On Feb 18, 2007, at 9:20 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: >>> 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?
The title of a piece of work is information to the viewer about how to refer to the work. The title of a piece of work might have meaning beyond that the author of the work wishes to impart to the potential viewer ... or not. It might allow someone to identify it to someone else ... for instance to a gallery clerk if they want to buy it, to a friend if they are talking about interesting works they have seen, to the author if someone wants to refer to discuss a piece with the author. Some folks want to know what the artist intends before they can evaluate/appreciate a given piece of work's merit. The title can impart something of that intent to those folks, if the author chooses to use it that way. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
