Are Photos Like Jokes?

<p>Words with images can make a great combo. It just depends on the words and/or the image. Check out some of Jack McRitchie's here on photo.net. Some of his titles turn it into a whole different thing and are to me brilliant. and why not? If it works, it works. </p>

<p>Words were made to be expended in any and every way possible, and photos are a huge target because they reflect scene, photographer, and viewer. Photos are a competing language, being worth all the words the viewer can come up with. I've been mixing the two by having an AI speak a language of photos, based on descriptions. Some of the things it 'says' leave me at a loss for words, which I don't think is possible with single images, and having such losses pile up causes me a new kind of pain, as if I'm finding bugs in English (I have worked in quality assurance).</p>

<p>Maybe I'm losing my quill, but I can't think of a caption or description that could add to or even vaguely convey the AI's statement added here, which was made about 3 hours ago. Is language just a joke?</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Photos are a competing language</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Life doesn't have to be so patriarchal. Consider the potential that in some instances photos are a <em>complementary</em> language. <br>

<br>

There could be several reasons you can't come up with a caption for the photo you posted. 1) You might not feel it needs one (which is perfectly OK but doesn't mean another photo might not inspire you to come up with one and doesn't mean someone else might not be inspired to title their photos. 2) You might simply not be clever or creative enough to come up with a good title. 3) You actually did come up with a caption, "abstract", which IMO is a poor one and doesn't challenge or enhance my experience of the photo.<br>

<br>

One of many misunderstandings repeated in this thread is that captions, titles, and accompanying text "explain" photos. Once you broaden the idea of what accompanying text can provide, you will start to get a better understanding of why various photographers employ text with their images. Some so-called explanatory text works quite well. That can be an important function of text with photos. But "explanation" is only one job words can accomplish. Seeing accompanying text as only explanatory is a prosaic approach to both photos and language.</p>

<p>Amazing Fred, that you were able to fill in the blanks and infer all of that from my original post. And Patriarchal now apparently a pejorative term -- who knew! </p>

 

<p>Sandy, I was talking directly to Bill. I tried to make that obvious by quoting him at the beginning of my post. Many of the posts in this thread, certainly not just yours, emphasized the explanatory nature of text, and I thought it worth addressing that, but it wasn't directed personally or only at you. Yes, I used "patriarchal" pejoratively in this context. I don't think that's an uncommon usage.</p>

<p>Not only do photographers use captions to try to impute greater quality in the photo to the viewer. Often the photographer will go on and on about how hard it was for him to capture the photo thereby implying you should like it better than it may look. Of course, most viewers could care less if the photographer got frostbite standing in the snow waiting for the right light that never appeared. Either the picture works for him or not. </p>

<p>Here's the thing, Alan. You and I and everyone else can come up with all sorts of examples of needless accompanying text or accompanying text that's silly or bad, that's presumptuous or self aggrandizing. We can also come up with examples of photos that didn't need to be made or that are silly or bad or cliché. But the fact there are many, many photos we don't like or don't see the value in doesn't mean we should ridicule photography per se. Just like the fact that there are accompanying texts we don't like or see the value in doesn't mean we should ridicule accompanying text per se. Like I said in my first post, a little discernment beats out generalizations and stereotypes, IMO.</p>

<p>Being a photographer requires a certain amount of humility, and a sense of humor. Because you don't like a photo doesn't mean you ridicule it. Even I'll admit that I don't like a lot of my own. Caption or no caption. :)</p>

<p>Alan, perhaps "ridicule" is, as you say, a bit strong. I took you to be ridiculing the photographer who, as you said, goes "on and on about how hard it was for him to capture the photo thereby implying you should like it better than it may look." Maybe you don't see that as ridicule and it's simply a criticism. I can accept that. It might be that the photographer is not implying anything by telling you the story of how the photo came about. It might be that you are unnecessarily inferring something about his motives because of his story. All tales of difficulty in getting a shot are not told in order to make viewers like the picture more.</p>

<p>In any case, the difference between "ridicule" and "criticism" was not the point of my post. My point is that the generalized criticizing of the use of text with photos as a practice because of some bad examples is, to me, as lacking in discernment as the generalized criticizing of photography itself because of some examples of bad photos.</p>

<p>If a photographer was explaining his tough experience in shooting a picture to boost it, then I was saying that for most viewers, it won't work because they don't really care. The picture stands on its own. </p>

<p>Also, since I cannot get into someone else's head, I have no way of knowing for sure if that was the photographer's intention. However, it usually is especially if it's a one off explanation. That's different than someone doing an essay or blog where there's a consistent explanation how all his photos were shot. The first photographer would say something like, ..."well, it was raining, and I couldn't get into the best position." Most people would discern that comment as an excuse for poorly shot photo. That's criticism, not ridicule. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Seeing accompanying text as only explanatory is a prosaic approach to both photos and language.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for explaining. :-) Can you give an example in the current case? Maybe I should just post to critique (hadn't thought of posting pairs there), but since there is context here, I'll post a bigger version.</p><div></div>

<Seeing accompanying text as only explanatory is a prosaic approach to both photos and language.>

 

