In posing the question of whether all art needs a title, I was hoping to generate conversation. It did just that and I'm appreciative of everyone's thoughtful responses. They were somewhat varied, but most agree that art should have something that identifies it, whether it's a full title or an identifier such as "color study: blue and orange". I also read several articles I found on the internet regarding the subject.
According to Robert Genn, author of The Painters Keys, http://www.painterskeys.com " . . . titles serve to confirm what's seen but also to add knowledge, insight, and a glimpse into the author's mind set." In keeping with Genn, Holly Huffstutler's article at http://www.helium.com/items/1422709-titling-an-art-work-for-greater-meaning stated "art can be imbued with greater meaning with the addition of a title" and discusses how a title can capture the viewer and draw them into conversation about the work instead of dismissing it. She sites the example of Marcel Duchamp who took a urinal and placed it in a different context and titled it "Fountain". Both authors are worth the read.
The conversations are convincing. One should have some type of identification for each work of art. How else will you know which is which, after all? One wouldn't want a list of works with "Untitled #1", "Untitled #2" etc. That would be boring.
The title of the work in the photo is "Blooming". The title of the piece from yesterday's post is "Stormy Seas".