Some years ago when I started going to art galleries, I always shook my head when I saw works named “untitled”. To me, this was simply a demonstration that the author just had no real concept in mind and wanted to get away with it by leaving no indication for interpretation – I drastically changed my mind years later.
In most cases, titles are the only verbal way the artist communicates with its audience outside of the picture/painting/sculpture etc. Titles can have a huge impact on the viewer’s perception and interpretation of the work. It can both guide the audience as well as completely confuse it. Thus it is any author’s right to leave his work untitled and allow a broader horizon of perception. Damian Hirst is a good example for a modern artist whose amazing products are a lot about the title he gives them.
Without further commenting on the image above, the title represents exactly what I thought when I rediscovered this picture in my archive tonight. Goes to show how patterns in nature repeat and how our mind can tend to abstract and associate. Do I even need to add that artworks don’t always have to have an interpretation?