Treating photography as a 'fine art' form - should titles be a part of the picture?

Thank you Phylo for the link about Duane Michals. I feel him as my brother. I feel I'm not alone, definitely.

His philosophy is reachable to me. His photographs look totally strange to me, whereas on contrary his philosophy is very much familiar. It's more than interesting how photographers apply the same philosophy in a different manner, having different visions.

I agree with him on the part about how to express anger. For that, photographer has to recognize it by feeling it. When he become aware of it, he can act on it. But it needs a great vision to achieve the photograph that may speak of anger. It is very healthy and good for the soul to experience all kind of feelings whether sexual, anger, joy or love, as long as it is pure with conscious, where your body and face merged totally into that feeling or that kind of vigor.

Pnina,

living in a different culture too made me to improve my English so that I can enjoy and learn many things from these Forums. Sometimes I need to reread it John's posts, and of others too. Regarding the English language, I can't say totally I'm from different culture. I've been always passionate about the American English language and their way of life.

John, with all due respect, I have what to say about" elite" and "elitistic" , but it is off topic on the title subject asked by Allan....

Paylo, thanks for the link, I still read it, and it is interesting. I connect to his photography as well.

Kristina, we are individuals, I see a language as an ocean, and I feel that I need a lot more to understand it better, also in the forums.. Western culture has many forms,in each form there are positive and negative qualities.....I'm older that you are and I have learned to choose.

"Of course one could argue that a documentary photograph can also be made to be more interpretative instead of

pure objective."

I think the discussion has been about the virtues and pitfalls of titling; not only photographs, but titling of

paintings and music, too. Since the OP has not returned to respond the question of his titling of the image in

his original post, his formulations on the subject no longer apply. His input is over 70 posts back; the

discussion has moved on. I just don't think documentary has been emphasized in this thread. It does provide a

base for defining "objective" and thus "interpretive" regarding titling.

It doesn't matter if it is a PJ's documentary photo that is titled "Partisan" or a fine art photographer's.

"Partisan" has meaning beyond its definition and mere words are not mere words at all. Perhaps the fine art

photographer might take a hint from documentary photographers about all this.

What I am understanding from what is written here is that interpretive titling is done from a very personal

perspective, and for the purpose of communicating that perspective to the viewer. Representational photographs

communicate universally. It doesn't matter when or where the fallen soldier has fallen. It is intelligible to

anyone anywhere who might see it.

I think art history will bear out the argument that interpretive titling of paintings is rare in eras of

representational painting. But even Cubists and other post-impressionists continued simple descriptive titling

-- Cubism is an entirely visual approach. Perhaps it is the Surrealists who begin creative titling, because the

surface visuals they painted were not the subject of the painting; language was needed to refer to the subject.

Thus, Dali's Persistence of Memory in 1931 (although earlier paintings had descriptive titles).

One era of representational painting which used interpretive titling was Genre (with captial "G") painting in

England in the Victorian era. These paintings strongly influenced English photography and English pictorialist

photographers. Possibly the subject matter, "generically" common things and people which had rarely been the

main subjects of paintings required explanations. These pictorialists also adopted the "elevated" subjects of

high art, mythology and religion, constructing them in the studio and compositing in the darkroom, often giving

them interpretive titles.

If interpretive titling is from a personal, subjective perspective, the photographer might consider that those

who "get it" will likely be very much like themselves, which is fine if you belong to a cult or are immersed in a

subculture (including and especially the art industry subculture), or if you are ok with being appreciated by

those from the same social class and culture as you, but not so fine if something "universal" is

intended or desired (re: Pnina's "elitist"). In order to ensure a broader appreciation and audience, some

explanation is likely required, and so the text-card next to the photo. If the photo is published in a book,

then maybe even more text is required. Taken to its extreme, the photo merely illustrates the text. And all of

that has nothing to do with the photograph anymore, just the photographer (or his soul) who becomes the subject

of it all.

Documentary tends to be far more egalitarian than that.

