You might well find this surprising, but one of the most difficult challenges I face as an artist is the choice of titles for my work. Perhaps you find this hard to grasp, but it is true. In my case this requires special care because my wife has definite ideas about it, particularly where a series of images is involved. Her special displeasure is triggered where an artist gives the same title to a series of works, distinguished only by additional numbers. The chief sinner in this respect is probably Richard Diebenkorn, with his series entitled Ocean Park, which I think ran into several hundred items.
The problem arises specifically for me at the moment as I am working up the material I gathered during my recent visit to Bradgate Park, in Leicestershire. I am steaming along, and enjoying myself immensely. Five canvases have been completed, and I have ideas for two more. As I photographed the finished ones this morning, for inclusion in my log of work, it struck me that I had no idea what I was going to call them. I absolutely dare not call them Bradgate Park I, Bradgate Park II, etc. Heaven only knows what that would do to our marriage!
During the afternoon I have been turning over in my mind all of those things which characteristically run in groups of seven, running from “types of ambiguity” (which I rather like) through “deadly sins” down to “dwarves” …. this last being singularly inappropriate for a set of gigantic oak trees. Can anybody remember what the Samurai were called?
Hi John, I’ve got a dictionary of quotations, so I looked up “oak”. There are quite a few you might be able to use, including from Cymbeline: “To theee the reed is as the oak”
Thanks, Lynrose. I’ll bear that in mind. JIt’s an interesting idea.