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

Having studied much more 'art history' than photography (whose representation in art history books is miniscule), I've

noticed that the titles of paintings and sculpture become a significant aspect of the entire work, even in abstract painting

where the artist chooses a title that may have personal meaning and the art exhibition crowd tries to match the rationale of

the title. Guernica by Picasso is a simple example--the title is easily attributible to the image, so long as you

know the history behind the events at Guernica. Other paintings may seem to have no obvious relationship to their titles but

through convention, become known by their titles. What about photographs? Most titles of photographs are pretty much

short descriptions of the subject matter. What about a photograph that is intended to be more interpretative? Do

photographers consider it 'legitimate' to title a photograph with personal meaning--particularly now in the age of photo digital

manipulation? I know there's an argument that a photograph is reproducible and therefore not an 'original' work of art, but

artists create lithographs, etchings, etc., in limited runs and provide them with titles as well. I'll link a sample

photomanipulation to this inquiry with its title, NOT for positive or negative feedback on the image, just a reflection on your

views about the issue of title and image.<div></div>

<i>particularly now in the age of photo digital manipulation</i>

<br><Br>

I don't really think that has any bearing on it one way or the other. Manipulation in the wet darkroom isn't any different. As for the larger question: artists working in every discipline have been assigning inscrutible names - whether as clumsy pretension, coyness, sly sophistication or what have you - for as long as they've been naming their art. I expect that at least one of the charcoal bison strutting his stuff on the walls of the Lascaux cave was titled "Ummanagunna, ugh!" (with a neolithic French accent, of course) whereupon one of the contemporary critics probably smacked the artist in the head with a club just to straighten him out.

<br><br>

More to the point, there are no rules. There is no legitimacy in any form of name for a work. Is the work intended to sell? The artist might consider whether or not the work's name will help in that effort, or contribute in the long run to the artist's reputation and marketability. Is the work made strictly for personal enjoyment? If so, then worrying about it is especially counterproductive.

Let me understand, Alan. Are you arguing for more thoughtful or helpful labeling of semi abstract or perhaps 'social commentary' images to help viewer better appreciate the rendering? Does this label then elevate the photo to a higher level of artistic personal expression then?

'legitimate' ? - absolutelly..

Photographs have become known by their titles as well. Many of the people who are now considered Masters have photographs that are readily identified by their titles - Moonrise for example. While I find the question interesting, I don't really see how this could be any different for a photograph than it would be for a painting. Regardless of reproducibility, the reproductions carry the same title and I, at least, feel that any photographer worth their salt makes a personal connection to their subject of they would not be photographing it. So, it stands to reason that placing a title that carries personal meaning would be completely logical.

 

- Randy

Much of photography's power lies in its ability to document a scene. And when we look at the scene, it's helpful if the title

gives it a context. A sailor kissing a nurse is one thing, but if we know it's a celebration of VJ day in Times Square in

1945, we have information that provides context, and informs the viewer as to what they are actually seeing. I've always

felt the best title is a place name and a date. But then I come from a social documentary, photojournalistic tradition. I

suppose a pictorial shot, a red barn in a misty meadow, for example, is presented as a pretty picture, and the time and

locale are not as important. Close ups of peeling paint that create abstract forms may do quite well as "unititled." On the

other hand, if you want to sell a print, "Untitled #47" might be more helpful.

Language is more powerful than pictures, imo. I avoid titles. If I were showing and selling, I'd have to create identifiers, if for no other reason than for bookkeeping.

 

With "Darkness at the Break of Noon" am I supposed to hear Dylan's lyric, and is that supposed to enhance my appreciation of the image? Maybe it detracts, or what is more likely, overpowers the image, and it would be better if it were labeled Image 03 or the like.

Titles often give context, and I sometimes choose my titles carefully to provide the context that they need. Two examples come to mind:

 

Gods of the Harvest: A parody I did on the stone gods of Easter Island. The photo shows three enormous bails of hay in a field, which actually appear to have faces. Without the title, viewers would likely just see the photo as three bails of hay. The title forces them to study the photo to ascertain why I gave it that name.

 

Hatched: A photo of a fractured cast iron mooring float. It looks almost like a giant egg shell. One wonders what machine hatched from it. (OK, my mind works that way.) Without the title, the viewer might simply see a photo of an enormous rusty ball with a hole in it.

