In recent months I have again played a roll on an "arts" board.  after years of interest in this type of
group I have had numerous opportunities to observe my fellow persons and their appreciation of "the
arts".

  Prior to this occasion,  I had always felt a lack in observing an arts object title "Composition #7; study
Two: ------".  I now know how important the selection of a title can be.

  We (the board) were given the task of selection a "gift print" to be sold to our membership and "make"
money.  As usually happens the "Exc. Comm." had already narrowed the choices from 9 to 3.  (There's a
whole 'nother' story about "Exc. comm's")  As this procedure has gone on for years the roll of the "exc.
Comm." will not be questioned at this time.

  To complicate matters the media was photography.  The selections were from an internationally
renowned and recognized photographer.  Even renowned and recognized artists have a choice in
naming their product or using #1, #2, #3 ---

  In this presentation all selections were slides of "aerial photographs".  #1 was a very abstract slide -
wonderful shapes, colors and composition.  Then came the title, "Gravel Pit".  "But I can't see a gravel
pit".  "Oh yes, the little roads are what break up the space and that wonderful rich ocher color must be
the outlying clay".  "Is photography a legitimate art form or what?"  Why is it always overwhelmingly
important to recognize the subject if the media is photography or is it the title that gives it recognition"

  #2 brings us "Farm Between Kearney and Salina", wonderful large green shapes with a light quality
impossible to achieve by any lesser skilled photographer.  "That looks more like a golf course, are you
sure you have the title right?"  Why was it so important to establish realism?  Was it because it was a
photograph or did the title make it so.

  #3 (The Winner)  "Winter Halter", a superb composition of plowed contours dusted with an early winter
snow.  At least this time no mention of the title was made.  Turns out the subject can only be read as a
pair of wonderfully large womans breasts outlined by the contours in the field accentuated by the white
snow.  

  What an interested twist from abstract #1, to realism #2, to abstract-realism #3.  Is it the purpose of a
photograph to be abstract or does the title make the difference, if it's a photograph?

  "Now we shall vote if you all have looked enough at the selections?  If so could we please have the
lights?"

  "All in favor of #1, please raise your hands."  "Is that the one that doesn't look like a gravel pit, but an
abstract painting?"  "That's the first one we saw".

  "All in favor of #2, please raise your hands."  "That's the golf course, I still think it should be titled 'Golf
Course'".

  "And finally #3 'Winter Halter', looks like a majority."  Certainly my choice.  Any of the three would have
been an acceptable choice.  

  Should I have to do over again I would like to try first without titles than maybe with titles.  Maybe
because it's a photograph it needs a realistic title.  Of course one could photograph a portion of an
abstract painting and call it "Gravel Pit" or would a better title be "Portion of An Abstract Painting, #4".

  Where does "Winter Halter" come in?  Where will I hang it?  Should I matte out the title or just erase it?  
Maybe next year the Exc. Comm. needs to go all the way to a single, untitled choice.