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

[sarah_fox]

Mike wrote: "Intriguing photos 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."

 

Agreed. I'll add, though, that sometimes people need a bit of help. For instance, with the Gods photo (found here: http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phgodsoftheharvestthumb.jpg), I have ot admit that these "bails" of hay, which were probably 10 or 12 ft high, were very impressive -- the reason I photographed them. I had a sense of deja vu when dealing with the subject matter, but I couldn't figure out why. Then I got the images into the computer and studied them. After a few moments: "Ah! The bails have faces! Funny!" But it still didn't click. After considerable thought, I realized I was looking at the stone gods of Easter Island. I immediately knew how I wanted to edit one of the photos -- to saturate the colors, including colorizing the hay (which was gray), to eliminate the trees, and to substitute the sky. It was a very invasive edit job. When I was finished, people would study the photo with the same reaction I had: "Hmmm Looks familiar..." But because it wasn't their photo, perhaps they wouldn't spend as much time on it and would move on before getting the punch line. Adding the title put the photo into context and helped the viewer to appreciate what was done, why it was done, and what it means. Furthermore, there are multiple levels of irony to the title. I found people enjoyed the photo more with the name. However, even without the name, people still find it visually interesting and do pause to study it.

 

Don, you wrote: :"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." You then comment about shortchanging the viewer's creativity. I do understand your point, but I don't agree with it. I very much resonate with Kristina's approach. I, too, am very much about story telling, at least in the photographs that matter to me. (I also have some work with no message -- visual chewing gum, if you will -- that people seem to like, but I don't consider it my best work.) I want to focus more on story telling in the future, and I don't want to be at all vague about it.. One thing I want to try is to start doing staged shots, where the elements of the photo are selected and organized to tell the story. That's not much different than giving an image a contextual title. It's very much about forcing a message, and I see nothing wrong with that. In fact I see everything right about it. I would think I would be letting the viewer down by saying, "Here is the scene. Perhaps there's something interesting in it for you." My job, as I see it, is to observe and interpret. It's the difference between straight-up reporting and editorializing. Both are legitimate in my view, but it is the op-ed pieces that I find the most interesting.

 

Looking at the work of others, I see very little of interest in any work that it not, at lest in some measure, a reflection of the artist -- a glimpse through his/her eyes and a bit of time spent in his/her head. If a few words, or even a paragraph or two, help to get viewers into my head, then I feel I've accomplished something intimate and worthwhile.

[mike dixon]

<i>It's very much about forcing a message, and I see nothing wrong with that. In fact I see everything right about it. I would think I would be letting the viewer down by saying, "Here is the scene. Perhaps there's something interesting in it for you."</i><P>

I don't feel that I'm letting viewers down by having enough respect for and faith in their intelligence and perceptiveness that I trust them to form their own views of my work.

[don_e]

"Looking at the work of others, I see very little of interest in any work that it not, at lest in some measure, a reflection of the artist..."

 

How do you determine something is "a reflection of the artist"? Because it catches your interest?

[Norma Desmond]

"How do you determine something is "a reflection of the artist"? Because it catches your interest?"

 

I think there are various ways in which something may seem a reflection of the artist, some of them false. I often hear

critics, both on PN and in the "real" world, projecting things onto artists/photographers with abandon. Often seems

misguided to me. Then again, when viewing a *body* of work, there may become clear a certain consistency or

progression. There may be a particular approach or repeating themes. Especially if different subject matter is approached with a

uniting visual and/or emotional focus, it is more likely that something can be determined about the artist. When

making such a determination, I try to be aware that I could be wrong. Narrative interpretations can be tricky and artists can be opaque or

evasive, even intentionally misleading.

Sometimes, when I know an artist personally or have been privy to biographical information, it will seem that at least part

of his personal story comes through in his art. Some of that could be projection and some is probably on the money.

[don_e]

"Meaning", then is something requiring familiarity; it is timebound, placebound. Language as art: written

language and the coding of language into images (paintings, constructed photographs -- composites, studio setups)

become incomprehensible or the "meaning" is changed as the codes are read differently by a different people at a

different time than the artist's, until it is only the cultural anthropologist who can make an educated guess at

the artist's intentional meaning -- for the rest of us, there is perhaps an appreciation of the artist's skillful

technique or the art's utility as decor. Meaning is then only of antiquarian or academic interest.

