, thus providing a basefor more differentiated categoryschemes. It is possible, too, that effectsof titles would be different for moresophisticated viewers.Future research,using more paintings,other titles and different groups of view-ers, should cast additional light on howpeople use titles when they are looking atpaintings. The findings of this kind ofresearch bear on broader theoreticalissues of word/image relations. At thesame time, knowing more about howviewers use titles is important to thoseconcerned with how artworks are dis-played in public spaces.As Paul Gardner[8] recently said, "Curiously, in recentseasons a few galleries have stoppedputting title labels alongside the work....It's a trend that artists as well as viewersdeplore-and, as for the titles, mostartists eel that they're important enoughto be up on the wall."

References1. E.H. Gombrich, "Imageand Word in Twentieth-CenturyArt,"Work ndImage1, No. 3 (1985) p. 213.2. See, for example, C. Bell, Art(London: FrederickStokes, 1920); R. Fry, Vision and Design (London:Chatton &Windus, 1925).3. J. Fisher, "Entitling," CriticalInquiry11 (1984)p. 298.4. J. Levinson, "Titles," Journal of Aesthetics and ArtCriticism4, No. 1 (1985) p. 29.5. S. Bann, "The Mythical Conception is the Name:Titles and Names in Modern and PostmodernPainting,"Word nd Image , No. 2, 176-190 (1985).6. See Levinson [4] pp. 29-40; also M.B. Franklin,"'Museum of the Mind':An Iniquiry nto the Titlingof Artworks," Metaphor and SymbolicActivity 3, No. 3,157-174 (1988).7. See R. Arnheim, Art and Visual Perception, Rev. Ed.(Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of CaliforniaPress, 1974); Toward a Psychology of Art (Berkeley aindLos Angeles: Univ. of California Press, 1966); andVisualThinking Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. ofCaliforniaPress, 1969).8. P. Gardner, "Do Titles Really Matter?"Art News91, No. 2 (1992) p. 92.

108 Franklin, Becklen andDoyle,The Influence of Titles


Documents

The Influence Fo Titles