Captions that force the photographer's interpretation on the viewer

Would you mind turning this ring and pressing this button for me?....;)....J

<i>Who are you replying to? Who "wish[es] to create a rule... a police thought action"? Huh?

</i><p>

 

The OP.

Between the histrionics and the use of obscure abbreviations I have no idea what you're

talking about, sorry.

How about...

<A href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=007yIn&photo_id=2275378&photo_sel_index=0">"Who's watching the watcher watch the watchers watch the watched?"</A>...too much, too little, or just right?...;)...J

Did Bravo do his captions in Spanish or in English? What are the effects of translation on meaning in this kind of hybrid image/word art relative to straightforward text/language translation?

Let me try to get this discussion back on track after Sean de Merchant's interjection. :) I think his suggestion that this debate should be limited because it might limit artistic freedom is ludicrous and completely at odds with itself. That would be like suggesting that all the comments and forums on this site should be deleted because they might limit artistic freedom. Fortunately, art doesn't exist in a vacuum and a strong vision requires a strong will to express it. Everyone has their images critiqued here, why not their titles?

 

If no rules for titling are appropriate then I would expect this discussion to eventually resolve that. It hasn't however. It has turned into an excellent discussion on how weak photographers use bad titles to prop up their mediocre work. That's what I object to.

 

De Merchant suggests that "Yes such captions can be inane too, but you wish to create a rule to force the same type of contrived perception upon photographic captions." I disagree. I merely suggest that you should be as critical and aware about your titles as you are about your images. Don't put a trite title on your photograph and expect to have it taken seriously. I'm not talking about photographer's who do this intentionally. I'm talking about photographer's who do exactly the type of things that �[� Z's describes. His post expresses completely the frustrating things that led me to start this discussion in the first place.

 

The point is not to suggest that great photographer's aren't great or that they misuse titles. The point is that average photographer's could be better if they actually paid attention to how a title works with an image. I don't think there is any harm in a rule of thumb for people just starting out (like the rule of thirds) and I don't think there's any harm is discussing such a rule either.

Titles/Captions are to provide a common reference point for communication among the audience.

 

As an individual within that audience you are free to disregard the title or caption and interpret the art in any way you see fit. The artist's intention and audience's interpretation need not be in sync. That's what art is about.

I totally agree with you. Every one makes as it please to him, of course, but as far as I'm concerned, I generally give to my photos captions as factual and descriptive as possible. For my own archives first. It�s more easy to find on a hard disc a photo which title describes what you see on it. You know that you search a photo where a girl is sitting by the window, but if you have given the title �Inspiration�, you possibly have forget this caption. Secondly, I often find the �poetic captions� rather foolish (in popular French I would say �cul-cul� but I don�t know the equivalent English word) than poetic. In an other hand, some photo.net members give just a number to their photos. But when you want to speak about their photos, I am not sure they understand of which you talk under a number like 129867521 or 34687462.

Yet I have an image which I purposely wanted the viewer to sense what I wanted them to. It is an old truck in a ghost town and due to the atmospheric conditions, or in this case the mood when this image was created, I titled it. I wanted to steer the viewer to a certain feeling. The feeling of an age past. A shadow of some former era. Had I left it up to the viewer, it could have been felt differently or exactly as I wanted. But I wanted it to be felt the way I envisioned or felt it. Titles can be guides. Or not. I see a lot of images with no titles and when I talk to the maker about the image I often find that what they were trying to convey wasn't what I got from it. Would a title have helped see that it was the photographer was trying to impart? Does it matter? Depends on your point of view and that is what this thread is about. Points of view. I like titles. I feel it is a starting point where the photographer wishes us to be. An image is no better for the title but no worse either. I feel the photographer can help to guide you to what his idea was with one if the image or idea calls for it. Van Dongen and Barrett give the title as the name of the flower and that is all. Yet each flower is presented in a different way conveying a different mood. Interesting thread.

On my desk there is always a list of photos I want to make. It

contains titles only. When I look at them I exactly know what

photos I have to make, even though a title might describe

something very different from what you'll get to see in the end.

Sometimes after the picture is made the title becomes useless

and I discard it. At other times the title plus the picture make

more than the sum of the two. I have to say though that plain

registrations hardly ever benefit from titling them.

 

I have a photo called "Return to Heaven". It shows a young man

standing naked on the edge of a small children's chair, ready to

jump off with a rope around his neck. Although the photo is

horrific enough as it is, it is the title that makes you look twice.

 

I don't see any problem in titling photos. Photography is a form of

storytelling and anything that adds to that effectively should be

used. If a title weakens the story it should be avoided. It's that

simple for me. So, whether you'll choose a title, and if so what

kind, will entirely depend on your talent to know how to tell

stories.

<i><blockquote> Photography is a form of storytelling </blockquote> </i><p>

 

In some cases it can be, bu that's only a part of what photography is. Regardless, too

often, hamhanded titles or explanations render animage precious, or are just used to

try to improve images that can't make it on their own.

Ahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! Freedom to express!! isn't it Grand.... so many differant points of view I feel richer... I love this Place