one of the things which needs correcting on is a misconception that titles are extranious fixture to all but literature... wrong... titles[or theme/titles, as i prefer to consider them ] are, properly, as much an integral part of the rendering as is the case with writing... perhaps it is more so, since it is the key to elevating the rendering from just a 'sense of life' to something more... initially, of course, the viewer is drawn to the visual work sans anything else about it... without knowing ANYTHING else - artist, title, era in which done - the work is firstviewed as a glimpse into a self-contained world... it is seen as a univeres on its own... within that framework, tho, there is much which can be gleamed... the metaphysical view, for instance, is instantly discernable - there is a vast difference in how a benevolent universe view contrasts with a malivolent one... is it a world of flux, or is it one of identity? if a landscape, are there vegetation, or is it barren? if vegetation, are they blooming, dying, or dead? are animals in health, or malformed? the humans - happy, serious, fearful? are the colors bright or murky? is it viewed with clarity, or is it as if from a nearsighted without glasses? what is the most prominant feature - the main focus? how is humanity placed within this universe? what size - larger than life, or tiny and insignificant? if no figures, what are the main entities - how are they placed? is there a significant difference of size between setting and object? is the emphasis placed more on one thing than another? figures - their posture: upright and proud or elegant, or bent and awkward? is the painting smeared or distorted, or orderly and complex? the light - bright, or subdued? in still life, are the objects glistening, or tarnished? are they solid, or fractured?