Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 2/17/1999
|
And the question is...?
I don't have an aversion to text, so I don't quite get it. I have found that some people don't want to expend any mental energy to understand a title, preferring a pure fact caption. But some photographers - Bravo and Laughlin come to my mind - can make a title an integral part of a photograph. And some photographers can write fascinating accompaniments to go with photographs - here, Abbas comes to mind.
But if people don't want to title, that's their prerogative.
|
|
|
|
Y. Dobon
(K=302) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
I, too, have no particular aversion to text. Judging by the photographs presented in major modern art museums and photo galleries, it seems that Jeff and I are not alone in this regard.
I have a sneaking suspicion that titled artwork is easier to sell than untitled stuff. Whether or not this title is given by the artist himself, his/her dealer, or posthumously by art critics and historians makes little difference once the name is associated with the individual piece.
I certainly enjoy Picasso's "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon", Botticelli's "Calumny of Apelles" and Mozart's "Jupiter" symphony despite some odd appellations.
|
|
|
|
Howard Creech
(K=3161) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
Having just heard Duane Michals speak (last week) I have been giving this idea some thought. I have always titled my photographs in a simple fact based way..."Lighthouse at Zanpa Cape, Japan" for example. After listening to Mr. Michals (he is a hoot BTW) I may try to be a bit more descriptive in future titlings. I do tend to agree with the earlier posters that it should be a matter of personal choice.
|
|
|
|
ray tai
(K=310) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
It really depends. I like to think a photograph justisfies its own existence and not rely on some explanatory text. For example, I am not picking on Cindy Sherman but I saw her show on fake movie stills several months ago at the Austin (Texas) Museum of Photography, and if I had not read the program I would have said "so what", (instead I said "three bucks to see this?"). After the show there was this video program where a "guy" defends her work for 20 minutes.
Documentary photography such as Dorothea Lange as per your example, and any press photography should have descriptions because the photos are marking an event in history.
|
|
|
|
Sean yates
(K=1240) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
I always have this one out with my wife before a show. She usually wins. I don't want to put a label on it. Not that my phots have unlimited meaning and vast depths of significant interpretation, but it's always bothered me that if I title it, that's the only way/thing the viewer will see.
On the other hand, I have a shot which viewers have assumed was taken in a fish tank, even though the "set" was a kitchen table. I guess that reflects more on my abilities than the title/no title issue, but at least a title would have helped...
|
|
|
|
Patricia Lee
(K=336) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
I LOVE good writing, period. If some photographers feel uncomfortable about titling their work, fine. But I feel it gives me an opportunity to add to the photograph by providing a hint as to what the image means to me. Since viewers' eyes are drawn first to the photo and only afterward to the caption, I don't see what the big deal is about unduly influencing viewers' reactions -- the reactions have already taken place.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
Hinting at ones desires... I think I'll use that as the title of my next exhibit.
A friend (who shall remain nameless) suggested to me that you can tell more about the photographer from their photographs, than you can tell (truely) about the subject/object of their photographs...
I owe the ability to italicise to E.V... I hope it works. And when do we get the spiffy upgrade like the other forums have? Right about now would be nice... (testing 123)...t
Moderator's note: to turn off italics, use </i>, OK?
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
okay... how do I turn it off? Is is like this testing 123
Moderator's note: no, it is like this.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
help! I'm trapped in Italicy! testing123
Moderator's note: that is because you keep turning it on, not off.
|
|
|
|
Alan Gibson
(K=2734) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
If you want to learn HTML, try here.
|
|
|
|
Richard Newman
(K=850) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
As is so often the case, there probably isn't any one answer. It depends on WHY you took the photo, TO WHOM you expect it to be shown, and most of all what CONTEXT you took it in. Photojournalists like W. Eugene Smith, Carl Mydans, Margaret Bourke White, etc. to the current day, expect their pictures to be captioned. They are taken with the intent of supporting some story, and the expected reader is to understand the photo in that context. For "art" photography, a title is optional. As was noted, a title will constrain the viewer's interpretation of the photo. If you want to control their response, title it. If you want the viewer to free associate, don't. An interesting note. I have recently been looking at some of my daughter's fashion magazine, such as Harpers Bazaar. A number of advertisers are showing photographs with nothing but the corporate name as text. Some of these are very interesting pictures too. Others put in all the usually expected text descriptions. As I look at them I get the impression that the minimal to no text ads are attempting to provide an image of high class product and indentity. That is, they are saying that if you know the name, you know the product- including a presumably high price. The other ads imply they are for the rest of us. Again, what are they trying to sell - a brand name image or a specific product item. It depends on why and for whom you take the photo.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
|
|
|
|
Patricia Lee
(K=336) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
Well, Richard, if the no-text ads are like no-price menus ("if you have to ask, you're not wealthy enough to dine here"), I'll take the regular ads.
