> >I tend to feel that titling a photo is the photographer trying to tell >me how to "appreciate" the photo. Since art is an act of the viewer as >much as of the artist, I take offense to that and ignore titles even >when provided. > >-- >Thanks, >DougF (KG4LMZ) >
That's utterly ridiculous. A title for a photo is an artistic way of identifying it, just the same as a title for a song identifies it. Without a title or name, how does one identify, track, refer to the photograph? For example: PESO - IMGP9568.jpg or Tom's Photo # 9568 Imagine how confusing that would be both for oneself and for others. If I told you the sky is blue, would I be telling you how to interpret the sky? A good title serves as a mnemonic. I agree with Jack that a title can also help one see the photograph in a new light they might not have seen it in. It's not telling one how to appreciate the photo, just like displaying the photo is not making one look at it. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
