Captions that force the photographer's interpretation on the viewer

I've often complained to my friends about captions on photographs

that force the view of the photographer on the viewer and I wonder

what other photographer's think about this.

 

The classic example is the girl sitting by a sunlit window with a

book in her lap staring dreamily off through the window with the

caption "Inspiration." I find that sort of pre-conceived

interpretation frustrating. I don't think it's up to the photographer

to interpret the photograph for me.

 

The caption that really set me off was one my friend mentioned this

morning. She described an apparently beautiful B&W print of an old,

drying out sunflower still on the stalk with the caption "The tales I

could tell." It's as if the photographer wasn't confident that the

work would stand on its own and had to make sure the viewer "didn't

miss the point."

 

Honestly, poets don't write plain language versions of their poems to

make sure that they're not misinterpreted. In fact, there's no way

for a poet to capture in plain language all the subtleties of a poem.

Each individual will interpret the poem differently and sometimes in

ways that are no less valid than the way the poet intended.

 

I think photographs are like poems and that an interpretative name

can turn a wonderful photograph into a joke. An interpretative name

asks nothing more of the viewer than to see what is expected. It

creates a barrier to the viewer connecting personally with the

photograph.

 

I think captions should be as factual as possible. I think the

picture of the girl should be title something like "Girl sitting by

window." The one of the sunflower should be "Fall sunflower,"

or "Dried-out sunflower."

 

Could you imagine if Leonardo da Vinci, instead of calling it

the "Mona Lisa," had called it "Enigmatic smile" or even

worse "Mystery." What if he called "Italian landscape" as a reference

to the background? How would we interpret his intentions then?

Instead he gave his painting the name of the sitter and let the

painting stand on its own. I hope more photographers do the same with

their photos.

I think rules about "captions", which I would generally call "titles" in this usage, are silly. Photographers should be able to do what they want. Should Stravinsky have named "The Rites of Spring" as "Orchestral Piece"?

<i>poets don't write plain language versions of their poems to make sure that they're not misinterpreted</i><p>No, but they do title them...</p><p>Honestly, do you really pay that much attention to the title of the photograph or painting that you cannot get past it to see anything else? If the Mona Lisa was named something different would it be any less of a masterpiece?</p><p>Shouldn't the artist be the one making the decision on their own titles?</p>

Data, I happen to agree with you. A photo should stand on it's own and open to individual interpretaion by the viewer. If a photo has any aesthetic value, it can stand on it's own without a "cool" caption.

 

A photo is visual art just like a painting and I have never formed my impression of a painting based upon a title. Books need a catchy, descriptive title and a good cover to "grab" the reader - usually with the addition of a photo or other coverart - afterall a book is not very visual, it it a bunch of letters on pages.

 

If a photo or painting dosn't "grab" the viewer immediately, a descriptive caption will not help grab the viewer or help to "understand" the image.

As an addition to be a little clearer, the title or caption doesn't really matter. It is the image that matters. Data, while I argree with what you are saying, don't let it bother you - do you like a photo less or more because of the caption or title?

I don't have a problem with titles and captions per se, as I feel that they can provide some useful background to the photo.

 

I do, however, despise the pseudo-babble titles that are just trying to be "deep" and fail. So your "Inspiration" example is a good one in that context - I mean, if it's a just girl looking out of a window the title is just trying to construe something that isn't there to bolster what might be just a mediocre photo.

 

Of course, if it was a stunning picture I wouldn't really care what the title is. So fortunately for us photographers, it's the photo that really counts.

Instead of using trite examples like "Inspiration," look at the work of photographers who incorporate titles into their work, great photographers like Laughlin and Bravo. There is no reason why a photograph and words can't work together - people here seem to have some sort of tiny boxes they want to put photography into, instead of letting it flow freely as an art. Open up a bit, look at some great photography instead of things like "Inspiration" and you will find yourself feeling differently.

I knew this would spark some lively debate. I guess I'm less concerned with how great photographers, painters, and poets use titles then I am with new photographers who, as Mark Abbott suggests, use titles to try to be "deep" or make up for what is really a mediocre photograph in the first place.

