At 01:41 PM 19/02/2007, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >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!
To me it says: "I have spent all my creative energy on this photo/painting/sculpture..., and I have nothing left to spend on a title" ;-) Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
