Deviation Actions

Ranarh's avatar

Tiny Tips: A work's baptism

Tumblr | Facebook | Etsy | Artstation | Instagram

This collection of thoughts is about something less technical. Online communities' "Title" fields do make "Untitled no. 53" less desirable, but I'm sure some artworks would benefit from more thought to the title.
There was also a good article about titles on muddycolours by Justin Gerard.

Tiny tips: Snuffles by Ranarh Tiny tips: Keep an eye out by Ranarh Tiny tips: Falling rivers by Ranarh
more Tiny Tips

"Ranarh's tiny tips" is a collection of iddy-biddy tutorials, each containing small bites of advice anyone can chew, aimed at beginner's level artists. They are not software-dependent. If there's a problem you have, something you feel someone should finally explain, or are just curious what I have to say on a particular artistic matter, feel free to tell me.
Image details
Image size
800x3350px 470.19 KB
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
DraakeT's avatar
Concepts for me are the 90% of the work all rest is tec.
Personally im more interested into concepts because each artist has own personal experience.

haha "cat witch".....I agree with you about the titles. I think always that the way to give titles is an art that require a great creativity.

If you think that sometimes i read "Girl walking" then you revaluate the title "Cat witch"..:laughing:...but always in my opinion and vision i think there are determined works where simple titles are powerful....... i think this happens only and exclusive if the work is a great real masterpiece! for example like "Girl with a Pearl Earring"…
Ranarh's avatar
Of course it does depend on what the piece actually is, because sometimes Sketch#315 is enough; if it's just a sketch, there's no reason to exert oneself with a fancy title. There's also the matter of the difference between painting, illustration, and concept art. A painting will always gain from a good title, I think, illustrations are often obvious, and concepts in an industrial environment have dry, internal titles like Warrior_Ortho_Greyscale_Date_Artist because that's what they need.
And yes, the concept, that is, the idea, is always the greatest part of the work.
Thank you!
TehAngelsCry's avatar
Hi here! :wave:

Your tutorial has been featured in my weekly article: Tutorial Tuesday #5!

I'd love if you could check it out and offer support to your fellow tutorial writers through comments :la:

And if you really like the feature, why not consider watching me to keep yourself updated!
Ranarh's avatar
Awesome! Thanks! :)
ArcherKasai's avatar
this is a wonderful tip set on something people rarely think about! well done :3
Ranarh's avatar
That's what I thought. Thank you! :)
ArcherKasai's avatar
You're very welcome!
annsquare's avatar
Very helpful tip! Thank you :)
Ranarh's avatar
La-Nee's avatar
I like your tiny tips ^^ There's plenty of information on one topic, but yet you're choosing a very specialized topic, even beginners can handle it. ^^
Ranarh's avatar
Thank you very much. That is exactly what I'm trying to achieve.
Myrth1's avatar
While I really apriciate your works, those tips seems like instruction how to became better attention whore. Definitely nothing good :smoking: Title is just a title. Naming your abstract work in fashion of "Naked man steals can of pâté in Gorzów" is nothing more than asking for more attention it should really get. And doesn't make the work in question any way better. The old masters somehow were able to created masterpieces, giving thm extremely bland titles. Titles people usually don't even know, but they know the painting.
Ranarh's avatar
It's not about attention. It's about making a piece of art a "round thing".
What would you call a painting of two lonely people in a café if you mean to address "isolation in a crowd"?
You are right in that the old masters often had rather boring titles - art at the time was appreciated differently. With modern art's rise in the nineteenth century, new styles and movements, art acquired the right to be more than depictions of mythological/religious subjects and became open to new ideas.
(That black square thing was a joke, btw. But some abstract painters go through many iterations of simplification, ending up with simple motifs for complex topics, and can therefore have complex titles for them.)
Again, it's not about attention for yourself, but from yourself. Maybe "Dog at beach" is just not what your painting/photo/whatever is about, but about your dog Sandy having fun, so "Sandy's best day ever" *is* what the piece is all about.
Also, I didn't say that names or simple titles aren't okay as well. But I would encourage every artist to think if a better title can be found. It's a chance to be a poet or writer for a moment, and I can't find anything wrong with that.
Thanks for mentioning though, I didn't think it could be read this way. The article of Justin Gerard I mentioned does address "fear of too simple titles", btw.
Myrth1's avatar
And by modern I mean modernism between 1900 till 60's. I don't really know proper terminology for this period in English and listing styles is rather pointless ^^;
Ranarh's avatar
Oh no, I didn't take it as aggression - I'm happy people think about what I write. And I fully understand you've had it with modern art after having read so much art history.
What I wanted to address with the tutorial are titles like "speedpainting", "sketch", or "duh". A little better than that, please ;)
Whether or not the viewer should interpret the artwork freely is a matter of opinion. As an illustrator, I want people to understand what I depict. A title can change how it is looked at, and in particular "soft" subjects, like social discrepancies, for example, could be mistaken, which would be a loss.
I find it often easier to paint when I already know the title, to come up with narrative elements.
Myrth1's avatar
And I was pointing toward all those "don't tell in your title what viewers already see". From one point, it's good, because it's preventing people from breaking "show, don't tell" rule. From the other, it often ends with pretentious titles whom (which?) barely fit work in question. Being somewhat cynical, I hardly remember when people didn't named their work in pretentious way when given a chance ^^;
Myrth1's avatar
As far as I understand - with huge quotation marks around "understand" - modern art, the title either means nothing or is intentionally provocative. And as far as art goes, you can remove the tag with the name of your work and it could be interpreted differently by every single viewer. This is also what's basically art is since expressionism. To show something and let people guess what's going on.
And just to clear one thing, because I'm not sure how you take my comment. I didn't mean anything hostile or aggressive, I'm just saying how those title tips looks from different perspective ^^; After spending definitely too much time over my friend's notes for her incoming final exam (she's finishing her degree in history of art), I've became somewhat agitated against modern and post-modern art and the way how it use title to mess with it's recipients. You know, the good old "show, don't tell" rule.
Ranarh's avatar
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In