Why is the title of a photo so important?!

[machts gut]

While reading all your answers I thought: "Hey, check out Duane Michels", just to come to the end of the thread to read that advice:-)A photo is visual argumentation and a title that simply explains the photo is nonsense. Otherwise a title can lead to a total different meaning than the obvious. It can contradict the photo, lead it into the absurd, make a whole new story. Michels is a master in this genre.

 

Stefan

[pico]

<b>Bill Tate</b> <i> Many times I make up titles, and days, weeks or months later get around to making the photograph.</i><p>

 

Stephen Wright started the same way.<br>

His photography is beyond reproach.<br>

You could say it is postroach.

[Brian]

<P>I don't know Michels' work but Rene Magritte introduced the idea of inappropriate/contradictory titles with his painting of a pipe, entitled "This is not a pipe".</P><P>We think in words as well as images so a title is always important, and its relationship to the image is a part of the presentation.</P>

[Alex_Es]

It all depends...

 

Sometimes you need not only a title but commentary for a photograph.

[andy_laycock]

"Andy,

 

I would love being able to take pictures even half as good as the one's in National Geographic. :)Roger"

 

I totally agree with you Roger. I wish I had the skill of a good photographer regardless of the genre.

[plasma181]

Sometimes I have fun the copyright message. On one shot of my nephew, I wrote "If you can make any money off this picture, all power to you".

[john_hancock]

Of all the famous Cartier-Bresson photos I've seen, enjoyed, and remembered -- only one had a memorable title, "Sunday on the Banks of the Marne."

The "No Words" forum on photo.net makes interesting viewing in light of this discussion. My first post was on the "Unhappy" thread, and I gave the picture an identifying title, "Early Ferry". I now think that was a mistake, since it indicates that the subject was asleep rather than unhappy. My second post, on the "Gateway to a Better Place" thread, is untitled.

BTW, I've been an amateur photographer for 45 years, and a professional writer for 36. Go figure.

John Hancock / Sydney Australia

[mattvardy]

in either case of 'titled' or 'untitled' i feel that a great photo will speak for itself regardless, and a great photographer will know whether or not to title his or her photograph depending on a number of variables such as the context in which the image will be viewed. to title a photo is to take the viewer by the hand and guide them to a certain end or steer them in a certain direction. to leave and image untitled, or to give it a vague or otherwise misleading title is done to either make a statement, or deliberately leave the image open to interpretation.

 

also, we should be careful not to confuse the role of titles vs. captions.

[snapshot1]

Ok, my anonymous photo of 3 surgeons literally up to their elbows in blood w/ gallons of it spilling over an operating table in a desperate trauma resuscitation effort has less impact than when you know the victim is the 19 yo daughter of one of our hospital vice presidents w/ the trial having full national coverage by CourtTV all week with the title "The Debutante Murder".

[neilpeters]

I always loved the absurdity of naming great masterpieces of music Opus 9, or Lullaby in E flat.

[steve_bingham]

Well. Maybe. How about this: "Mommy Isn't Coming Back". Photo taken in a ghost town where the families slowly split or simply moved away. You tell me.

http://ghost-town-photography.com/Desk-a-0216.jpg

[chris_waller]

Don McCullin has the best approach to titling his photographs he just gives the place and date, e.g. Beirut, 1967.

[bob_lazzarini]

I forget where I found this, perhaps even in some way past post.<br>

Apologies to the original author.<br>

Of course this could also apply to other 'species' of photography.<p>

<i>"It's interesting (and a bit sad) that when you look at what is commonly called fine-art photography.<p>

It always comes with a statement, which typically contains some sort of explanation or motivation for the photography.<p>

You never get to see something like "I just wanted to take some beautiful photos" or <br>"I liked the way those rubble piles looked, so I took a bunch of photos."<p>

I wonder why.<p>

I have no way of actually proving this, <br>

but I am convinced that many photographers do not have all that stuff <br>from their statements in their heads and then go out to shoot the photography.<p>

I have the suspicion that some of them, after having shot their photos, have a hard time writing something that can pass as a <br> statement, because "I just wanted to take beautiful photos of rubble piles" somehow doesn't appear to be acceptable. <p>

I don't mean to say that I have a problem with somebody's wish to explain his/her photos or reveal the motivation behind them or whatever else. <p>

I personally find it perfectly understandable and acceptable if somebody does not want to write a statement.<p>

But that's not how the art world works."<p></i>

[amorteguy]

<p>In my opinion, the use of titles depends somewhat on the type of photo. Most fine art photographs can benefit from a well thought title, but too many titles on photo sites such as this are pure clich鮠If you have been around these sites for long, you know what I mean.</p>

<p>I prefer to view documentary photography where titles are usually a location and date reference. I think Roger Kallet gave some good examples of tasteful titles. "Cutesy" titles belong on chain-email photos you get from you grandmother.</p>

<p>I disagree with Yana Vaslozhila who said, "If photographer needs to title, or even worse - to add text to his picture to make his message clearer, than he has failed as a photogarapher(sic)." I would reluctantly and partially agree with this statement only as it applies to fine-art work, portraits, etc. I would disagree wholeheartedly if trying to apply this thought to documentary work. Context is crucial to understanding documentary photos (you can feel emotion and empathy viewing Lange?s "Migrant Mother" but you have to know the context to understand it.) Documentary photography is about understanding a subject, hence the use of written text that accompanies 99% of documentary work.</p>

[james d.]

