A while back I remember a Game Grumps clip where they looked at a gallery of art by Ringo Starr - all drawn in MS paint. At the time they were made, the idea of drawing on the computer was worth enough on it's own to justify giving it a shot.
A lot of the pieces had very plain, descriptive names - stuff along the lines of Hat Man. And there was a brief excerpt highlighting this, mentioning how "The easy way to look at it is, if it has a hat on, it will probably be called 'Hat Man'... Most of the titles for my pieces arrive because, on computer [sic] you have to call them something. So I have."
Ringo Starr's 'Hat Man'
The Game Grumps, at the time, thought this was funny, but the idea stuck with me. Anyone who's done much work on computers has probably come across files named things like Untitled (2).docx or Final Draft (copy) - 2.psd. These are names, but they're not really titles, right? They're purely descriptive, only there because the system demands something to use as an identifier.
When I draw, or write, I tend to go for this kind of descriptive naming just for simplicity's sake. For instance - the file I'm writing this post on is just called Naming Things.md. Usually when I share my work, I just copy paste an image or a block of text, and the name is only there as an afterthought. Someone might mention they find it funny the picture is called stupid_fucking_robot.png or something, but that part of the file isn't meant as part of the art itself.
And yet, with this website, I figured it made sense to present my drawings and writing with titles. And it's been more of a struggle than I expected. Because a 'title' demands more formality than just a 'name'. Some of my drawings, I just titled them descriptively to avoid putting much thought into it - 'Moby in a jacket' is exactly what it sounds like. Other times, when the piece is too complicated or abstract to convey it in a concise description, I'd pick something a little more flowery, like 'Party Corpse' or 'The Grandfather Gambit'. I never considered that the title of the pic, though. As far as my computer is concerned, those files are skull.png and chess.png. (The url is yet another name).
Writing demands a title, too - at least with illustration, you can present it with no context and still get what it's trying to convey. A picture is worth a thousand words, and all. But reading takes time, demands investment from its audience. They say not to judge a book by it's cover, but you can't expect someone to read a few thousand words to get the gist of a story.
And yet, by giving it a title, you're changing the work. You're adding more context that might have otherwise been missing. If I showed you a painting of an ornate urn, the titles 'Still life #4' and 'Grandpa' give the picture wildly different tones, even though the main content hasn't changed.
Social media platforms highlight this even more. Artists posting to twitter rarely have a title, though sometimes there's a bit of descriptive text to add to the scene. Art on social media is generally a bit more disposable, something you appreciate for a moment as you scroll through your feed. And usually, you don't ask for a strangers name.
Traditional art isn't immune to this either, though - I've seen sketches and studies that were later collected for galleries, with no title given. But those are practice works - the value is gained from the process of making them, not the end product. Those are meant to be disposable, in a way.
So, what does that say about the work I do, that I almost never stop to think of a title for anything. Not even 'I decided this piece works better without a title', just never stopping to think about it in the first place. I'm not just making these for myself - art exists to be shared, but maybe I'm underestimating its shelf life. Maybe, I should start treating my work as something with more permanence and presence, not just 'content' to funnel through the works. It can't hurt, right?