in your opinion, which would be the best title?
I created the following work of art:
and I entitled it “coitus interruptus”
the question is: does the title of the piece effect your expectations of the content?
can you see how any of the given titles could apply to this work?
-Imp
It didn’t affect my expectations because I didn’t notice the title until I had seen the work. Once I saw the title, it affected my interpretation. Actually, it provided an interpretation. Had I had an interpretation to begin with, would your title have made mine wrong? That’s the question. Should we be encouraged (via a title) to interpret as the artist wishes us to, or interpret as we naturally interpret?
(I’m voting for the Morse code one).
“first try”, made me expect the unexpected.
In answer to your first question, yes, I feel that the title of a piece does affect my viewing of it - it sets the tone and gives me a clue as to what the piece is likely to be on about (sometimes).
I voted for “morse code r” but I’ll present my response to each of your titles:
2.Division along Colour lines: I find to be a bit simple and too directly obvious for my taste.
Sexual Stereotypes: the pink and blue could be clear representations of each of the sexes, but what would the black bar be then? Does it represent the strength of sexual stereotypes in our culture and how they constantly keep the sexes apart? If so, then it could be an effective title.
Circle slash circle - too obvious for my taste
Morse Code R - I am fascinated by visual representations of language, and I love puns. Naturally, I chose this title.
cheers,
gemty
di dah dit 
Like rainey, I question the question. What is your reason for limiting the possible interpretations?
This really spoke to me.
It said, “humping dead moose in the Canadian wilderness, with eskimo papparazzi taking pictures with seal lenses”.
Hey, I said it spoke to me.
Pretty insightful…
Dan,
I hearby invoke my right to Gobboize any post, to wit:
As you can see it makes no sense really… and for that I don’t apologize.
Old_Gobbo
rofl
Mas,
It’s too early in the game for anti-art. Give it time and wait for someone(like gobbo) to get waaaay out on the limb. 
Then you can hand them the saw… 
I don’t see any sexual message in the piece. I don’t see any coitus being interupted. I see the work of art as a giant percent sign. It seems very mathematical to me.
It’s good, I like it though.
Quite clever Imp.
It is the running debate going on around this forum… and rightly so.
But to say that this is a work of art is a strech of the meaning.
What constitutres a work of art? Frankly I think that the forms you have despicted are an abuse of the expression “work of art”. They are “work” and barely so. What will you tell me next: That “NASCAR is a sport” and that Earnhart is an athlete? Please…
1- Not everything that shines is gold.
2- Art should be useless. Yours can stand for “%”.
3- Art is communication. You do not get to declare your crap a work of art. At best you can declare that “this is my work”. Otherwise you are just narcissistic and vain.
4- Art, like tango, takes two. The artist, when honest, strives for perfection. That the message of art: “This is Perfect in my mind”. Not that the viewer, listener etc, needs to agree. But when your intention reaches the audience, you’ve art. The response of art is the same: “That is Perfect, in my mind (or an approxiamtion towards perfection).”
5- Art does not need to be universally acccepted as art. But it cannot be art in isolation. It cannot be art simply because you and only you, the author, said it is.
6- It needs to be useless. A vase you brought from Walmart is not art while you’re using it. Once you set it on a shelf, then it is art. Was the designer’s intention to create art? Who knows? Nevertheless, it’s form is as important or more important than conception and intention. One can intend a work of art and produce a colorful % that none will take as art but himself. Ce la vita. Another might humbly call his work “garbage” which others droll for. Why? Because of it’s actual form. It (Art) cannot be without charm.
7- Art is like a word. It expresses many words but not all words; it expresses few words but never none.
8- No art can express in itself, of itself, more than it’s form. Only the fancy of the audience can do that.
9- Only at the prompt of someone does it adquire a single meaning or a definite list of possible meanings. As you have done.
10- The form is as important, or more than the response. The expression more essential than the conception. Art is what I can express, not what I have conceived. What I conceive remains trapped forever within.
11- The noises in someone’s backyard might be someone’s declared art. But such poor form belies it’s author’s claim.
12- Form is important. That is not to say that a theory exist for what is beautiful, or can give us the criteria to distinguish between noise and melody. But the interpreter is always human and so the distinctions possible are always finite and similar traits emerge inevitably. Patterns emerge and we need not be red-faced for it.
13- The medium dictates, the model dictates (not everyone is obscessed with their abstractions) as much as the subjective expression.
When I saw it I thought of titles:
1: Giant Percent
2: Stick and Balls
LMFAO You kill me. And I absolutely live for being thoroughly bludgeoned by a man’s absurd wit.
Imp,
I saw nothing sexual in it whatsoever… the balls needed something more for me, honey. 
That’s what I thought too…
Are you saying you don’t see the dead Moose?
I see the dead Moose.
I see them everywhere in this art.
So… it is a work of art… I have perceived it so. Now you may call yourself an artist.
PS - I saw a penis.