On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: >> Titles change the interpretation of a photograph. They present >> meaningful context that changes how the photo is perceived. That >> said, for sake of putting photographs on display at an exhibition or >> for sale, they must be titled somehow ... whether you use "This >> Photograph Intentionally Untitled #00201" or "Rose In Garden", you >> must put a title on each piece. Each of those titles will guide a >> viewers thinking, whether you like it or not. The generic "Untitled" >> itself is a statement when applied to a piece of work. > > But isn't it sometimes a case that a photograph displayed (and/or for > sale) has "No Title" or "Untitled" printed/written by its side?
I'm not sure I understand the question. Yes, they do. Having "Untitled" or "No Title" next to a particular piece of work is common. To me, it is dumb ... it seems to say with some braggadocio "My work speaks for itself, I do not deign to present a title for it as you ought to be able to figure it out. And otherwise I'm not telling." LOL! > In fact, I think that it would be an interesting experiment to take a > picture and post it to several photographic communities with different > titles and/or without a title at all, asking the viewer to describe > their perception of the photo. I find that it is extremely difficult to get such information that has anything other than subjective value. For instance, the other day I showed a set of proofs of my "Soft Lights" set to one of the folks I hang out with on Saturday mornings for a walk and breakfast. I love doing this ... I let the viewer ramble. They're titled very simply - "Soft Lights #01" etc. Listening to him step through the set and explain to another person what he thought of each photo was fascinating. It had nothing to do with me, with my intent or even with the photos: it had everything to do with how he interprets and appreciates photographs, what he thinks of his analytical skills vis a vis photographs, etc. I smile and thank him for the comments. Others later tell me what they think of him ... not the photos. It's very funny. ;-) > I've started catching myself more and more often ignoring the title of > the photograph all together. I would look at the photo, get my own > opinion about it, and only then look at the title. I think that's how most people approach a photo, except on rare occasion. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