Snob appeal as a measure of an image's worth will never be one of my criteria.
|
|
|
|
Y. Dobon
(K=302) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
|
|
|
|
John MacPherson
(K=1342) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
This is off the thread, but I'll say it anyway. I am VERY pleased to see Patricia Lee's comments. We seem to have TOO FEW women posters in this site.(or maybe I have been hanging around in the wrong threads?). We went through the whole thread "How can a forum on "the Philosophy of Photography" ignore the female figure?" without a single woman poster. (I just checked.....unless ...Tribby, oh Tribby!) I DONT want this to be a macho boys site. We NEED more women to offer their comments. Patricia - please stick around. And bring some women friends. Your contributions would be very welcome. JOHN
|
|
|
|
Trib
(K=2701) - Comment Date 2/18/1999
|
It is for the record Triblett Lunger-Thurd son of Mummington. But i'll be your gal Johnny Mac.
|
|
|
|
Richard Newman
(K=850) - Comment Date 2/20/1999
|
Patricia Lee, Well, I take the "other"ads too - although not in fashion, I believe that clothes have three purposes: Keep you warm in winter Prevent sunburn in summer Prevent arrest for indecent exposure all year. On my povery wages, (which weren't any better when I worked for Martin in Denver) I don't go to priceless menu restaurants either. But my point is that some advertisers prefer to address the potential customer who CAN afford them. Evidently there are enough of them since there are many ads of that type, and the cost of ad agency, photographer and full page magazine spread would buy us both many good meals at reasonable prices. The photos in the ads must therefore be achieving their intended purpose - without text. That's really my point - if text helps your photo achieve its intended purpose, then use text. If as in these cases, text isn't needed, or might even detract, leave it out. Anyway Patricia, if we ever meet, remind me to buy you a burger. With fries. :-)
|
|
|
|
Mason Resnick
(K=216) - Comment Date 2/26/1999
|
Why spoil good photos with words? Unless of course the photos weren't that good to begin with...
When I was a pup studying photography at Queens College in the late 70's, I had a teacher named Marsha Resnick (no relation) whose work at the time consisted mainly of bland (IMHO) pictures accompanied by extended captions; she encouraged her students to do emulate her practice, as if a hand-written caption under a photo makes it "art". I was somewhat offended by this, having recently spent a summer studying with Garry Winogrand, who said captions were a way to save photos that have failed. I looked at captioned photos after that and found that Winogrand's asssesment was right.
I felt that by emphasizing captioning Marsha was diverting attention from the purpose of the class, which was to develop a personal photographic style, and that what she was really teaching was creative caption-writing.
We had many lively "discussions" about this topic, with me taking an uncompromising position that her emphasis on captions was wrong.
I deliberately captioned every picture I did in her class "untitled".
She gave me an A+.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 2/26/1999
|
So Mason, just how many photographs do you have that are described as "untitled"? Or are they "untitled #1" and "untitled #2" etc... When you talk with people about your work, how do you identify individual images?...t
|
|
|
|
Jeff Spirer
(K=2523) - Comment Date 2/26/1999
|
I think the concept that titles only help lousy photographs is absurd. Why do photographers think that there is some "purity" around the photograph? It's just another object. Combining it with other objects may or may not work. The right title can add new dimensions and encourage seeing what was originally seen. It can combine poetry and photography into something bigger.
Can you imagine "The Little Prince" without the drawings? Well titles can do the same thing. Think about "Good Reputation Sleeping," and what the title does for that photograph (or will you argue that all of Bravo's work wasn't very good and that's why he spent so much time on titles?), and see where you end up without it.
|
|
|
|
tom meyer
(K=2752) - Comment Date 3/1/1999
|
Yep, that's the attitude I was talkin' about in the original post. It doesn't hold water and I wonder why it's still espoused so dearly. I am glad that out of all the responses, so few felt compelled to take this stand...onward!...t
|
|
|
|
John Rountree
(K=135) - Comment Date 3/2/1999
|
It does depend on the photgraph. I continue to work on a series of surrealistic photos that do not have titles or dates. Neither is important to those images. In fact, since they allow the viewer a lot of lee way in how they interpret the photo, to use any captioning would be limiting and unfair to the viewer. On the other hand, I have an on-going series of photos of various houses, and construction projects in my community. They are all captioned with street address and date because that information provides relevant information and a better context for appreciating the photos. Look at the work of Duane Michaels. Words and images work in a very synergistic way to give his photographs meaning and cohesion. A look at the truly remarkable photos of Arno Minkkinen and I think you would be hard pressed to offer a title that wasn't coy, simplistic, or disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
Patricia Lee
(K=336) - Comment Date 3/3/1999
|
Richard, I agree with you. To cap or not to cap depends on the image, its intended purpose, and on the photographer him/herself. The thing I kick against is the automatic assumption by some people that just because it has a caption, the image must be lacking pictorially. The eye goes straight to the image, and only afterward to the caption. It does not replace viewer impact, though it can augment it.
Burger and fries, eh...send me a picture of them ;-)
|
|
|
|
lymari
(K=30) - Comment Date 4/14/1999
|
i use text with my photography. in my particular genre i think i have to to some extent. i must admit there are times and places in which it is best for me not to. for example at a gallery exhibit i am more likely to have the photo speak for itself with only the title showing. yet in a book or on my website http://members.tripod.com/lymari/ i insist on the poetic text to bring closure and direction to the art appreciator. i have had many positive comments concerning my text. i am not and don't claim to be a poet. the text i use is from my heart in what i was trying to portray in the photo or just to elaborate on the image.
|
|
|
|
