What's in a Name?

(I only found this today in the Drafts (26/7/14). I thought I published this back during the Choose Yourself Exhibition. Oops. Decided to put it up now anyway. You'll have to do the TimeWarp)

Two more of my works sold. Maelstrom and Zephyr. Funnily enough, that's the three I named that are gone. All the others are Tangles 1 through 12. Naming my artworks is not something I like to do.

Maelstrom, Megan Hitchens, 2014, ink and graphite on heavy cotton paper

Giving paintings names is a relatively new phenomenon. Originally they didn't have names. They got known as things, but they didn't have names. A lot of the art that we know as "such and such" wasn't named by the artist, or the owner. The names we now know so well were acquired over time.

There were different ways a painting could gain a name - the subject matter was a favourite. For instance, "Judith Slaying Holofernes", "The Martyrdom of Saint Sebastian", "The Oath of the Horatii". These have come to be seen as names whereas really they are descriptions.

Another method was through ownership, or the place it was kept.

More recently they have gained names through identification of particular figures or elements within the painting. My two favourites of these are Whistler's Arrangement in Grey and Black No.1 and Pollock's Number 11, 1952. I can gaurantee you know each of these famous paintings by a particular name.

Despite what Doctor Who said, Leonardo would not have referred to his famous painting as "Mona Lisa". So next time you see a painting you like, think about how it acquired its name and why. Me? I had to come up with three titles so I chose three words I liked. There was nothing more to it.