[Norma Desmond]

Don, I'm not sure what your specific point is related to knowing something about an artist by viewing his work. I agree

with you about "meaning." That would apply to meanings that we give everything, words, symbols, people, images,

movies, hand gestures, facial expressions. So, yes, "meaning" is context driven. All meaning. And what meaning we will

give to a photograph or the photographer who creates the photograph will be, as you say, timebound and placebound. I'm

not sure how that relates to your question, except in very general terms, about how we determine what's a reflection of

the artist. If we're trying to determine something about Rembrandt, for example, we'd take into account whatever we

might know about his time and place. If I'm trying to determine something about Sarah's work, I would take into account

what I know about Sarah's environment and history. I would still do it with all the qualifications that I made just above. That meaning is

changeable, variable, fluid, and dependent on context still allows for meanings to be attributed and understood, again,

with care taken to avoid traps and assumptions.

[mrraz]

I title all my work because it, the title, has meaning for me no matter how obtuse. I don't care whether viewer "gets" the title. I also find that purchasers seem to like the idea of having a titled and signed (in pencil) work.

 

Legitimacy is a more subjective issue. If you fell comfortable titling your work, then that's all the legitimacy necessary.

[kristina_kraft]

Fred,

thank you for your critique on my Winter Spirit photos. Actually, these photos titled "Untitled I, II ..", might work well only in the situation where the photos would stand under the one title which already exist as a title of the folder - "Nature at its Play: Winter Spirit".

Yes, I'm very much satisfied with that portfolio. But how does it lack the power in these photos? What do you suggest? How can I empower it? There are many ways to do, but what did you have in mind, specifically?

 

Ton,

I might say different.

There is a natural urge and need to define the objects and subjects that are around me in my life. Every form in nature needs the name. Monet said something about the form that in order to see the depth of object, we need to forget the name of it. I agree on that.

Yes, I may neglected the name of the objects in the nature in order to give my mark to it by photographing. But later, I feel the need to name it on my own. In such a way I create again one more time, or even fulfill by my own vision.

I enjoy the beauty of the words. Form, meaning, identity - they are all clips of the one chain.

[don_e]

"Don, I'm not sure what your specific point is related to knowing something about an artist by viewing his work."

 

Responding to this: "Looking at the work of others, I see very little of interest in any work that it not, at

lest in some measure, a reflection of the artist -- a glimpse through his/her eyes and a bit of time spent in

his/her head. If a few words, or even a paragraph or two, help to get viewers into my head, then I feel I've

accomplished something intimate and worthwhile."

 

in the context of: "Do photographers consider it 'legitimate' to title a photograph with personal meaning..."

and "...the artist chooses a title that may have personal meaning..." and so forth as it runs through the thread.

 

I've pointed to the issue of the limitations of the artist's "personal meaning" with which they attempt to imbue

their work, and those in this thread who construct their photos to have explicit meanings and use text and titles

to guide the viewer to that meaning -- that too is ephemeral because soon enough no viewers will be around who

share the artist's cultural iconography and sentiments. The meanings will change or become incomprehensible in

time (we can point to an enormous number of examples to the boredom of most reading this).

 

After nearly four years of reading this forum, I'm still perplexed by this. I would have thought artists,

especially photographers, would want their art to have universality.

[Matt Laur]

<i>I would have thought artists, especially photographers, would want their art to have universality.</i>

<br><br>

Sometimes it's not that complicated, Don. There are <i>billions</i> of people in the world. A universal

<i>anything</i> is pretty hard to come by (death and gravity come to mind). But seeking a universal note or impact,

among <i>humans</i> as they react to a photograph? Nah. I think more photographers than you might want to admit

simply want an audience. An audience for their world view, or an audience to acknowlege their efforts, or an audience

to persuade, or an audience willing to pay, or an audience with a curator. I don't think anybody would want or expect

a universal audience, because the requisite draconian cultural homoginization would be dreadful, artistically.

<br><br>

"Beauty" may be a universal concept, but it can't be universally communicated in any given photographer's visual

language no matter how well informed or nuanced. It will fall flat or miscommunicate across many cultural or individial

gulfs. The desire to hit on universal themes - no matter how powerfully that fuels every young art student's restless

nights - seems most often to result in presumptuous, or pompous, or condescending, or platitudinous, or childish art.

And there's nothing wrong with that (since it's art!). I've fount that elegant, stirring, and nuanced art seems likely to

speak in more direct terms about something a bit more bite-sized. And even with very limited interest - in a world of

<i>billions</i> of people, it can have - by any historical measure - a huge audience. But the more focused the art,

the more that clues about context <i>can</i> help the process along.

