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

[don_e]

"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."

 

You are unfamiliar with Draganizing? What about Ms Leibovitz's wide-angle portraits?

 

"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..."

 

Yes, a personal response. I like them for the reason you don't.

[don_e]

"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."

 

 

(seeing if I can beat Fred to the draw...)

 

"The painting's title stems from a description by Giorgio Vasari in his biography of Leonardo da Vinci published in 1550, 31 years after the artist's death." quoted from you know where.

 

Once again, it is not the artist, but the critic (or historian, or curator) who names the work. Viewers, readers, listeners need titles, it is true, if for no other reason but identification. The artist does not. Since the painting was a commission from a client (Francesco del Giocondo, Ms Lisa's hubby), da Vinci had no need to creatively title it.

[Norma Desmond]

Good, Don, thanks!

 

Pnina--

 

I have only one photo in my portfolio called "Untitled." If we refer to that, we will know which one we mean. I promise

that, if I upload another photo without a title, it will be called "Untitled-2" or something as clever.

 

I don't have an objection to titles per se, especially (as you recognize) as a labeling mechanism. I have an objection to

supposedly meaningful titles, because of all the reasons I've already stated. Naturally many of my titles (e.g., "Mark,"

"George," "Michael," "Emil") have meaning as much as any name does and I don't think the titles add much in terms of

my own interpretation of these photos or the subjects' expressions. I could have called "Michael," for example, "Looking

Toward the Light," and I imagine many people would have been moved by that and allowed their imaginations to soar

along those lines. Frankly, a title like that, as was so eloquently put above, would make me barf. I would find it

pretentious and drippy, not to mention unnecessarily leading. I relate more to the viewer who would look at the photo and

be moved by what he sees, and independently reach some emotional place or experience a moment of at least some significance. I don't

necessarily believe every photo or

painting needs to be interpreted by the viewer and often I feel that such interpretations miss the visual point.

 

Those of us on the anti-title side, at least me, should probably admit that not all people who title their work do so out of

an inability to express what they want in their photos. But, in my experience on PN, I'd say it is quite often the case that

clever or meaningful titles are an unconscious attempt by the photographer to overcome his inability to say what he

wants to say visually. Further, I think clever titling stifles many photographers here from really thinking through what their perspective and

lighting, their exposure and depth of field is

saying, how their processing is affecting what they're saying and could help them say what they want to say if they want to say something,

how

symbols are working, and what visual clues could be included or excluded in order to make their point. Some are simply presenting what

they see and want to allow the viewer to see it the viewer's way. When I feel

someone is accomplishing expressions effectively in their photograph itself, a title won't bother me so much. When I don't see it in the

photo,

but it's alluded to in the title, I reject it.

[thomas_hardy1]

I've seen plenty of photographs with titles that are not descriptive of the subject. They sometimes have titles like the ones

in the original post.

 

Here is a link to a photo of a flower which I would have named "White Flower" or something like it, but the owner names it

something different. I guess some people are just more imaginative.

 

 

[kristina_kraft]

Fred,

you may feel free to perceive my photos neglecting the titles. It's not about nature at play. It's about the nature in its own play, or in her own play. My play of the nature might reveal innocent and endeared playing in her own space, without affecting our own. The frosted branches of the pines have been created of millions of snow flakes. They became heavy and branches bounded. The trunk was frosted too and its structure that I saw, was simply amazing in its aesthetics. The pine three became define in that moment, or even, the snow flakes created the thick layer of a curtain. And there is a path that leads behind that curtain, into the realm of my winter.

Of course, this is the story without the forest nymphs, hares, birds, and other fairy tale creatures.

[Norma Desmond]

Kristina--

 

I will let your personal description of your image speak for itself and I will continue to enjoy your images in my way and I

know you will continue to present your images as you see fit, which is as it should be. Thanks, as always, for a thoughtful

and stimulating dialogue! It's great.

 

--Fred

[jtk]

I think "meaning" only exists in verbal terms.

 

Therefore if you want photos (yours or somebody else's) to have "meaning" there's no reason not to attach it with Dymo tape (...for folks too young to recognize the brand,Dymo's a plastic tape that can be embossed with labels). Visualize "David" or "Half Dome" with a Dymo label.

 

Along that line, I see no advantage to postulating "universal" or "eternal" when there's more obvious, brief, currently relevant meaning.

 

In fact, I think the more posturing that's done, implying weight or depth (or fine A**) in a photograph, the less truth.

 

The more aversion to openness to obvious meaning, helping with simple informational labels (date, location, name of thing), the less truth.

 

The greater the aversion to intentionality, the less "truth" (the greater the deception) as well, since intentionality is absolutely unavoidable.

