In one of Anish Kapoor’s interviews during his solo exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts in London, he articulated his concept of being an artist, stating, “I initiate the process, but then I endeavor to allow it to unfold autonomously. The process reveals all that is necessary for authenticity. In a way, I feel I’m not attempting to convey a specific message but to permit it to occur, a sentiment true of most works in the show. I create art for personal exploration and to pursue an idea. Perhaps when one has much to articulate, there is less room for the viewer. What I’m concerned with is, actually, I’ve got nothing much to say, or as little to say as possible, letting viewers find that space within themselves.”

Kapoor grants viewers autonomy, allowing them to interpret his artworks freely. The only cues provided are titles, occasionally challenging to decipher. For example, his 2007 work, a large block of red wax moving along a nearly twenty-meter path on rails between two rooms of Palazzo Strozzi in Florence, is titled “Shayambhu.” Without expertise in Sanskrit, understanding this term proves challenging. Yet, it holds significance, meaning “self-born,” echoing Christian acheropite images created miraculously without human intervention. Similar to these traditional representations, the artist’s intervention is absent. One word allows Kapoor to evoke a basic understanding of the artwork’s idea and concept, prompting contemplation on why this work, crafted by an artist who selected color, material, and form, is named “Self-born.”

In Kapoor’s interview, he emphasizes avoiding imbuing meaning into his artworks and expresses disbelief in having any specific message to convey. “I can’t defend it (the artwork) endlessly,” he stated.

Martin Puryear consistently produces objects that appear as though they should have a name but defy easy categorization. They possess a familiarity that eludes precise identification, encouraging viewers to grapple with their own interpretations. In “Night Watch 2011,” the mass of tall grasses, delicately bowed by the wind and embedded in a tabletop, creates an eerie tableau suggesting more than meets the eye. The title, “Night Watch,” adds an enigmatic layer, sparking curiosity about the artist’s intentions.

This intentional ambiguity in naming and the refusal to impose meaning on the viewer align with Puryear’s desire for his art to speak for itself. He emphasizes the importance of allowing the audience the freedom to interpret and connect with the work on a personal level. In a world where artists often feel compelled to convey explicit messages through their creations, Puryear stands firm in his belief that the silent eloquence of the art itself is more potent than any verbal explanation he could provide.

In the realm of contemporary art, both Anish Kapoor and Martin Puryear challenge conventional notions of artist-audience interaction. By relinquishing the need to articulate a specific message, they empower viewers to explore the vast and subjective landscapes of their own interpretations. Whether it’s Kapoor’s monumental wax block or Puryear’s mysterious grassy installation, these artists cultivate a space where the imagination can thrive, leaving room for viewers to engage deeply with the art on a personal and introspective level.

Christopher Wool, a contemporary artist known for adopting a straightforward and simple titling approach, chooses a different path. Wool gained recognition for his text-based paintings characterized by large, stenciled letters and words. Unlike artists who employ poetic or enigmatic titles, Wool often names his works after their visual components or focuses on the raw materials and used techniques.

For instance, his artwork “Untitled” from 1990 exemplifies this approach. By opting for a generic and non-descriptive title, Wool allows the visual impact of the painting to take center stage without providing a predetermined narrative. This minimalist titling strategy reflects his commitment to letting the audience form their own interpretations based on the visual language of the artwork itself.

Another artist who embraces simplicity in titling is Donald Judd, a key figure in the Minimalist art movement. Judd’s sculptures often feature clean lines, geometric forms, and industrial materials. He typically names his works after their formal characteristics, such as “Untitled (Stack)” or “Untitled (Progression).” Judd’s titles serve as pragmatic identifiers, emphasizing the intrinsic qualities of the work rather than offering poetic or metaphorical suggestions.

This direct and unadorned titling approach aligns with a broader trend in contemporary art, where some artists prioritize transparency and clarity in the presentation of their works. By using simple titles, these artists guide viewers toward a more immediate engagement with the visual elements of the artwork, encouraging a focus on form, composition, and materiality without the distraction of elaborate verbal constructs.

The debate over whether poetic titles or simple, “untitled” names hold more artistic merit is a longstanding conversation in the world of contemporary art. Each approach brings its own set of advantages and considerations to the table, contributing to the diverse tapestry of artistic expression.

On one hand, the simplicity of “untitled” titles carries a certain purity. By avoiding specific names, these artists allow their works to speak for themselves, emphasizing the direct connection between the viewer and the visual elements of the piece. This minimalist titling strategy provides an open-ended interpretation, inviting viewers to approach the artwork without preconceived notions and fostering a more immediate engagement with its formal qualities.

On the other hand, the allure of poetic titles lies in their ability to add layers of meaning and evoke emotions. Poetic titles infuse a sense of narrative, concept, or atmosphere, guiding viewers into a more nuanced and contemplative exploration of the artwork. These titles act as poetic entry points, encouraging a deeper connection between the viewer and the conceptual dimensions embedded within the piece.

In embracing poetical titles, artists bestow their creations with a certain ambiguity that sparks curiosity and invites diverse interpretations. This ambiguity, far from being a hindrance, becomes a source of artistic strength, encouraging a dynamic dialogue between the artist’s intent and the viewer’s personal experiences. Poetical titles create a space for individual reflections, allowing each observer to connect with the artwork on a deeply personal level.

Furthermore, these titles serve as catalysts for a broader cultural and intellectual engagement. They contribute to the ongoing discourse surrounding the artwork, inviting critics and scholars to explore and dissect the various layers of meaning woven into the fabric of the piece. Poetical titles, with their inherent richness, become integral components in shaping the narrative and legacy of the artwork within the larger context of the art world.

Ultimately, whether an artist chooses the path of simplicity or the allure of poetry depends on their intent and desired interaction with the audience. It is within this dynamic interplay that the richness and vitality of contemporary art continue to unfold, encouraging audiences to explore, reflect, and engage with the profound depths of artistic expression.