<br><br>

The artist's personal meaning may indeed fade away into nothingness (sometimes by this time next week), but I

would think that most artists won't worry themselves about that. If their art is to <i>meaningfully</i> outlive them as

anything other than an historical earmark or curiosity, they need to bundle it up with some context, or leave enough

of a trail for others to provide such later (the alternative being a later audience's utter miscomprehension of the work -

and so be it!).

[laverephoto]

I think of a title as an opportunity to place an image in context. That might be a disadvantage if you want the viewer to

bring more of their own history to the subject matter. It might be an advantage if you are trying to direct the message of

the photograph. The title can limit the interpretation or enlighten the viewer to the photographer's purpose. there are also

numerous examples of artists who include passages of text on their photographs. I sometimes feel it is an attempt to add

something to a photo that is less that expressive, but I'm sure it can be done well.

[Norma Desmond]

Don--

 

I think many photographers are after specificity, not universality. I think many photographers are photographing for the

here and now, not for posterity. I like to think I fall somewhere in between. I think if one is trying to imbue their photos

with meaning, it's an admirable endeavor, and with it comes the knowledge that that will have its own limitations,

especially in terms of different cultures and times. When I photograph and process, if I consider a viewer, it is usually

one who I think "speaks" the same "language" as me. I imagine Beethoven composed knowing that far eastern ears

most likely would not "get" his music, if he thought about it at all. And while I think he composed under the spell of a

muse, I think he also considered his audience and their taste and musical knowledge and history.

 

Kristina--

 

I was not offering a critique of your work at all. My statement about spirit was hypothetical. I was not saying that your

work didn't have spirit or needed more spirit. In fact, I wanted to say that the spirit is found IN YOUR PHOTOS, and

your title doesn't give it spirit. As a matter of fact, for me, the title takes some spirit away because it leads me to believe

you felt the need to tell me the photos have spirit instead of trusting that your photographic skills captured and conveyed

the spirit of the landscape you presented. I don't think those photos lack any power and I don't see why they need to

stand under the title either of the photos or of the folder. They are clearly winter scenes and they clearly capture a spirit

of nature, so what exactly is the title providing, except of course a labeling mechanism?

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<a href="http://www.photoinsider.com/pages/michals/michals.html">Duane Michals</a> was one of the first, if not the first, to incorporate

text and writing on his photographs, handwritten, and often on the image itself or on the borders around the image. Writings about philisophy,

states of mind, etc...to give a whole other depth and meaning ( wich is not without hints of humour ) to the photographs. One of the most

interesting photographers around also,so if you don't know his work already, get to know it.

[david_byrde]

I don't mean to be disrespectful here but..99 percent of the time when I read a title given to a photograph, it makes me cough up some barf.

 

That goes for the title on the photo that leads this thread...in fact, it's a perfect example.

 

The artist is making vast assumptions about the worlds respnse to art when doing this and attempting to hold the viewers hand is a total

buzzkill...let your viewers do a little work..it's really what they want.

[eddy_d]

Hello. I think titles differentiate one photo from the other. It gives it an identity. It is the same reason we give titles to books, poems and movies and even with titles they do not make sense sometimes to why they are named what they are named because the title has nothing to do with the theme. " Hey did you see that movie? Wasn't it great. Which movie was it. Movie number 1, 2, 3 or 4? It was movie 4. Yes it was great but did not see movie 1,2, and 3 yet."

[don_e]

A few years back I read several journals of Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan. Some had photographs of their tour. I

was struck by the normality of Kabul in one photo of people boarding a trolley either on their way to work or on

their way home. A similar photo might be found of Saigon in 1967, or London or New York in 1897 -- or, for that

matter, a photo I could take tomorrow morning. Salgado's photos of construction workers...they are my neighbors,

and they pass my kitchen door each weekday morning, the same race or ethnicity, probably Mayan, with a sack of

tools and hard hats on their belts, like the Seneca who raised the skyscrapers of New York -- and like my

grandfather and my father and my uncles.

 

The universality of the human condition, don't leave home without it.

[kristina_kraft]

Fred,

of course, the titles don't give them a spirit. I guess, I just wanted to determine with the words at last. I defined my vision more clearly in that period. For me it was a new recognition of the nature in that time. My perception began to change than. It became more powerful than ever, and when I was looking at this photos, I wasn't sure of what I wanted to tell. I didn't want to speak of complexed philosophical issues, but to speak of my relation toward these scenes that I strangely found among the chaotic snowy decor. At the end I comprehend that it was about my soul that I projected in these scenes. That's why I felt the urge and the need to determine it for my self, and in this way I posted it here without thinking of what might tell others. Probably in that way I would exhibit it whether titled "Untitled" or "Winter Spirit".

