Why these titles ?

When creating my collages, a number of questions spontaneously arose. Above all, the matter of the relation between a work and its title. Starting with the following question: does a work have to have a title?

The answers are as various as the sensitivities. They range from the work is self-sufficient, to every creation must have a name; without a name it does not exist, to the title must accompany a work rather than define it.

A title may not be essential for a creation. On the other hand, it does facilitate the identification of several works by the same artist.
In this sense, a number, letter, symbol or even a date and being untitled are also titles. Without them, it would be difficult to refer to a creation by an artist, or those by different artists, at an exhibition.
Historically, titles only appeared in the nineteenth century [1], with exhibitions precisely necessitating a category of the works to be made, in order to identify them.

How do you give a title to an abstract work?

A figurative creation often calls for a title that is directly related to the subject.
The field of possibilities widens considerably for an abstract work. But is it a case of anything goes? In absolute terms perhaps. In reality, probably less so because the influences of each era induce certain leanings when choosing a title.

Personal life, circle of knowledge, schools and artistic environment, news and media all combine to influence your choice. Even the random assignment of a title – with or without a title generator on the Internet – is a reflection of an era, ours.
In contemporary art, the choice of a title would therefore be dependent on influences related to the socio-artistic-historical context more often than we think.

Is it the same for an artistic creation?

Often resulting from an artistic movement or based on new technology (video, inclusion, holography, inflatable sculpture, digital art, etc.), a work is “dated” by many factors. It cannot escape its time.
N.B. a creation called “timeless” is only so because it still meets some aesthetic criteria, invoice, sensitivity and subject of today. Although classified as “timeless”, it remains marked by the period of its creation (style, technique, support, etc.)

Thus work and title are mostly dependent on the influences and currents of their time.

My collages do not escape this observation.

Influenced, among others, by the New Realists, my works – although having their own originality – are a reflection of our time. My titles are too.

Many social, political and ideological movements in “ism” have lost their relevance in recent decades. Others have grown: anti-globalisation, social movements (related or not to the Internet), ecology, etc. I call my collages according to these recent alternative movements or, more rarely, according to precursory alternative people or currents.
My choice of titles, however, remains subjective regarding their attribution to such and such a work.

By clicking on the titles of the collages, an explanation or non-exhaustive definition appears in a pop-up window.

These are usually excerpts. The reader is invited to deepen his knowledge according to his sensibilities. These notes primarily come from Wikipedia. A deliberate choice because Wikipedia is an excellent example of an alternative project. A sharing of collaborative knowledge that was at the heart of utopia. Its success demonstrates that it is not futile to pursue and support movements and projects that may seem idealistic.

[1] Marianne Jakobi, Pierre-Marc de Biasi, Ségolène Le Men – “The making of the title” – CNRS editions – 2012