While perusing the 500 Bowls books, I discovered a new mind game. Cover the titles and think of one for yourself. Uncover and consider if your impression of the piece's meaning etc. agrees with the maker's concept or message. I flunked, which triggered another unrequested musing.
Most art forms are titled or at least have a descriptive name. Not many movies, paintings, poems (except maybe limericks 'G'), novels, music scores, and on and on are nameless. Do we really care that she was 'Whistler's Mother' or see that she was grey? Why should some bowles (sic,'G') have a descriptive name or a title? Is there an aristocracy of bowles?... what happened to democracy? Is it all to do with the maker's fancy or are there some specific reasons to title some bowles while others are left naked and untitled? How about numbers, series and maker's marks and chops?
[ As an aside, I'm beginning to wonder if some bowles whose picture is published again & again, over & over to near nausea, should be notched for easy recognition of an old, but sometimes tiresome, friend. Maybe they are clones? More likely it's playing the name recognition game. 'G' ]I heard that only art can communicate without using language. If true, why a written title? Some of you art, psychology, communication or marketing aristocrats pleae tell the bourgeoise when when we should name that bowle. ;) Arch
Fortiter,