Oh, your not that bad Paul. :-)
Cheers, Dave At 02:06 PM 19/02/2007, 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