That seems to be a sticking point in the discussion of something we do not often get to discuss. If "prosaic " Fred G, still derives from prose ( even plain or unclever) and yet prose is a matter of symbolic communication; Well so then, as photography is a kindred means of communication, and an older one (cave paintings) from a neurological point of view ( not to get too uppity science bound)...then it is hard to argue that the two cannot be mates or at leat partners in conveying mood or intent. Or act as a conversation opener. I keep thinking of conversations in the POTW where the title met with lack of sufferance. Was " Inexpressible tenderness " too much to swallow for two old people under a red umbrella? Was a photo of a dark figure on a balcony as close to sinister as the title suggests. Latter I forget but it caused some heartburn. As poets use classical Greek allusions, I can see that some thought in a title can "open pathways." Which is why I agree they are not to be sniffed at so easily. But the question then is how to make them work better I guess. I just don't know. But the conversation has lead me to give more thought to it and how it does as you say "complement." Or can it complement when it seems to provoke, or not seem to be a nude descending anything.. Abstract is wide open in that way I guess.

<p>"do feel that a good title can help a photo, but also think that a fine image can / should stand on its own"</p>

<p>Well, you have answered your own thoughts.</p>

<p>A photograph has its own language, and like any language which is not your native language...need I say more.</p>

<p>Others can give you their interpretation....sort of like the many interpretations of the good books.</p>

<p>If you like your hand held, and like to be led by others.....the way to go.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p>"do feel that a good title can help a photo"</p>

<p>I used to think that, however, I came to the conclusion it was a pollution...if a photo cannot stand alone, using its own language....</p>

<p>Then it needs the help of another language of communication.</p>

<p>Do we really need a thousand words...</p>

<p><strong>www.dailymail.co.uk</strong>/news/article-2153091</p>

<p>"Being a photographer requires a certain amount of humility, and a sense of humor."<br>

Rock on, Alan.</p>

<p>There are two options: believing there are two options, or not believing it. </p>

<blockquote>

<p >The belief that we should never fall into the grip of a single belief has us firmly in its grip. </p>

<p >-- Louis Menand, "What is 'Art'"?</p>

</blockquote>

<p >It seems like the standard human solution to conflicts over meaning is to differentiate and move on, which the Moderate position achieves.</p>

<p>Bill -- what do moderates have in the credit column of world history that they can claim? Status quo? I guess.</p>

<p>Sandy, isn't democracy a kind of moderation, in that it seeks to incorporate all views? Also science doesn't go far without holding all the possibilities in mind.</p>

<p>I was also thinking about the main soluble (if not solvable) problem I face in life: applying keywords to photos so that juxtapositions based on them have some hope of making sense. After periods of puzzlement over combos that don't work, the answer often is to e.g. split some pics with 'pole' into 'pole_top' and 'pole_base': expanding terminology rather than trying to fit everything under one term. Then on to another problem, leaving the human race that much more complex and struggling to keep up. Moderates can claim that they were wild when young, that they have learned about the internet after ridiculing it for a while, which gives that much bigger a platform for rebels to jump off.</p>

<blockquote>

<p >... The sexual stallion and future world-beater of nineteen, for whom three pizzas and an accompanied hour in the back seat of a car are just the beginning of a decent evening, and the sagging commuter of twenty-five years later, who staggers home hoping only to have the stamina to make it through the first half hour of "Charlie Rose," are nominally "the same person." But by virtue of what? Of having the same Social Security number? Identity is the artificial flower on the compost heap of time.</p>

<p >-- Louis Menand, "Listening to Bourbon"</p>

</blockquote>

I title it so I can locate it. 'Sharon learning to ride at Camp Smith.' Prosaic but apt. No big problem for simpler souls.

Gerry, I don't see your title as a problem either. No one here, certainly not me, is advocating for anyone to title their

photos at all or for anyone to title their photos a certain way. What I described as prosaic was getting stuck in the mindset

that alll accompanying text (and by that I also meant intros or essays) was explanatory. I title much of my work similarly to

the title you just provided. What I don't do is make a joke of the idea that others may want to supply all kinds of different

titles and text along with their work. What I do is take each case as it comes. Some are good with no title. Some are good

with explanatory intro texts. Some are good with stream of consciousness essays alongside. Some are good with a poem

next to them. If I'm advocating for anything here, it's for individuality and to give every photographer the license to include

or not include text as she sees fit and judge it on its merits and not with one broad brush that says "photos should stand

on their own." That statement, IMO, is a call for conformity, which I find is often best avoided.

<p>There are no rules, guidelines or suggestions: back to square one.</p>

I find some guidelines and suggestions helpful. They usually aren't a matter of generalizations, however. The most helpful

suggestions I've received and given tend to be individualized to the photographer's own goals and aesthetic rather than

an attempt to get that photographer to conform to an external, fixed, or more generalized attitude or approach.

<p>Speaking of extremism and evocative description:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How did those pieces look, translated onto bodies that for many years have been doing something else altogether? Rather odd, sometimes. Balanchine loved speed; the Kirov dancers have to struggle to keep up. Balanchine wanted dancing on the beat; the Kirov dancers tend to dance in front of the beat. Balanchine wanted no acting; the Kirov dancers like to act, often broadly. The otherwise superb young Svetlana Zakharova, as Terpsichore in "Apollo," made googly eyes at the god throughout her variation. And this is not to speak of general technical problems, such as the fact that many of the Kirov women, probably because their legs are so hyperextended, cannot pirouette without tipping over.<br>

Joan Acocella, "Lost and Found"</p>

</blockquote>