by Chris Giacca
What’s the point of naming something when it has no point?
By naming something, we designate it a purpose, however arbitrary that purpose may be.
So what then, if the object has no purpose?
What happens when the purpose is purely to call into question the purpose, in situ of an actual purpose?
If, by remaining untitled, you are still designating a title habitually, is it possible to truly abstain from giving something a title?
You can leave the title blank, but when you recommend the piece to a friend, you will bequeath it one yourself.
You will probably title it Untitled, in lieu of any more appropriate titles.
Untitled is an ironically frequent title given to art.
It is often given when a name escapes the artist.
It is often given when the purpose outstrips the designs the artist had for the piece.
Imagine if we could leave a person untitled, without purpose, or imprint?
Would that person stay untitled by nature, or would they graft their own name in their own blank canvas image?
If you grew up without a name, would that, in essence, mean that your life becomes a kind of performance art, for you to change concepts on a whim?
If you had no true name, could you not design one for yourself?
Or change it?