What's In A Name?

Something very interesting happened to me today. For the first time ever, I came up with the title of an image first and worked backwards.

More often than not, it is quite the challenge to name a piece once it is finished. Sometimes it's almost as much fun as creating the image itself. However on this particular day, I was working on something when this name "Blue Thumbs Up" struck me and wouldn't let go. It certainly wasn't going to work with whatever I had been working on so I stopped and wrote the name down. I resumed working on the current image but I had completely lost interest so I thought, let's try and give this name an image.

In no time I came to the final product you see here. This kind of thing has never happened to me. It was quite an experience and I look forward to similar experiences in the future.

While I'm on the subject of titles, I feel the need to share some thoughts I have on something I read at a Jackson Pollock exhibit. I usually never read the blurbs written throughout any art exhibit but this one in particular really intrigued me and I still think about it. It said that there was a point in his career where Pollock stopped naming his pieces and just giving them a number because he didn't want to put any predisposed impression into the viewers mind before they saw the piece.

I think this idea is great when it comes to abstract art. This is an art form that is so experimental that the name really affects how a person will react to it. By using the number concept, Pollock gave the audience no choice but to garner their own interpretation and feelings about it. In a way, they have no choice but to participate in the process.

However, I'm too much of a title nerd to do such a thing. I love conjuring up names. It's just too much fun!