Naa, it means, I have no idea what the hell to call this.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
>
--
--
The more I know of men, the more I like my dog.
-- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
