I think that on many occasions "untitled" is just displayed along with the photograph by the exhibitor, not something the photographer "calls it". I have seen tons of great photos that didnt have titles (and I never asked or wanted to know what the title was, who really cares what the title is or if it has one or not ) or were labelled untitled. Photographs are not books or movies or even paintings, I don't think titling of photos is a convention like those other media/artforms. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Boris Liberman Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 12:23 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Let's talk about titles Paul, now seriously. I think you're right if a photograph in itself is truly mediocre at most. However, it just popped in my mind that most recent visit to Jerusalem State Museum Of Arts had me encounter quite a few "untitled's". Either you're making a generalization that I don't exactly subscribe to, or there is more you're trying to say that I don't understand. Boris Paul Stenquist wrote: > In most cases, "untitled" says to me, "I'm a pretentious asshole." > Paul -- 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