 

In a way it's silly to make rules like this, as Jeff Spirer suggests, but rules like this can be successful in raising the lower level of the art. Think of how much the rule of thirds has made mediocre photographers better. You eventually have to move beyond the rule if you want to be a great photographer, but there's no denying that it's a useful rule of thumb to start with.

 

I would suggest that titles that give "background" instead of "interpretation" will force the mediocre photographer to realize that if the image doesn't say what he or she wants, the title isn't going to make any difference.

 

As for the "Mona Lisa," it would be a masterpiece regardless of the title but a bad title would only serve to detract from its greatness. If Leonardo had called it "The whore of Pisa," I think it would make people think about it in a different way.

 

Yes, you can push past the title and see the true value of any image but the title will linger as a question in your mind. Ever go to a movie after you've read a bad review. It's hard to get past looking for the problems the reviewer pointed out and getting something for yourself out of the movie. Your interpretation of the movie becomes either an agreement or disagreement with the reviewer. The same is true of a bad photo title. Great artists know how to use titles to enhance their art. For everyone else, why not a simple rule until they learn enough to break it. Remember, you guys were once amateurs using the rule of thirds too.

I think what you are pointing out is an ineteresting concept. John Berger talks about

exactly this in his book, About Looking. Any text which accompanies and image only

serves to subvert it in some way. Even if this 'inspiration' photo were titled 'girl sitting

by window' it would still be subeverted by said title. Any possible title, even 'untitled'

changes the direction in which the viewer will go in search of it's meaning. Try, 'My

daughter,' 'My wife,' 'Saint Jessica,' 'The girl I knocked up in high school' and see how

it changes the image entirely.

 

Calling Mona Lisa, 'Mona Lisa' does not allow it to stand on it's own. Having a name

in the title creates a sense of intimacy with the subject. We know her name, so we feel

more affinity to her than we would if it was called, "girl."

 

I think what irks you is when people use stupid titles that insult the viewer's

intelligence. However, could it also be the use of hackneyed cliches and insipid

iconography that get's your goat as well? A girl sitting in a sunlit window with a book,

looking out into the 'future' is an icon that can have no other title than, "Inspiration"

even if the photog called it "Julie," it woud still be "inspiration," or "looking ahead."

The whole scene has become a part of the language of photography, and as such,

such icons have fairly specific meanings attatched to them, just as my words do.

Worrying and fretting about a picture's title....can get you trapped in non-relevance...Worrying about what Leonardo da Vinci did NOT do some centuries ago strikes me as a waste of time....If the viewer sees the name of an image as a barrier to the interpretation of the picture....time to go see a shrink....

I think John has a point.<p>

 

<i>Any text which accompanies and image only serves to subvert it in some way. </i><p>

 

I think subversion of one's image is fine. I don't agree with the statement, but I do think it's fine if that's what happens.<p>

 

I gave some examples above, ones that were photographic and not the Mona Lisa, and ones that weren't some new agey titles like you find on motivational posters. There's no response and I'm wondering why.

I am forced to title my images, a part of my work that I hate to do. I have often

found the titles such as "Inspiration" etc, to be pretentious. I chose to merely

label my prints by their subject matter i.e. "Breakwater, Hudson River" or

"Twelve Birds". It may not have the arty title that some people might favor but i

really don't care, for me what matters is the content of the image, the title is

just a means to discern it from another image of mine.

 

www.kosoff.com

I don't really think it's that big of a deal. Look past the title. Don't get obssessed with it.

 

I dunno - I always get a chuckle out of titles that look like they belong in a review of Art Forum instead of on a picture.

 

"hunh? Shit title. Photo's not too shabby though"

It's possible to use titles intelligently. Bravo is a case in point. I like ones that have a dialectical relationship to the image (if I can put it so pretentiously), or that inflect it in some way, giving it a 'twist' or forcing the viewer to see it in a new light, rather than simply attempting to correct its deficencies. For example, I have an image of an empty stage with a spotlight in the centre (no need to post it, because it's the idea that matters), taken in Venice. The title is 'San Marco on the night before Carnival started', which is intended to 'position' the image in relation to an overall approach rather than just supply information. Well, maybe it's not a good example, but I don't have any reference books to hand so I can't think of a Bravo pic. off the top of my head.