 

Consider raku' pottery in which intentionality is maximum until a last minute intentional accident...another zen notion, one that applies not incidentally to Salgado's work. The truth in his work is found in details beyond his control.

 

I use "truth" here in what may be a zen way, referring to the obvious. Therefore, if you suspect somethings going on in your photo, Mr. Jones, and you don't know what it is...leave "meaning" to the viewers and don't label beyond the obvious: "Lily #2" or "Open Pit Mine, Brazil 1990."

[julianj1]

Somewhere back there Jordan made a point that I agree with which is: isn't it all about individual expression. It's as personal a decision as what goes in the frame to start with. Fortunately there is a huge range of views on the topic, otherwise we would be lookig worringly like the 'establishment' dictating what is acceptable or not.

 

Another point is that the title is 'detachable'. Ultimately, if a photo is succesful, but has an awful title then the title can and often will change. I wonder how many titles of art in various forms are original titles? Personally I use literal titles because a) I don't think 'deep' suits my work and b) it would seem a bit pretentious given the standard of my photograpgy!

[pnital]

Fred

 

;-)) I know you don't have 10 "untitled ", it was for the argument sake, as I meet that kind of files with a lot of untitled titles, and if I want after sometime to refer to a certain photo, I have to gosearch for it. But if it has a title that impressed me as well, it makes things easier,.

 

I can speak only about myself, when I see a photo on the thumbnail that attract my attention, I open it to look at the bigger size, I don't look for the title, and if I decide to write a comment I may look at the title as well, but my impression has to be first and foremost, if the photo touched me in any way( positive/negative).

 

Title that states the obvious, is needless Imo, but if it is imaginative ( like yours " A cozy seder and than what? "... Or "de young lion") adds some thoughts and wider general context, I see it as blessed, and I speak in general terms, not only PN.

 

As Julian stated, it is a personal decision, good or bad, will be the viewer impression.

 

A note to John Kelly. John, I'm sorry to say that with my language barrier, it is many times hard for me to understand your points of view, as expressed in your comments., your last one included... It is not your fault of course, it is mine. ;-))

[mikelgondra]

Hi, Alan and everybody in the debate. I think it is a question or giving a title or not. It is true that in this art called "photography" there are many times that images are no titled, "Untitled" (looks poor), and, in those cases, perhaps other people, because of their feeling, or critics, or I do not know who will put a title to the image and perhaps that title will be permanently fixed to the image if it is successful or not.

 

When I am taking a look at a photo, if the author put a title, that is better; I will have the opportunity to know some more information about the photo FROM the origin: perhaps what city that street was shooted, what country that boy lives in, what sea is so furious, what mountain the author wants to keep, why that girl is smiling, and so on. Another question is that many photographers do not want to put titles to their photos because making titles is another "art" (closer to literature, not to photography) and they feel good and confortable at photography art but, sometimes, they do not feel so good at making titles. It is just a question of feeling. From my part, I always prefer the title and comments from the original author, because both in the photo and in title he/she will be giving something from his inside. Titles made from other people could be "external" to the image and, so, subject to many different interpretations.

 

Please, photographers, PUT TITLES, GIVE INFORMATION, PUT COMMENTS: this will reinforce and will be valued by the audience in most of the cases. At least I will give thanks any time I am reading a title and, in many cases, that could be as good as the photo-image itself. I go.

[Norma Desmond]

Pnina--

 

I'm laughing to think of a photo of mine being referred to as "blessed." :) Anything but "blessed," please! Those

mythological terms just don't sit well with me. :) Especially the Cozy Seder photo, which is a guy dressed up in

mimicking Jesus carrying a cross to an Easter Sunday celebration that, in my mind, was posted with a bit of a bow in

mind to David Meyer (Gordon and others noticed this). The reason it got titled was specifically to be tongue-in-cheek

about the photo and about titling itself. Giving it a title was, in part, paying homage to David, who always titles his work

and who I've given a good-natured hard time about those very titles. Like I said, I'm not always opposed to titles.

Occasionally, they perform a function or play a role.

 

I'm not sure what thoughts or general context "de young lion" creates for you. It's a photo of a lion statue standing

outside the de young museum, pretty much in keeping with my standard way of titling, which is to identify subjects and

places by name.

[daniel_coetzer]

Greetings from South Africa.

Maybe all photos should have 2 captions.

One : stating the place or time or subject or any relevant information about the actual picture.

Two : the photographers reason ! or message that he would like his audience to consider. What he saw or felt or wants the audience to feel about his picture

[jtk]

Pnina, I apologize for my last post's intensely American and abstract (or space cadet) style.

A few of my countrymen may even note a reference to Bob Dylan, but probably not many.

