A title is a top-level description of a piece of art, interacting with our conception of the work at three different intervals.

The first interval is pre-art; the title is an initial indicator of what the art will be.

The last interval is post-art; after finishing the whole kit and caboodle, we can consider the relationship between the title and the art’s contents.

But I find the middle interval to be particularly intriguing; in the midst of engaging with the art, do you ever brainstorm all the reasons a title may have been chosen as the top-level description, all the ways the title can be applied to minute and macro aspects of the art and the resonances therein, which elements the title might refer to, what it might reveal about the art, and/or meaning/dimensions added to it? 

And if why a title was chosen is less obvious, it can spur us to contemplate all the possible answers, given the lack of a clear interpretation.

Take the new French movie Madeleine Collins, for example. The ending ultimately reveals the significance of the title . . . but WHILE watching, it’s somewhat of a conundrum; why name the entire movie after a tertiary character whose role seems minor??

But this question charges every moment in which the character or her name appears. Without the title, we wouldn’t give these sequences a second thought. But every time she pops up, our analytical faculties should perk up, opening up interpretations provoked only by the askew title.