Sorry, I vaguely like the sunflower title, and as much as I like E. Weston's "Ascent of Attic

Angels" based on the photo alone, the great title makes me like it even more,

 

But in titling, as in photography itself, or poetry, or most any creative field, that which trys

to be too conspicuosly clever ends up merely insipid 97% of the time. The fact that once in

a while someone gets a winner only makes the problem worse.

 

Re: "Mona Lisa": a perfect example of something "made" by its title. Leonardo did at least a

couple of other portraits which are of near the same caliber, but they had clumsy names,

and are unknown to the general public. But even folks who've never darkened a museum's

door in their life know about 'Mona Lisa".

 

Indeed, even "Mona Lisa" was once "La Gionconda", a name that at least Anglophones

would have a tough time embracing as a meme the way they do "Mona Lisa", and some

authorities suggest that the factual title should be "Caterina Sforza," another name that

doesn't roll very trippingly off the tongue.

 

Not that the titles of older works are necessarily what the artist gave them anyway. Da

Vinci's "Cecillia Gallarani" is referred to by the more descriptive "Lady with an Ermine" by

the museum in Krakow that owns it. But neither reference is very likely to be incorporated

into the title of a motion picture, no matter how good the painting.

I think is a great question, but I don't have anything like an answer. A previous poster made the observation that most things which try to hard become insipid, and I agree with that. The problem for me is figuring out where that line is. For example, based solely on the descriptions, the sunflower example is borderline, but the girl by the window example is too cliche.

 

It seems to me that this question is related to how you work. Do you go looking to illustrate a specific idea, or do you shoot first and only later discover what you've recorded? Or something in the middle?

 

I like the idea put forward by one of the other posters that a title can provide a context or twist on the photo, much like the title of a book or essay. However, I agree with the idea of the original poster that sometimes a title is used as an attempt to make up for bad photography.

 

In my freshman writing class, we were required to put titles on all our essays. A good title can be very effective, at least in that medium.

 

Interesting question, interesting responses. I hope I added some value.

Hmmm. It depends on the picture and the title doesn't it Think of the Boticelli "Birth of Venus", now without the title it's just a woman standing in a seashell. <br>

You also get art which people argue about like the famous Damien Hurst Shark in a tank of Formadehyde. (sp?) This is called something like. "The impossiblity of death in the mind of someone living". I only found this out recently and it gets me thinking about the work in a different way (i.e. he's showing that you can't see the dead body without thinking about the live shark). <br>

Why not reading as Inspiration, instead of say instruction or entertainment ... <br>

Why not dried out sunflower as a token of things seen in times gone ? <br>

And I don't think it was Leonardo who called gave the title to the painting. According to the opening post it should be called "Smiling woman". <br>

A purely factual title doesn't help a great deal to inform the viewer. Take this <br><center><img src="http://www.mayhemltd.com/poster/ladyshallot.jpg"> </center><br> call it "Woman in boat", it means very little, but call it "The Lady of Shallot" and link to the <a href="http://charon.sfsu.edu/TENNYSON/TENNLADY.HTML">Poem by Tennyson</a> (especially the last half dozen verses) and you get what the artist has in mind. <p>

 

There is a related question which I might kick off another thread about, which is about ambiguity in a picture and the role of the viewer in interpeting it. This comes from my work with two models (see my Zoe and Rhowena folder if you're interested), and the question of whether the viewer sees them as Lovers, sisters, or just nicely arranged bodies. There is one entitled "Stroke". If I had called it "Foreplay" it would have put the picture in a specific context. I could have called it "Comfort" which would have put it a different context. By calling it "Stroke" I have left these questions to the viewer. I <i>like</i> the ambigutity. On the flip side I have another picture picture which was inspired by the Velvet Ungerground song "Venus in furs" (which comes from the book by Sacher-Mascoch). I've called it <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1445061">Strike dear mistress and cure his heart</a> to make a link to the song, and hence to the book - it's supposed to be a cover for the book . Calling it "Woman with whip" would give me an ambiguity I <i>don't</i> want - although just calling it "Venus in furs" was too direct. I don't see anything wrong with varying the degree of ambiguity.