Looking over the edge of cliff is enjoyable, but if someone then gives you a push it can take

on a whole new meaning.

[lee_crump]

If a picture is worth a thousand words, what differnence will a few more make?

 

IMO: A caption can provide a varity of contextual depths to an image. A title simply provides a convient handle for discussion or markiting.

[raywei]

I was about to write down: "It all depends..." then I saw Anthony Amorteguy's reply, and realized that I could not put it a better way than what Anthony already did.

 

There are a lot questions in photography that need more than a simple answer. :D

[mmene]

I believe that it is a matter of freedom. The photographer is free to make any comment for his creation and the title is the less comment he may say. In the the other way if somebody sees something else than the title subscribes that's better. At least he knows an other point of view. More points of view are always better and make us wiser .

[snapshot1]

I think if you can't cough up a title you have no purpose. All that "it's art" & you see it for what it is, is so much bull shit. Take a stand on your work & make it yours. If you can't do that you will always be anonymous & never score a place anywhere. Don't you want others to see what you see? That is the purpose of a photo.

[danblu]

It is a method of communication, both photos and titles and surely both are an art form.

[joe hauser]

Everything gets named or titled sooner or later. Even work that doesn't have a title eventually gets called something. Someone once said that if they ever moved the Photography dept.'s out of the Art Dept's at the Schools it would best end up in the English Dept. If a work is interesting at all it creates dialogue and the verbage and narrative flows. If there is dialoge then the work get's a title even if it's just to idenify.

 

Might as well title a work yourself so at least you have some control. I zzzzzz when I see Untitled #1, Untitled #2, Untitled #3......which are actually titles themselves. I don't want any of my work refered to as a number anymore than I want to be one.

[london light]

We can enjoy photographs in many different ways. Muse on them. Appreciate a range of greens in them. Smile at how they remind us of the summer of '97. Show that that bird we saw yesterday was a sparrowhawk. Some of us get real pleasure just exploring the dot patterns on the surface of a fine print in a gallery (sometimes before we even notice what the photo's subject matter is!).

 

For me, though, if I want to UNDERSTAND a photograph, then getting a fairly clear idea of the photographer's intentions is important and the best place to start. (Some photographs are pretty easy to understand - like ones on the cover of a newspaper - some are ambiguous - like abstract images).

 

If it is important to a photographer to convey something to the viewer with their photograph (whether they worked a long time setting it up beforehand/have preconceived it/etc., or whether they just shot the sky and afterwards thought they'd like to point out to people the big finger in the clouds), then giving it a title helps convey what they intend. The title helps us to understand it.

 

If it is important to a photographer that the viewer understands it in their own subjective way - makes their own sense of it - or they don't intend to convey anything specific with the photo (they intend it to be ambiguous), then not giving it a title, or giving it the title of 'Untitled', helps them achieve that aim. In that way, having no title helps us to understand the photo better. They way they want us to.

 

I also think we take all sorts of pictures with little intention (without really thinking) - this snap-shot of Jes, that beautiful mountain, my Christmas dinner. And for these types of shots, it probably doesn't make much difference if they have a title or not. Usually they don't.

[gaius1]

If a movie has dialogue, the director has failed. Except that's not how it works, is it?

[redwoodtwig]

The title of a photo becomes the name of the photo which becomes the handle by which it can be remembered and discussed. Sometimes it also changes the photo in that it provides a clue or a hint that makes an otherwise plain photo into something more. I tend to feel that a photo should speak for itself, but I'm now coming to feel that a title or name is not only important for finding the file later, but it can also add to the photo something that enhances the viewing experiance.

 

I'd like to bring in two of my photos to illustrate this. Both of them speak for themselves -- but only if the viewer has had experiences similar to mine.

 

The first one is a shot out of an airplane window of some clouds. Anyone who has flown has probably seen the same thing. (I've met two people in the last month who have never been in an airplane!)

 

I knew what kind of picture I wanted, one that would fit the title I gave it, "Wish I could walk out there." http://www.deviantart.com/view/45598075 I always want the window seat because I still really enjoy looking out at the clouds. I didn't have the title specifically in mind when I took the photo, but I did have that concept.

 

Without the title, who would look at this thing twice? It's certainly not an earthshaking image, and I've seen much better clouds when flying over the Pacific. But with the title, everyone who sits in window seats by preference is drawn in. And a few of those who have never flown at all get some idea that it's more than a noisy dangerous way to travel.

 

Here I think the title enhances an other wise plain photo, gives it a boost from snapshot to something more.

 

Sometimes, though, a title is less important than a caption or description. In "A Gifting" http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/45623770 the title enhances the photo nicely I thought. But I have met people who know nothing about cats or dogs and even less about how some cats like to bring mice to their dogs. To them the title is meaningless because all they can see is a snapshot of a black blob and a big dog. For them, I offer as elegant a caption or description as I can. Maybe I should write a short poem and put it right in the picture?

 

In other words, sometimes I think a photo and a few words that go with it are the final product, not just the photo.

 

So I have some questions regarding title of a photo discussion:

 

1. should the title of the photo be on the photo, as in the margin, or should it remain separated?

 

2. How long or complex does a title have to be before it is no longer just a title and has become something more?

 

3. Is a photo that cannot stand by itself, that needs an enhancing title or caption, still a photograph? What kind of art form is it when words and image are put together so that they enhance each other.

[derin]

if you want a title you put a title, if not you dont. If you are questioning the hype, you are rightfully doing so. A title usually tells more about the photographer and the medium than it does about the work.