 

What do you think for the exhibition purpose? The same, right?

[hal_a]

Every classical music lover would know of moonlight sonata. They can talk about this piece. Much has been written about it. Its true that part of the reason why it is so famous is because it has a title - a meaningful title. One can argue that music, like photography should be judged by its content - not by its title. but a name can be brought to the lips faster than say untitled-4 or opus-119. While a catchy title certainly can't make a bad photo good, lack thereof can certainly ruin the chances that a great photograph is widely recognized.

 

For photo journalistic works, context is very important. If there isn't an accompanying article, a title is a must.

[don_e]

"Its true that part of the reason why it is so famous is because it has a title - a meaningful title."

 

Good advertising, eh?

 

"The Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp minor "Quasi una fantasia", Op. 27, No. 2, by Ludwig van Beethoven, is

popularly known as the "Moonlight" Sonata. The work was completed in 1801[1] and rumored to be dedicated to his

pupil, 17-year-old Countess Giulietta Guicciardi,[2] with whom Beethoven was, or had been, in love.[3] The name

"Moonlight" Sonata derives from an 1832 description of the first movement by music critic Ludwig Rellstab, who

compared it to moonlight shining upon Lake Lucerne" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_sonata

 

And since Beethoven was dead five years before, we don't know what he thought of the "meaningful title" given to

this work.

[Norma Desmond]

"Moonlight Sonata" was the name given to Beethoven's work by a music critic because that music critic imagined

moonlight upon hearing it. It's popularity and use as elevator music would seem to go along with that sort of title,

despite the fact that it's a glorious piece of music.

<p><p>

The main verbal description given by Beethoven, as an instruction on how it should be played -- which is typical of

"Classical" music (Andante, Larghetto, Adagio, etc.) -- is "Quasi una fantasia" (Almost a fantasy). It is generally accepted

that such an instruction was given by the composer because this sonata does not follow the traditional sonata pattern

where the first movement is in regular sonata form, and where the three movements are arranged in a fast-slow-fast sequence. But I

don't think Beethoven would have provided a literal title such as "Moonlight." His relationship to

music was more sophisticated than that.

<p><p>

Kristina--

<p><p>

I'm giving only my opinions both about naming and about how I react to names. I hope you will do what feels comfortable

for you. While I may share your visual appreciation of a landscape, I don't necessarily share your narrative descriptions

of them. I don't see nature as being "at play." And I don't often find spirit in landscapes. (Moonrise may be an exception

but it's the amazing technical achievement that I respond to in Moonrise more than anything in the content of the photo.)

So I tend to dismiss your titles and just look at your work. For me, that act of dismissing can be a distraction. I think

titles that describe as neutrally as possible (which is hard) are better than titles that try to capture the feelings of the

artist or infuse the viewer with some knowledge of those feelings. Because, often, art doesn't work like that. My feelings

are not yours and my reaction to a work is not necessarily what you put into it. If you feel emotionally about your work

and convey it in such a way that touches me, it may touch me strongly, but also with very different emotional

attachments than you have. I appreciate it when that artistic process is honored.

<p><p>

I just looked through two art books I love. Here are a random sampling of titles. The first 4 are from a photography

compilation, the next set from a book of paintings.

<p><p>

Tim Gidal, "Beergarden"<br>

Erich Salomon, "A Press Ball"<br>

Erich Salomon, "Politicians at Dinner"<br>

August Sander, High School Student, 1926<br>

<p><p>

The last is a German Expressionist and very suggestively-posed, stylized photo of a handsome young man in a very

"designed" suit holding a cigarette a bit like Marlene Dietrich might. I'm sure the photographer had any number of feelings

about the boy and the shot, as I do. I prefer to allow myself the liberty of feeling those feelings unfettered by someone

else's impressions, even the photographer's. If I want more story, which I often do, I will read what I can about the

photographer and the particular photograph. But I prefer my first experience of a work to be of the work itself,

unaccompanied by someone else's (even the creator's) interpretation of what I'm seeing. Even the word "student" leads

the viewer a bit, but that still makes more sense to me than adding an adjective and, for instance, calling it "The Alluring

Student." I don't think the word "student" is quite as suggestive or leading as the word "alluring" would be, and I think

adding "alluring" would take away from the experience, first of all because not all people will find it so and second of all

because, even those of us who will, want to experience it visually and viscerally, not narratively and literally.