 

One might argue that the titles are necessary for clarifying what the photograph should already clearly show. However, I would argue that there are two elements to many photos (and I would argue to the better photos): what is there, and how it is perceived. Sometimes there's a subtle and somewhat private perception that the photographer wants to share, and the title is the way to do that. This is not unlike the caption to a cartoon. The messages of some cartoons are self-evident without captions, but most cartoons require captions and labels to describe the artists' often weird thoughts or to give context to the illustration. For instance, consider a Far Side cartoon of a plant with lots of people-shaped seed pods hanging from it. The caption: Manypeoplia upsidownia -- poking fun at taxonomists. Or perhaps a chemical cartoon -- a benzene ring structure with an added central carbon bonded to every other carbon of the benzene ring (and centered in the ring). Forget that this couldn't really exist. Caption: Merceded benzene. (It looks much like a mercedes hood ornament.).

 

Then of course there are the photos whose impact requires the absence of a caption. For instance this irreverent photo, which is a commentary on the nature of monuments to great men:<div></div>

<i>Without the title, viewers would likely just see the photo as three bails of hay. The title forces them to study the photo to ascertain why I gave it that name.<p>

 

. . . Without the title, the viewer might simply see a photo of an enormous rusty ball with a hole in it. </i><P>

While a good title can add extra layers of meaning to a photo, I think these quotes demonstrate the problem with many "meaningful" titles. The title doesn't force the viewer to do anything. Intriguing <b>photos</b> draw the viewer in, resonate with the viewer, and invite the viewer to give more thought to the meanings of the image; a good title can provide some insight into the author's intent. A "meaningful" title on a mundane photo doesn't make the photo itself interesting.

In my photography titles are very much important because the landscapes, for instance, show nothing new in a major part, to the world. So before I go outdoor to photograph I already have a title on my mind, a context and sometimes the concept too. Or more often, during photographing I invent the title or the context. Because when I'm out in the field, I usually don't know what I'll find there. Sometimes I invent titles just sitting in front of my computer working on something else. The names and the titles always come to my mind out of the blue, suddenly as a spark.

I can't imagine having no titles on my photographs. I usually don't understand the title "Untitled" of painting or of the photo. My work is narrative with storytelling. It is a part of who I am, of my personality. The titles make them more authentic, having the identity and meaning which people often are looking after.

Through my photography I want to be straight, clear in the storytelling. So people might understand the work or not, but in any case I don't want to leave people wondering or saying "We've seen that already. It's nothing new." Or something like that.

 

As for your title, yes, I like the title. Words are for me stronger than the images. Definitely.

Sarah's post -- as highlighted in Mike Dixon's -- describes what I want to avoid: attempts to force an interpretation or understanding of a photograph on the viewer through language. Working from documentary concepts, such use of language may come too close to propaganda (or advertising) for me to be comfortable with.

"Without the title, the viewer might simply see a photo of an enormous rusty ball with a hole in it."

 

Then again, they might not. Viewers are not tabula rasa to be imprinted with meaning or otherwise they'll just see the surface features. Forcing a perspective on them might enhance the photographer's sense of creativity, but it is likely at the expense of the creativity of the viewer. Viewers will add their own soundtrack, narrative voice-over, resonances of memory or fantasy -- or not...maybe there is nothing there but "an enormous rusty ball with a hole in it". Too much forcing of meaning and the subject of the photograph becomes, not an enormous rusty ball with a hole in it, but Sarah Fox.

"titles are very much important because the landscapes, for instance, show nothing new"

 

"The titles make them more authentic, having the identity and meaning which people often are looking after."

 

Why wouldn't the photo itself have an identity and meaning? Why can't the photo of landscape itself show something new if

that's what you want?

"Sometimes there's a subtle and somewhat private perception that the photographer wants to share,"

 

Sarah, you are describing what is often to be found within a good photograph.

I'm reading through this post and it occurred to me to Google something famous - or something universally accepted as fine art photography, if you like - for comparison. I chose Imogen Cunningham's "Magnolia Blossom" 1925. Well, I've seen a magnolia blossom before, so the title of the image really doesn't contribute much in the way of interpretation, or what the artist was trying to "say". The date is nice, but also, not really necessary to understanding or appreciating the photograph for what it is.

 

I think this particular image, as I think most 'fine art' photography should be, is a beautiful image. It stands completely on it's own and has no need for a title to give it meaning. I don't necessarily even need to know it's a flower to appreciate it and to recognize it as a brilliant work of art. Cunningham's Magnolia Blossom could easily be called "Untitled" with no date and would be just as appropriate IMHO.

 

I think one might could even argue that "fine art" photography is purely aesthetic; not at all "documentary" and if it is good fine art photography, contains a clear visual message that transcends language in the eyes of the viewer. The artist's vision or intention is communicated visually in the photograph and if done well, communicates it all the more clearly and thus, defines it as "fine art".

 

I better toss in a qualifier here: I am not an Art History, or any other other kind of Art major, but I am most certainly interested in producing what I'd like to call fine art photography. I'm still trying to figure out for myself what constitutes "fine art" and what differentiates it from all of the other photography out there. This two bits here is just one of my takes on the subject.

