There is a hierarchy of ‘metatexts’ which deeply inform how we look at art. The most obvious of these is the title. All formal works of art have a title, without exception. If the artist does not give it one, then it is automatically called ‘untitled’. This is arguably a function of the gallery system, of art criticism, art-history etc.: If works of art did not have titles, they could not be catalogued, talked about, referenced or organised conceptually. The anonymous quotation that something is art “if it's signed and you can't piss in it” (referring to Duchamp’s Fountain) should perhaps be “if it’s got a title and you can’t piss in it”, though in fact the capacity of a work to receive urine is theoretically irrelevant. This granting of a title could be said to actually transform an object into an artwork, in at least as much as we think of art as being something distinct from design, craft, etc.; or at the very least to be a definite mark that such a transformation has taken place. The matter of titles, being pieces of text, is obviously relevant to our discussion in some ways. Lawrence Weiner said that “all artist’s work has a title, titles are my work”, stripping art down to simply the titles, blown up massively on a wall; but even his work has titles, which exist separately to the pieces themselves. Titles are, however, fundamentally different to text actually incorporated into the work. The title of a work of art is separate from it, in the same way that the caption of a photograph in a newspaper is not the photograph itself, or even part of it.