In most cases, "untitled" says to me, "I'm a pretentious asshole." Paul On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:53 PM, David Savage wrote:
> 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
