Arch ponders :"Why should some bowles (sic,'G') have a descriptive name or a
title?

Perhaps for indexing purposes at the back of the book.

-Kevin

"Arch" wrote in message
...
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,


http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings