The Evolution of Naming Art: From Renaissance to Modern Times

The way artists name their works has evolved significantly over the centuries. This evolution reflects not only the changing nature of art itself but also the changing ways in which art is sold, displayed, and perceived.

Renессance to Contemporary Practices

During the Renaissance and Early Modern Periods: In the Renaissance, artists like Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci often took on the name of their hometown as part of their last name. This approach reflected their deep connection to their community and the local patronage system. Artists signed their work with their own names, often as they do today, unless their technique was particularly illegal, such as unauthorized street art.

For older works, titles are more likely to be descriptive of the subject matter. For example, a portrait of a specific person, a still life with various objects, or a landscape with dancing figures. These titles often originated from sales records or estate inventories, rather than the artist's own voice. This practice suggests that even the grandest titles tended to be more common for less talented or less formally trained artists.

Modern Artistic Naming Habits

The 18th Century Shift: By the 18th century, as commercial galleries and a resale market began to emerge, artists started titling their works. Titles became more crucial in financial transactions, as they helped buyers and sellers understand the nature and value of the art piece. Consequently, titles began to play a significant role in the marketing and sale of art.

The 20th Century and Beyond: As modern and abstract art became more prevalent, artists began to challenge the idea of titles. Titles can guide viewers on what to see and even influence their thoughts, which some artists found restrictive. In response, these artists adopted new systems of naming. For example, instead of traditional titles, they might date and number their works. A painting might be titled “Untitled / 1956_10–2,” indicating it was the second piece created in October 1956.

Collaborative Naming Practices

Collaborative Approaches: Some contemporary artists have assigned titles suggested by friends, critics, or even based on references and literature. One notable example is Jackson Pollock’s "Full Fathom Five," a title borrowed from Shakespeare's "The Tempest." The title "Full Fathom Five" came from a passage:

Full fathom five thy father lies
Of his bones are coral made
Those are pearls that were his eyes:
Nothing of him that doth fade
But doth suffer a sea change
Into something rich and strange.

The artist’s choice to use this title reflects his deep engagement with literature and the richness of the Shakespearean language. Similarly, the choice to let titles evolve between friends and critics can lend an added layer of meaning to the artwork, enriching the viewer's experience.

Other Naming Practices: Some contemporary artists create titles or names for bodies of work that carry personal meaning but have no direct relation to the specific piece. This practice allows for a sense of freedom and personal expression, ensuring that each work can stand as unique and independent, regardless of its relation to the broader body of work.

Conclusion

From the grand Renaissance titles inspired by the community to the more modern approaches that embrace abstraction and personal expression, the naming of art has remained a dynamic and evolving practice. Understanding this evolution can provide insight into the wider context of art history and the changing ways in which art is created, displayed, and perceived.

Key Considerations:

Titles can guide viewers but may also limit their interpretation. Modern artists often reject traditional naming practices in favor of numeric or descriptive titles. Collaborative naming can add depth and meaning to an artwork. Titles are crucial in the commercial art market and can influence sales.