For the viewer, an artwork title is generally the entry key to the meaning of the painting. If it’s an older work this can be deceiving as painting titles often change through the decades. So we ask ourselves is the painting name as given by the artist an absolute? Do succeeding generations overlay their political perspectives and morals on artworks; history suggests that they do.

The artist’s given name for a painting can be chosen just for an exhibition catalogue, or a deeply felt description of his/her intent. It can also be a post justification of the work, ie. the image came first and the title/narrative followed the result. Others may have no regard to a title/narrative because the subject makes a title self evident. Some contemporary artists and curators can overlay artworks with pretentiously long titles and a social-political dubious narrative to justify the importance of the idea. It can be often at the expense of the actual quality of the work, or to explain the visually unexplainable.

So, is the title tied to the narrative, assuming the subject evokes a narrative, or does the artistic image even need an explanation? Can we appreciate it as purely an image which does not invite narrative or title? In abstract visual terms we do this unquestionably, making a judgment on simple stimulus, or academically on form, juxtaposition and colour.

If the artist’s title/narrative intentions do not correlate with the viewers perception, who is at fault? With a reasonably contemporary painting, is it rational to think there could be a dichotomy? Our perceptions are very personal and can consciously or unconsciously override an artist’s intentions.