My perspective on this issue is that if an image is banal or unimaginative, a "cute" caption is just going to make worse the impression that the image makes on the discerning viewer. A good example of this situation would be a greeting card type image of a smiling child accompanied by the caption "The Innocence of Childhood". However, if the image's composition is original, that caption might actually work well in terms of providing the viewer with some insight into the photographer's intent.

Bill, I think you've nailed it -- it's not so much a problem with titles as it is a problem with sappy titles. It's difficult to imagine a situation in which "The Innocence of Chilhood" wouldn't be sappy, though....

So is anyone else familiar with the use of titles by Bravo and Laughlin? Because talking about banal titles on banal images doesn't make much sense. There are photographers who have used titles to significantly enhance the image, but if all people know are new age titles, then there's not much to discuss.

Well, Jeff, I'll take a stab. At Bravo, at least: his titles are often puns or allusions (Crowned with Palms, Toltec, Lucia); they generally add depth to the photo by inviting you to consider what he means by the title (e.g. Somewhat Bright and Graceful). For the most part they aren't obvious (with the exception, he said stupidly, of those that are directly descriptive).

 

This is obviously a different matter from those titles we're all deriding above, which remove depth from a picture -- Innocence, Hope, Freedom, etc.

 

That's usually the key to a good title in any medium -- it should add something to the work, not flatten and simplify it.

I'll make an assumption, whether it is true or not, that the hypothetical image is made by a PPA member. PPA members who enter images in competition are required to give their prints titles! No exceptions! This may be why titles are given in many cases. It's just simply required for this example. Many PPA members would like to just have their images "stand on their own". They just aren't allowed for competition!

 

One viewpoint.

Captions can work to give greater depth to a photo, as can nontraditional framing. While

these devices can successfully deepen a work's meaning, I think, generally speaking, that

the photos should first and foremost speak for themselves.

 

Too often I see captions used to buttress photos that do not otherwise stand as sturdily on

their own. Maybe we are provided data that is not clear from an image perhaps, when a

better photo would have obviated the need to provide such information. Or maybe

information is provided about the uniqueness of the image, or the background of the

subject, or its history, or how difficult it was to make the photo. In these instances such

techniques seem to act as crutches to impart added value to a photo that perhaps does not

stand so resolutely on its own.

 

Someone recently uploaded a decent photograph of a dog lying in the street with

something small near it, seemingly the remains of a snack. The thing is too small, and

we're too far away to see what it is. The photographer captioned the photo, "The dog and

the rabbit." Well okay. But it doesn't look like a rabbit, we're too far from it to see what it is,

and the fact that it was a rabbit does not really add much to the photograph uploaded. Was

there a reason to tell the viewer that it was a rabbit? Perhaps he could he have made the

photo better -- by getting closer or by photgraphing the dog gnawing on the carcass or

burning/doging to focus our attention on the object, for example -- if he wanted to

highlight that point as important enough to give equal billing to the carcass as to the dog.

 

Now, if a seemingly normal man were sitting at a table after a meal and the caption was,

"Cannibal," that would impart information that would more greatly alter the meaning of the

image -- whether or not it was true. But if it wasn't true, or the information imparted was

trivial or tangential to the image, that too would be using a caption to goose up a photo

which wouldn't otherwise have had the same impact on its own, yes?

I am sorry, but this post is inane. I deleted my first response as I did not wish to be overly negative, but I ran into a good counter example where such a caption had excellent narrative value in the larger context. 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. In other words, you wish to impose the exact same type of <b>thought police</b> action upon captions as those captions impose upon you. That is severely hypocritical (not that I will ever claim there is some wrong with hypocrasy all the time ;o). Take a look at <a href=http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/cloning-the-can.shtml> Pondering the Question </a> and you will see what would normally be just such an inane caption taken as an adjunt to the written narrative. Please open up your mind and accept that art should not be limited. If your goal is to create a certain message, then if your creation communicates it, then you have done your work. Just because you find it ruins the photo does not mean the work as a whole was not successful. <p>

 

respectfully, <p>

 

Sean

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