Usually both in my experience. -Adam
P. J. Alling wrote: > 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 >>> >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
