Hi! >> 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!
What about "Just look at it, don't be bothered by words."? >> 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. But don't you agree that being a viewer of anything in general, and photography in particular, is actually very much subjective. I don't think there is such a thing as "objective" opinion about a work of art! > 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. ;-) Indeed. That what I would expect. By telling others how you perceive you don't have a choice but to expose yourself in a way that may provoke even gossip. >> 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. Well, then I must ask this "dumb" question - if this is indeed the case, why to give a title in the first place? After all, the photograph has been looked upon, the opinion has been produced, what else needs to be done really? Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