 

Language barriers are irrelevant to this: you should know about raku ceramic discipline. It's practiced in the context of zen (which, like photography, is a discipline, not a religion). The pot is made and glazed, ideally with with high expertise and outdoors with no kiln http://www.claygirl.com/raku.html.

 

Just before firing or perhaps during firing, an accident is welcomed. The pieces are never "perfect." The accident is hoped for and valued.

 

I think raku is a lot like Salgado's work, which is highly disciplined and intentional but which is valuable primarily because of details that are beyond the photographer's control. In fact, I think most of my favorite photography is like raku.

[kristina_kraft]

Thanks Fred for your kindly words. (Yes, I've been improving my English for the last 12 months.)

As for my other folders, I'll have to rearrange History in a Stone.

[pnital]

John, thanks for your answer, and the link for raku.I started my way with ceramic and have had my own kiln in my

younger years...Still it was an interesting link

 

.....and I still did not understand the connection to titles and truth in creation that you have explained, I assum. it is

also the wording of your expression that is hard for me as not well familiar with american way of life ,culture nuances,

language nuances, codes, etc. Again, it is not your problem, it is mine... ( but I learn every day...)

 

In fact , in my experience, photos has elements that are beyond the photographer's control, it depends where it is

taken if you are well aware and observant of them.There is a bit similar phenomenon in painting that is called " A

happy accident", something that happened while working and was not as the painter's planed intention.

[don_e]

"...it is also the wording of your expression that is hard for me as not well familiar with american way of life

,culture nuances, language nuances, codes, etc."

 

Pnina, what was your reaction to the OP's title (Darkness at the Break of Noon) for his image?

 

This is the first line of Bob Dylan's lyric: It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)

 

John's "Therefore, if you suspect somethings going on in your photo, Mr. Jones, and you don't know what it is..."

references the chorus to Bob Dylan's lyric: Ballad of a Thin Man ("and you know something's happenin' but you

don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?)

 

"Again, it is not your problem, it is mine... ( but I learn every day...)"

 

I wouldn't be so sure of that, Pnina. Both John and I are members of the same generational cohort, one which

plays with language, makes obscure references and leaps of logic that can be really entertaining or even

insightful -- assuming the listener is a member of the same cultural cohort.

 

I don't know if Alan G, the OP, is a member of my generation, and whether his title is meant to evoke Dylan's lyric.

 

But, "noon" does not "break" in English. Dawn breaks, but not noon. Dylan might have intended to bring to mind

Koestler's book Darkness at Noon, too. I don't know. I do not recall any other use of 'break of noon' outside

of Dylan's lyric, and it would be interesting to know if any of the 622 Google hits on the in-quotes phrase are

from a work before Dylan. Some might consider Alan G's use plagarism; some people over react like that.

 

Maybe Alan is making a generational cultural reference just like John and I. If so, your response to John's post

makes me wonder about your reaction to Alan's title. One criticism I'd make of creative titling is unintended

consequences regarding its impact on the viewer. In my case, upon reading the title, my mind pulled up the first

three verses of the song, I wondered at how much I recalled, then googled the lyric and read it through, then

found the tape of Bringing It All Back Home an listened to that. I really never got back to Alan's image.

 

It is a good idea not to put things in the way of the viewer, if you want them to look at your photo.

[rongarofalo]

This is a good forum. It would be interesting to open it up to other artists besides photographers. Or at least compare personal backgrounds of those who are writing here. Who comes from a fine art background or an engineering one? Would that make a difference? Perhaps post a photo and host "name that photo" forum just to see what titles everyone comes up with. I remember, way back in elementary school, reading class, multiple choice, "what would be the best title for this story?". I always picked the wrong one, go figure.

[jtk]

"It is a good idea not to put things in the way of the viewer, if you want them to look at your photo."

 

I nearly agree. But I don't think the photo should dominate in all situations. In fact, many "important" photos would become totally insignificant without context information (such as in a title).

 

For example, Nick Ut's famous napalmed girl would not be nearly as significant if you don't know that it depicted a typical instance of historic villany (as does Picasso's Guernica, about another historic instance). Without contextual information the girl could as easily be fleeing a village fire. I know an addled Vietnam grunt, his body badly burned, who alternately claims napalm accident and exploded stove. If I photographed his burns, should I say "addled" or "Vietnam Vet" or just show show a scarred, late-middle-aged black hispanic named Ed?

 

Capa's shot partisan is just one more instance of a mundane, daily event in many parts of the world...it is significant today only because generations have held it up as significant, few aware of anything about the war about which it's purportedly symbolic. It seems important that the label calls the dead man a "partisan." If we were Nazis we might call him a "Red" or "criminal." What if an Al Quaida corpse was labeled "partisan?" Would the image tell us something different if he was labeled "terrorist?"

