“Untitled” works with the archetypes in and around the contemporary art scene (and these archetypes exist, believe me): the experimental musician, the anguished conceptual artist, the wanna-be-art-collector and so on. The plot itself is pretty common, and like most comedies, it wasn’t as funny as I hoped. But placing it in the art world makes it already better than other similarly constructed movies.
Can your art ever be in "symphony" with your time? Is art undefined, "untitled" until somebody gives meaning to it? Does art exist for consumption, admiration or simply its aim is to inspire somebody, to change even one person's life? What's the value of an artist and of art anyway? "Untitled" is a light comedy about the questions surrounding contemporary art.
Amusing, but full of cliches and assumptions regards the art world. Far to conservative in its premise. I had empathy for the gallery owner although I think the intention of the film was to deride her 'type'. This said, I do remember sitting through a conceptual concert once - hmmmm;-/