ok.  I think we've decided, as a small group not necessarily representative of the art community at large, that a work of art is finished when the artist says it's finished.  And that's final.  Unless, of course, that artist is me; never satisfied, and willing to risk destroying a perfectly good piece by meddling with the "finished" product.  Trust your gut!  I don't really understand the thought processes of my own mind.  There are some pretty serious reasons for this, I am told, that I won't go into here.  This is about art and artists and not my mental state.  But, I digress.  The work is done.  Now, what do you call it?  How do you come up with a title?  Titles are extremely important to my way of thinking and working.  They can often make or break a piece.  Once again, I can only offer my own opinion until someone chimes in.  I have two methods of titling a new piece.  I can either start with a title before I actually begin work and move towards the idea.  Or, I can wait, sometimes a long time, after the work is finished and try to find something that fits the idea that I am trying to convey.  I'm not including dartboards and drawings from hats for the sake of those stymied by the loose system which is my way occasionally.  I do collect titles.  I have a notebook full.  It's fun to me to see what I have accumulated sometimes and wonder just what the hell was I thinking.  Titles can be descriptive (often boring).  TItles can be cutesy (saccharine and trite).  TItles can be mysterious and enigmatic (more my style).  Titles can be an actual part of the piece as a whole (right on).  Something that I often do is to use the title as an actual element in the understanding of the piece.  I like to play with words and humor is important to me so I sometimes am simply trying to make someone laugh  in order to make a connection with the piece.  I want to backtrack a little and say that a descriptive title can be used for good.  "Use the Force Luke!"  If it tells a story and traces the path of the work, I can find it useful.  But not all titles are helpful.  I enjoy looking at a work before looking at the title often.  Making a visual connection before being told what it is, or what it means, or where it's going is much more important I think than "selling" the piece with staid facts.  Titling a work can be very difficult and I would like to stop here and let someone else try to explain their own thought processes behind the words which can hide a work or bring it into the light.  What do you think guys?
rbs

From the first responses, I am starting to get the feeling that this is a very subjective topic.  It seems that a piece of artwork is "finished" when the artist is happy with the results, out of ideas to "improve" it, and/or feels that the viewing public will get her point or at least have some sort of reaction to it.  Speaking only for  myself and from my own experience I can say that I am almost never happy with the results of my labors.  So I can strike that one.  Maybe I have perfectionist tendencies.  Or, maybe I am too hard on myself and just don't trust my abilities.  Whatever the root cause, I have a very difficult time presenting my work to others in any type of setting because all I can see are the faults and to me that indicates an "Unfinished" piece.  If I take the approach that all work is unfinished, then I guess that I could squeak by, but I wouldn't be being honest with myself.  I will take the faulty approach here and say that, "I should finish the work that I start and be more confident."  Coulda, shoulda, woulda.  Some things are easy to say.  Idea number two again suggests that the artist's temperament and creative inclination will suggest a clear path to the conclusion of a piece.  Improving a piece (or meddling as I called it before) has always had more negative results than positive additions in my experience.  I must admit here that I don't often work with a clear path in mind.  I don't sketch or entirely plan a piece.  I allow intuition and subconscious thought to direct me a lot of the time.  It will of course be more difficult, working that way I believe, to tell when any particular piece is done.  For an artist who does plan and have a distinct direction in mind, I think that once the concept properly prepared is realized, a piece is "done".  This seems like a logical and correct assumption.  However, I know artists who erase part of their original plan to fit a change made while a piece is in progress.  Allowing for change is certainly the artist's prerogative but then, once again, how is the finality of the work discerned?  Idea number three?  Some people get more meaning and find more inspiration from the work of the Minimalists than from the paintings in the Sistine Chapel.  Does a sense of understanding, peace, or realization found by a viewer give the artist the validation that he has been successful and has, in fact, finished a particular piece?  I don't know.  I don't know that I can know.  I love the simplicity, but still respect the complex.  Is a two inch line drawn on a museum wall a finished piece?  (I believe so!)  If one creates something and causes a viewer to have a reaction to it, good, bad, or ugly, I think that a work might be considered "finished".  If the viewer thinks that it might be improved by a knife slash, or the quick scribble of an ink pen, so be it.  I might, in some cases, agree.  I have been frustrated when looking at a piece before thinking that a painting or sculpture "needs" something.  Just that feeling, though, may be what the artist was going for.  So can it be true that a work is finished when the artist says so.  I am starting to think yes.  And damn the torpedoes. --- rbs