[pnital]

"Both John and I are members of the same generational cohort, one which plays with language, makes obscure

references and leaps of logic that can be really entertaining or even insightful -- assuming the listener is a member of

the same cultural cohort. "

 

That sums it up Don. I don't belong to your "cohort", ( you sound very proud and a bit elitistc...;-)) I come from

another culture, even a western one but still different, my language is different. My ability to express my point of view

has a language barrier( in English) that I try to develope ,and still I have my point of view as you have yours, so lets

agree that we don't see eye in eye. I think that a title is part of creation, at least for me, you think differently( I saw

your untitled folders). As I wrote the title has to be creative as an addition to the photo, or at least give it some

identification.The photo has to "speak " first.

 

I don't have more to add to this discussion, not easy but interesting, thanks all of you .

[pnital]

Should be " even though a western one but still different" (thanks Fred)

[don_e]

According to the usual source: "The full title of the photograph is Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death, Cerro Muriano, September 5, 1936." I assume the title is the caption at its publication. The Militiaman's name was Federico Borrell García. Another title used is The Falling Soldier.

 

Assuming it is published over the title Partisan (that would be descriptive, too), the reaction of the viewer might depend on whether it was in a Left publication (resolve to do more for the cause) or a fascist one (a gloating snicker and serves 'em right). It is also likely that the meaning of "partisan" in some parts of the world (like the US) is obscure -- the partisan label fits both the Sunni resistance in Iraq and the Pashtun/Taliban resistance in Afghanistan. The positive connotations of 'partisan' linger, though, so they are not referred to that way, here.

 

Assuming a naive viewer who does not know 20th century European history or this photo, and if it is not specifically or creatively titled, I think the photos impact is still there. Nothing is lost. "The Falling Soldier" is good enough. It speaks to the realities of war. Language can be dangerous to photography, especially documentary photography and should be handled by the documentarian with tongs.

[jtk]

Don, I agree that "language can be dangerous to photography" and with most of your points.

 

However (you knew that was coming) I think "photography" has an important role in history, and unexplained shots of mere burned children, shot soldiers, or (for that matter) presidential assassinations are little different from pornography.

 

But, labeling sunsets and mountain streams with mystery titles, hoping to add significance, is usually a silly exercise in ego and desperation...a photo that lacks merit without a label doesn't gain it with a label.

 

Pnina, I don't think Don E is at all "elitist " but he seems genuinely "elite" to me. That means he's better, in the absolute sense, than many others. Everyone is not equal. Some members of "our generation" in the US have a great deal to be proud of. Many young Americans do today, as well. By definition, bystanders and "silent majority" rarely have much to be proud of.

[fate_faith_change_chains]

Looking at the title of the post there's maybe a bit too much emphasis here on the relation between documentary photography and written

language ( in the form of titles and text ). With documentary photography this relation between the image and the written word is pretty

standard and common and not too much open to various interpretations. With more subjective photography, not meant to document

something as objective as possible, the relation between image and word is less standard, with more things to explore between the

interaction of word and image. That's why I linked to Duane Michals because the things he talks about allign best with the question. I can't

think of any other photographer who explored this interaction between image and word so very interestingly and come to think of it, who

explored in

photography the notion of ' philosophy & photography ' so profoundly.

 

<a href="http://collection.fraclorraine.org/collection/print/409?lang=en">certain words must be said</a> --

 

<a href="http://www.bombsite.com/issues/20/articles/923">interview</a> --

 

<a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1248/4_6_90/ai_87023010">article</a> --

 

 

 

 

(the second link works but it takes some moments for the page to load)

[don_e]

"Looking at the title of the post there's maybe a bit too much emphasis here on the relation between documentary

photography and written language ( in the form of titles and text )."

 

The OP did not refer to 'fine art photography', but to "Treating photography as a 'fine art' form". He then goes

on to write, explaining that he is more familiar with "art history", "painting and sculpture" than photography.

So, he wants to discuss photography from that perspective (that paintings and sculptures have titles) concerning

the issue of titling a photograph and not just regarding fine art photography. He asks "Do photographers...", not

"Do art photographers..."

 

I did not understand him to be limiting the discussion to fine art photography, or "more subjective photography"

(meaning non-documentary).

[fate_faith_change_chains]

Yes, maybe. Nothing wrong with throwing documentary photography in the discussion but I think because the image / title / text relation in

pure documentary photography is more standard, more strictly defined then in fine art photography, it's less certain to give insight into this

question by the OP, wich I was basing my previous answers on and is not that for of to the title of the thread :

 

'' 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. ''

 

Of course one could argue that a documentary photograph can also be made to be more interpretative instead of pure objective.