Found out the name yesterday of the exhibition we are putting on in May. Is it just me that thinks that "dNA" is just a bit...hmm. For a start, I don't think a lot of people's work relates to the title, I have a feeling people will go in with the idea of DNA in their heads and be a bit bemused when work has nothing to do with science or medicine, and will they then try to find a connection to these topics even if the work obviously has nothing to do with those things? Also, "Dynamic New Artists" is ripping off yBA quite a lot, although their abbreviation worked better because it wasn't already a word. I just have the feeling we can come up with a much better name that can relate to everyones work without giving a false impression or trying too hard.
It got me thinking about how important it is to name a show correctly, something I hadn't really thought about before. But in a way, it is the name of a show which grabs your attention on the posters or the email, and it gives a summary of what to expect in a couple of words. In the recent PSL show, 195 Miles, the title was used because it was a factual reference - it was the distance between London and Leeds, between The Whitechapel Gallery and PSL, the actual distance between the two sets of artists who would be collaborating on one project. It could also be a metaphor for the differences between the two artists in each collaboration, which hopefully would come together within the work shown. It's interesting that the artists chose to change the title of the show (I think the fact it was an ongoing project meant they were able to) to "We All Have Our Limits", which sort of stood for what they had learnt throughout the collaborative process. Both these titles do little to explain what is expected in the work in the gallery, but are intruiging enough to make you want to go and see the show. I have a feeling the slightly arrogant "Dynamic New Artists" is going to put a lot of people off.
Also have been meaning to go and see the show at the Leeds Met Gallery, but I thought I could talk about the title and what I would expect just from this. "Perhaps Something, Perhaps Nothing" strikes me as an investigation-type of work, a question the artist asked themselves, or it could relate to how the work turned out. It is the sort of title that would sit very well with work like Richard Wentworth's or Martin Parr's, about ordinary things but an artistic eye delving into them. This title is intruiging, setting a relatively relaxed tone to the work inside. I will try and go as soon as possible and write again about what I actually found.
ps. Feel free to suggest any other names for the exhibition, I will start to have a think!
I think you are right about the name of your show, dNA is pretty uninspiring and perhaps a little arrogant. I prefer a more human title, I thought 'We all have our limits' was great. Failing that, something surreal is good, there is an artists group called 'We have beaks' which I like or I was in a show called 'the Voice and Nothing More' which is a quote but described the content of the show perfectly, it did what it said on the tin. I think that artists are sometimes afraid to appear flippant by choosing an interesting name for a show, that they may not be taken seriously, but the truth is that it does raise people's interest sufficiently so they will look at the poster at least. I went to an extremely serious talk recently with the eminent Cambridge professor and psychoanalyst Juliet Mitchell, who was presenting work about Electra, the female Oedipus if you like, entitled 'Have you ever wanted to kill your mother'
ReplyDelete