<p><p>

Next, I found three paintings by Gaughin: The Green Christ, The Yellow Christ, and On The Beach. Truthfully, some of

the Impressionists did give their painting more descriptive titles such as Monet's Yellow Nirvana. The title of the last one, I

read and reject and enjoy the painting.

[Norma Desmond]

Sorry Don, I was writing about Beethoven while you were.

[don_e]

Yeah, Fred, but you did it so much better than I. Thx.

 

I am not so much critical of meaningful titling as I am of the notion expressed in this thread that a photo is somehow superficial and without depth if it isn't infused with meaning via a creative title.

 

It came to me while sipping morning coffee that I experienced a rush of creative titling around the time of the onset of puberty. I just didn't have any works to pin them on. If I'm not alone in that experience, then maybe it is something parents might look for and encourage it as an "artistic bent" or potential talent. With maturity, I've found the work comes first and titling, if done, an afterthought.

[GerrySiegel]

I know this is taking the thread from the sublime to a more banal level but here is a pet peeve on titles I share

with you. When I look at photos in the daily critique section I am surprised to see shots of birds and flowers

that are untitled. I wrote one mild suggestion about a fine untitled shot of a coastal sea bird backlit wings

spread against the sky and beautifully caught- which I praised-, opining that I wish I knew what kind bird it was

( a cormorant

perhaps) the shooter replied like follows : " If I had time to look up the bird species, I would not have even

little

time I can spare to go out and take pictures at all....." Oh-Kay.....

 

That approach gives me tingly misgivings, friends. Bottom line= titles attach, help define,and reveal about the

artist and unlock feelings,even if they are incidental to the work itself. Also just plain inform, a la the bird

species example.

If we title it "Bird" does it not say something about creator and involvement in the image?

 

Beethoven and Mahler might or might not have agreed. What did THEY know about PR anyway? :-)

[falcon7]

Hi All,

 

Glad I asked!!! Truly interesting feedback, and I'm glad the responses developed into arguments and counterarguments between and among the 'threadists' or is that too close to 'thredony'? ; ) I'm going to print out the thread and read it in hard copy when I have a little more leisure. I only raised the issue because it came to my mind that when referring to a painting of which people share a common knowledge, the painting is always referred to by its title. To read the analyses here helps me realize one could probably write a book on the subject, and I'm sure someone has. The one thing that does seem to distinguish let's say painting from photography in terms of 'aesthetics' is that, I think, people in the 'fine arts' abandoned the idea of a work of art needing to be 'aesthetically pleasing' to be art, whereas in photography, it seems many people equate artistic merit to the idea of being pleasing to the eye, except, of course, photographers who might have tastes along the line of Diane Arbus. I don't like her photographs particularly, probably because her subjects seem so similar to the people I grew up with so there's nothing revelatory about her images to me, which is a personal response, so I think I'll leave it at that. 'That which is pleasing is pleasing because it is pleasing to the beholder' from 'Critique of Judgment' Immanual Kant. I'm sure that's not one of his more prescient observations, though. I'm sure about one thing, however. If someone offered to purchase an untitled photograph of mine for $500, but would offer $2,500 if it had a title, I'd come up with a title real quick! Or I might just say, "Darn, I can't believe the little tab with the photograph's title fell off the exhibition wall!"

[pnital]

To all of you, books has names( title), poems has names, songs, music,music bands, theatre shows, dance

creations movies, etc, I agree

that the art work need to be attractive touching, evoke feelins , interesting , but a title gives an identification to a

given art work.

 

Fred, if I want to ask you a question about one of your previous works, and you have 10 photographs titled : "

untitled ", it makes the question hard to ask, if it has a title, it is much easier to refer to the one I want to talk

about . If I will write in the google- Lonardo da Vinci,- I will get a lot about him, but if I will type" Mona lisa" I will get

the photo.

I think as well that in our era where so many photographs, paintings, articles , books and other art work are

exhibited, printed, and presented,( let alon the photographic sites) I find it important to have some title, a name, to

make it easy to reffer to .

 

We all use words( language) to communicate, why not add it to a photo as another mean ( parallel and /or second

in hierarchy after the work itself) of creation? I think that part of what the artist creates,he does it in part( at least) as

a mean of comuniction,( if not ,it can stay in his drawer). word, names, titles are nessesary imo. For me it is a part

of creation.

One can like it or not, but I still see it as a part of any form of art .