"I have what to say about" elite" and "elitistic" , but it is off topic on the title subject"

Pnina, I saw the smiley on your comment and took it in that spirit 8-)

Pnina wrote: I think that a title is part of creation, at least for me, you [Don E] think differently( I saw your

untitled folders).

It is due to laziness and lack of time for it, but some of them, at least, are parts of works that are

conceptualized and have descriptive titles. Things have settled down for me, finally, and I will likely refine

my portfolio here. I've also gotten a film scanner and can produce better quality for the web now. I realize,

too, that for oil painting and computer art, I've indulged in evocative titling. I'd guess I don't for

photographs because my direction is documentary.

Regards

Pnina wrote: I think that a title is part of creation, at least for me..

Of course it is...it's part of the creative imaginative process we call photography.

The poetry of photography with a dusting of words.

I would like to see more "casual portraits" by the participants in this thread (I don't mean "street photos" of people caught unaware). I don't care how they're titled.

For me, portraits are difficult and titles are easy: subject's first name or relationship to me, date.

... (I don't mean "street photos" of people caught unaware).

Why not,John? Curious.

A casual portrait seems a rather easy thing to do...the majority of portraits posted on the internet are usually rather casual.

Thinking of a creative title is much more of a challenge,don't you think?

This thread has just about made me decide to call all my photographs either "Death" or "Sex"

with a unique number for individual images. I might even go back and retitle every photograph I've ever made.<p>

"<i>"street photos" of people caught unaware</i>" are not (to me) portraits. They may be character studies,

documentary,voyeurism, surveillance, landscape with human context and scale, objective records, social commentary

or (worse case scenario) an indication of cowardliness in a photographer (especially when made with a telephoto

lens) or the sort of commercial product that might be found in the National Inquirer (what ever that sort of

photography might be called). <p>I believe a portrait to be a conscious collaboration, and not necessarily a willing

or lasting one. But

that's <a href="http://www.photo.net/portraits-and-fashion-photography-forum/00ELzw">another thread</a> that's

already been had.... t

"I would like to see more "casual portraits" by the participants in this thread"

I've got one in the portrait thread in the Classic Camera forum, if you like.

The one that speak about a melancholy that can be often seen in young women. Done in cooperation. I simply called it after her name, not "Melancholy". It's very challenging to photograph and capture a colorful pallet of characters on the streets, talking about unawareness.

http://www.photo.net/photo/7131549

Each photograph, and the way it has been taken, is as individual as a persons finger prints. Some photos lend themselves to a few well chosen words, some just a title, others work better left to stand alone.

There are no rules other than the decision of the individual photographer and what they think will work for their photograph.

Allen, I stated what I personally would like to see. As we all know, street photography USUALLY is antithetical to portraiture because it avoids relationship with the subject.

P.N displays infinitely more street photography than casual portraiture. That's because the latter is technically more difficult and it calls for relationship.

I'm interested in how interpersonal relations (photographer and subject) and technical skills relate to a photographer's images.

Photography in which the photographer is making a social comment, ridicules the subject, seeks grab shots, avoids being seen etc is fine if that's his trip. I asked to see something entirely different. I hope that's OK.

Don E, yes...thanks...you'll find even more in that woman's portrait with your new scanner...she deserves it. Reminds me of my efforts.

I personally would title it with her name and a date, or "friend" or "girlfriend." Maybe somebody else would title her "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus" or "What Do Women Want?" :-)

http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00QEhG that's a great thread....consistently honest, direct, engaged, high-integrity images.

Due to DSLR/RAW/Lightroom I've let my Century Graphic and lenses gather dust...guess it's 'bay time...I've shot a bunch of that 6X9 format since 1968 or so, have always been happy with it. The best part is that it slows me down.

"Each photograph, and the way it has been taken, is as individual as a persons finger prints." - You said it nice.

"I'm interested in how interpersonal relations (photographer and subject) and technical skills relate to a photographer's images."

