I'm not a scrapbooker.  I wonder what the ratio of male scrapbookers to female scrapbookers is? Probably about 1/90?  Anyway, I just heard someone talking about scrapbooking, and it made me think about it.  I like the idea of scrapbooking, but I really dislike how most scrapbook hobbyists are doing their scrapbooks. (Disclaimer: since I'm not into scrapbooking, I only see a very small selection, so what I see might not be very representative.)  The reason I dislike it is because I want it to be more journalistic and information-loaded, but it seems like most of the examples I see are 90% style and 10% substance.

 

Maybe it's just a matter of expectation.  I associate the idea of scrapbooking with keepsakes and memories.  But if people did what they are doing and called it something different, like "Skrapping," I'd never give it a thought.  I'd just think of it as an art form somewhere between photography and collage.

 

This reminds me of my attitudes about the naming of artwork.  I think many, or perhaps most, artists are lousy at titling their art (and I recognize that this means that most other artists probably would think that I'm lousy at titling mine).  I want art, even abstract art, to be some form of record of actual experiences; furthermore, I want the artwork itself, not the title, to be the vehicle for any fanciful associations.

 

This means I don't like it when someone paints a landscape and titles it something like "Evening Symphony."  If a viewer is going to regard the painting to be a symphony, I think the artist should leave it to him or her to make that connection. "Evening" is a better title, and I'd even prefer "Evening: This Reminds Me of a Symphony."

 

James Abbott McNeill Whistler, whose paintings I really like, used musical terms in titling his paintings, but it doesn't bother me because they were used in a subtler, more consistent way.  His titles work as simple catalog entries.