Titles are the mainstay in stone art

of mine was asked to change the title of his sculpture because the buyer argued that the title wouldn’t sell in Europe.
The title, “The Polygamist”, was the bone of contention. The argument of the gallery owner was that polygamy is a culture that is not truly embraced among Europeans and hence so difficult to sell.
This is quite an understandable view because without doubt sculptures are meant to be sold, but what about the view of the artist, is it as important as everything else?

Art is supposed to be a depiction of the society and cultures and when titles like polygamist are suppressed then reality will never be revealed.
In fact, it is a misrepresentation of the facts. Depicting reality is not condoning it. Titles are never a representation of the values of an artist.

To force an artist to change the title of his work is just but the greed of an individual. Titles are indeed the mainstay in art.
If art is to thrill then titles should be the vital centre. This privilege of the artist must be respected at all times in order to keep that connection between the artist and his work.
Sometimes we feel maybe the title is too simple and that the artist should find a strong title, alas, are we forgetting that someone last year paid US$104 million in order to acquire a sculpture simply titled “Walking Man”.

Some very prominent artworks across the world are well known for their titles and interestingly some titles are even more prominent than the artwork itself.
Some very good examples are “Monalisa”, “Madonna” “Whistlers Mother” and many more. The reality, however, is that the European world of arts respects titles and the view of the artist more than anything else.

Some very prominent artworks across the world are sold for millions of dollars but without any title simply because the artist died before naming it or the title is just simply not known. Real art collectors are content and comfortable to pay millions of dollars for something that is not titled rather than having something that is titled.
In reality having no title carries some real value on its own. Simply put, they appreciate the fact that no one should title such works since no one really knew the view of the artist.

This still stands even when the artefact has some clearly distinguishing marks and characteristics that can automatically make it a mother and child or a pregnant woman.
Titles are really important and sometimes the long time study of works and titles of an individual artist can even reveal their personality.
At times when this is done on a people it can reveal their culture and beliefs. So when titles are changed willy-nilly by buyers and collectors then the anthropological space and history are greatly affected and misdirected.

However, at the end of the day it is up to the collector whether he or she will respect and find meaning to the view of the artist because slacken laws do not enforce that.
When titles are explained by the artist they tend to reveal more and there are numerous occasions where art collectors were compelled to buy a sculpture simply because of its title.
In Zimbabwe we have enjoyed some very interesting titles. It’s quite interesting to take a look at some of them now.

Back to 1988, Tapfuma Gutsa came up with the title “Listening to the Baby Kick”. Most interestingly was the emotion that was bestowed on the face of the mother. One tends to wonder how he managed to put those real facial features of a pregnant woman on stone.
Just like in “Walking Man” you will need the privilege of eyesight to appreciate the title attached to the art.

Another most interesting revelation came up in the 1990s and this time around it was the Wonder Boy with his piece titled Swing me Mama.
Again this was more about communication and love between a mother and a child. Conference was also a good one by Fanizani in the 80s. It was one solid sculpture with a lot of faces different from each other resembling different reactions and ideas.

I still remember that he had to make quite a few of them because his art collectors demanded more. The combination of the art and the title had actually killed them.
The list is quite big and very interesting. We can talk about “The corrupting power of money” by the late Nicholas Mukomberanwa in 1985, which reminds me of Arms control in the 80s by Damian Manhuwa.

A personal favourite of mine is “Angola Girl” by Makina Kameya done in 1985.
I always wonder what this young Angola girl had done to the late Makina by then and that thought just that thought cannot help me but to smile and laugh.
“Memories of Frank” by the late Joram Mariga in 1997 was also a good one because Frank McEwen was very influential in showcasing Shona stone art at the then National Gallery of Rhodesia.

This one in particular showed no resemblance of Frank McEwen in any way but just the thought of it really forces your eye of the mind to see Frank.
“The First Man on the Moon” by Henry Munyaradzi was also intriguing because it was done in the 80s when these issues were just hearsay here in Africa but alas our artists knew all about it. So why force an artist to change the title of his work?

Some titles have become trademarks for certain artists. In other words, they own the title and if given, they can fight for those rights in a court of law just like what any manufacturing company will do if you plagiarise their trademarks, logos or products.

Good examples can be the “Whistling Heads” by the late Fanizani Akuda, Moon heads by Edward Chiwawa or “Swing Me Mama” by Dominic Benhura.
Simply put, in Zimbabwe it can be a laugh for one to make a sculpture and title it “Swing Me Mama” because the title is more identified with Dominic Benhura than anyone else.

It is tantamount to establishing your own drink and naming it Coca-Cola.
If you are one such person who is mostly interested in the view of the artist, it is best to go with the title of the artist because that is what best represents his view.
This is mainly so because what surrounds them and then inspire some artists they depict it on stone or any other material.

Going back to the issue of “The Polygamist” surprisingly is in 2000 the late Anderson Mukomberanwa held a one- man exhibition hosted by the Pierre Gallery in Harare and among his exhibited works was his piece titled “The Polygamist”.

Interestingly, his showed the polygamist in anguish maybe because of the taunting and nagging by the wives, we don’t know. Lest we forget, not all stone sculptors are artists and not all artists have the talent.