Some of my portraits are of close friends and acquaintances. The photos of the boys are simple street shots taken at the concert of Christian songs. I don't do quick street shots of passengers, children in the park and alike. I am usually a part of the particular situation like the one at the concert. I can't say these photos are unethical. I'm naturally talented to become close to strangers or people. They show a kind of confidence to me and a kind of natural behavior. It is rather a mutual confidence, so to speak. During the act of photographing that last a moment, sometimes I capture a gleam and their attention. After I photograph them I don't see them as strangers any more. A lot change in my mind during the post-processing part.

Regarding the friends, first I like to be with them for some time before I photograph them. Just to get them know better in their expression so that I can become familiar and natural with them. From that point of view I photograph them.

I title my photographs (most artwork is titled and to sell it usually requires that), but would be happier without titles.

The photograph is everything. Anything added should simply be the purchaser's, or the viewer's feelings.

Thanks, John. A 45mm focal length is not ideal for a portrait, but it was the only frame at hand that fit the criteria of the thread; it was a great thread and I wanted to participate. A factual title is entirely optional. It wouldn't add anything to the photo. All it might do is provide some bio info. Explaining the circumstances would take a few paragraphs.

The scanner is great. I'm using it with Vuescan. Lots of work to do with on long winter nights.

Photography in which the photographer is making a social comment, ridicules the subject, seeks grab shots, avoids

being seen etc is fine if that's his trip

;)) Rather sweeping statements which could easily include many of the “greats” pass and present.

P.N displays infinitely more street photography than casual portraiture. That's because the latter is technically more

difficult and it calls for relationship.

Infinitely more casual portraits of friends, family, pets etc are taken than candid, street or documentary photography.

They usually consist of folks standing or sitting stiffly staring at the camera with a bemused look…or, saying

cheese ;) A natural (none posed) candid photograph of a person reacting to their environment is far more difficult to

achieve technically or otherwise….i would have thought that was pretty obvious. Of course great photos can be

achieved either way, there are not any special rules I know of that say otherwise.

." Maybe somebody else would title her "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus" or "What Do Women

Want?" :-)

;)) Maybe they would, maybe someone would be a bit more creative.

The creation of petty rules is an asthenia to photography is stifles creativity and imagination.

Just a few thought.

"A natural (none posed) candid photograph of a person reacting to their environment..."

There is reacting to the camera, too -- 'eye contact'. It is not posed, either.

"Posed" isn't a bad thing, even if done poorly.

Posed photos, done reasonably well, require humanity, respect for the subject.

Casual portraits often call for attention to lighting, possibly some repositioning or adjustment of clothing. In other words, they involve a positive, respectful human relationship. Relationships and respect are not appreciated by all photographers...I know of an heroic autistic photographer who struggles in those areas, and there have always been substance abusers among us.

Posed or not, "eye contact" is powerful. It's interesting to see how many photographers fear it.

There is reacting to the camera, too -- 'eye contact'. It is not posed, either.

But it is just eye contact, what else can you say about it. Someone is looking at you when you take their

photo….so what.

Posed photos, done reasonably well, require humanity, respect for the subject.

I would think the humanity would be their relationship to their environment and the human condition…not a posed

photograph for the camera.

Casual portraits often call for attention to lighting, possibly some repositioning or adjustment of clothing. In other

words, they involve a positive, respectful human relationship

And why would a candid photo be less. Sort of makes me think of the noble Indian type photo.

A photograph of reality is always going to the honest photograph of humanity.

"So what?"

John's ""street photos" of people caught unaware" and "avoids being seen" and your response "natural (none [sic]

posed)" candid portrait", that's what. Continuity and context. I'm a sucker for those.

This thread is now off the topic of my interest, not caring much for portraits either studio or street. Adios.

John's ""street photos" of people caught unaware" and "avoids being seen"

Don,i merely challenged John's statement above . I'm sure you understand that such anti candid,street,documentry

statements cannot be left unchallenged. On a lighter note many of the best photographs of family and friends are

candid photographs of them acting naturally....that i is also true of taking photographs in the street or anywhere else.

To go back on topic i'don't think that you can apply a rules regarding a photograph it is unique to itself as i explained

above.

Please do not leave on my account your views are as valuable as mine or anyone elses. It's a discussion , that is

all; nobody to my knowledge has been given divine knowledge on the subject.