"I think one might could even argue that "fine art" photography is purely aesthetic; not at all "documentary" and if it is good fine art photography, contains a clear visual message that transcends language in the eyes of the viewer."

 

I don't know whether fine art is purely aesthetic, but do agree fine art and documentary are very different types of photography and the criteria for one may not be applicable to the other.

While the VJ Day Kiss is put into context by its title (and much that's written about any photo can be interesting and

enhancing), I'm not sure it would be referred to today if it didn't at the same time visually transcend that title. It seems to

me it's both in its particularity of the moment as well as its going beyond that moment, through symbolic and universal references,

that much of its interest lies.

 

Unfortunately, many cleverly-titled photographs are limited to and limited by their clever titles.

Fred,

In my opinion, my photos have an identity on the surface and regarding the meaning, I am the one who gives them the meaning through pure aesthetic and the concept in a later phase.

My photos wouldn't stand well being untitled. When artist gives the titles to his work, for me it means that he care about deeply about his work. When I name it, I feel like I encompass the body of work, ready to be presented.

 

As for "the Kiss" photograph, the title perfectly suits. I don't see it as a limited photo. It could be also titled "The End of the WW II", or "Celebration of the end of the WW II", or "At Home", etc. But this title "The Kiss" draws the public attention where finally the photo became the iconic one. This photo still radiates, together with the title.

In the eyes of the beholder, I thought art was an outlet to the expression of one's ideas?

 

Oh wait, I forgot that art is subjectable to the Great Book of Art Rules.

 

Let us not forget, The Book of Photo Manipulation, Chapter 14, Verse 28:

 

"And great artists of the previous times doth have better titles, for their work is more significant than their modern counterpart; it has been spoken so it must be so"

 

 

 

Then again I'm sure not all, if any, will find taste in that joke, so who am I to say?

 

XD

"My photos wouldn't stand well being untitled"

 

Kristina, you might consider to formulate that somewhat different.

 

A title is just that, a practicality. Just as my name doesn't tell you anything about my personality so doesn't a title on a piece of whatever art. It just scratches the surface. For the rest it is indeed mostly pretense. And let's not forget that in quite some cases titles have been attributed afterwards and not necessarily by the artist

Kristina--

 

I agree with Ton. And I think you are not giving yourself as photographer enough credit and you are not giving

photographs themselves enough depth of power. If the photo "The Kiss" were no good, no title would help it. If one of

your landscapes showed nothing new or personal (which I don't think is the case, since I think you do approach your

work personally), no title, no matter how meaningful and deep you thought it was, would make it a more meaningful or

interesting photo.

 

I think it's wonderful that you love giving titles to your work and I imagine it creates a special spark for you to do that.

But, as the viewer, whether I'm looking at Winter Spirit I or Winter Spirit X or whether you called those very same

landscapes Untitled I and Untitled X, my experience of the photos would not change. If you are to give spirit to a

landscape, you will do it with your vision, your camera, and your post processing, not your title.

 

And I may be misreading you, but surely those who title their work don't care any more deeply about their work than

those who don't title their work care about theirs! I look at the photograph and determine whether or not someone cares

about their work.

 

John--

 

I think photos (art) express ideas but also feelings and a way of looking/seeing. Ideas lend themselves to words better

than feelings and ways of looking and seeing.

"And great artists of the previous times doth have better titles"

 

Great artists of previous times rarely titled anything and did not indulge in creative titling. A lot of titles of paintings were given to them in later centuries by critics and museums and just common reference. The subjects were known and common (historical, mythological and religious), so there wasn't even a need to name them with identifiers. Everybody knew the iconography for Jesus or Judas or Mary and the stories, for example.

 

Creative titling may have begun with pictorialist photography or maybe with post impressionist painting...just a guess, though.

"I don't know whether fine art is purely aesthetic, but do agree fine art and documentary are very different types of

photography and the criteria for one may not be applicable to the other."

 

Doesn't Sebastao Salgaldo combine fine art and documentary?

"Doesn't Sebastao Salgaldo combine fine art and documentary?"

 

Yes. Imo, the artistry -- or something -- weakens the documentary quality of his work. At least I'd rather think it is art rather than something else. There is text accompanying his photos on his website about things for which there are no photographs presented. I'm assuming they were not artistically interesting to him, but they would, I think, interest the documentarian.

I think that language is important, and can be a part of any form of creation, be it painting , photography or any

other visual work. If it is well done ,a title can add another dimention to the whole, but the starting point needs to be

the visual content and attraction. When they complement each other, it is a pleasure.