Why this introduction? Naming a work of art has the same risk: it may reduce the mystery and beauty, may form a disincentive to an open attitude. The spectator should get all freedom to perceive and to relate with the work of art. And then, to interpret, to communicate, to position him/herself, to valuate and to form an opinion.
Besides, I found out that some of my paintings led to a variety of interpretations, explanations and opinions, all of them with equal validity. The name I gave to the painting only corresponded with one interpretation, and in that way tended to exclude other interpretations. Which shows the importance of the role of the spectator: he/she is part of the artistic process. The artist should decide if he wants to influence that (by choosing a name/title for the work of art) or not. The philosopher Austin spoke about ‘performative’ language: words/names are not just a reflection of the reality, they do influence that reality in an active manner. They steer our perception, recreate, frame or reframe it. A name is linked to images and associations.
So, I am inclined to the latter position: leave all freedom to the spectator. As an artist, I should limit myself to neutral titles, or no title at all, in that manner refraining from steering the spectator.
The valuation, the mechanisms and processes of judging art, is of course a another crucial theme, worked out among others by Kant. That is an item for another blog.