Thursday, February 26, 2009

Would Art be as Much Fun if they Didn't Name their Works?

Case in point- "Chef to Go". Or even "Bottoms Up". (both available at

In a way the caption (or title) for a piece of art serves as a reference point for the beholder. A clue to the insides of the artist's head. It gives you a hint of the artist's view, and you're free to interpret that work the way you want. But sometimes, you wouldn't understand the work without the caption. Does that make art "smaller" or less effective in any way?

I don't think so. I think its just testimony to the very nature of art... how it can be subtle enough or symbolic enough to escape being understood. Just because its not that easy to understand what Murakami is trying to convey doesn't mean writing as a tool of communication is ineffective. Its the way that you chose to employ the tool that decides its effectiveness.

Its easier getting away with obscurity where art is concerned though.


Kartik said...

I think it is an interesting debate. Just how clear or obscure should an artist be? More clarity can mean access to more people. But maybe the work is deeper and richer if it follows its own rules even though it is not easily deciphered. Reading your blog confirms what I told you in Hyderabad. Remember?

Aqseer said...

oh hello! this is a pleasant surprise! u told me a lot of stuff, what in particular?