Are Photos Like Jokes?

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>I just read an article on another site which mentioned and gently criticized an apparent (academic) trend of having lengthy dissertations accompanying and explaining photos in every particular.<br>

Here on photo.net I have seen just a little of that at one extreme, regular titles, and at the opposite end, dots, stars, slash marks, etc.<br>

I do feel that a good title can help a photo, but also think that a fine image can / should stand on its own.<br>

To revisit the subject line, there is an old adage that a joke which requires explanation either isn't very good, or was told badly. Does that apply to photos? Or what is your take? </p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Sometimes titles and/or explanatory text add to the experience of viewing the photo. Other times they can be superfluous or worse. I don't see it as a 'one size fits all' situation.</p>

[User_5888660]

<p>The best or worst title: "Untitled #6"?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>"...a joke which requires explanation either isn't very good, or was told badly. Does that apply to photos?"</p>

<p>You're saying that if a picture doesn't require an explanation, it's a good joke?</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I don't much like extended curatorial notes on pictures, particularly of aesthetic elements when viewing photos as I feel these are unnecessary fluff and highly subjective. I don't really need to be told that the "strong diagonals contrast with the geometric shapes to make a harmonious whole" often because these appreciations may not match mine and because they are making claims for the status of the photo that I feel should be left to the viewer. A critique forum is a different case. There are often historical details about the photos that can add to a photo, however, so I am happy to keep read these.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<........but also think that a fine image can / should stand on its own.>

 

I am attracted to a photo by the image and only then look at the title if the subject is a place or a thing that inspires more information,like which cathedral or village. I like brief w/ no self important essays. Let the photo do its work.

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>a fine image can / should stand on its own.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can go to a fine restaurant by myself and I can go to a good movie by myself. Nevertheless, I sometimes choose to go accompanied by someone else. <br /> <br /> Why talk only of "having lengthy dissertations accompanying and explaining photos in every particular?" Why not be specific? Why not choose an accompanying text for a photo that you think is worthwhile and an accompanying text for a photo that you find superfluous or presumptuous? That would show some discernment and not simply play into stereotypes and generalizations.<br /> <br /> The point is, a photograph is a picture of a moment. Sometimes that visual moment is enhanced by a bit of supplied context. There's nothing wrong with that.<br /> <br /> If I see a picture of a man, smiling, sitting in a chair with light falling on his face from a nearby window, I may have a different reaction when I see the title "My Father on his 90th Birthday." And why shouldn't I? Who in God's name made up the rule that a photo should stand on its own? <br /> <br /> It's a big world out there, with room for all kinds of information or lack of information. I wouldn't want to limit and standardize how all photos are supposed to be shown and experienced. I'd find that really boring and lacking in individuality and texture.</p>

[willis]

<p>I find that a simple title to point the person viewing the photo in the right direction is all that is needed.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>I've got to tell you, I double Majored in Writing and Speech and spent a lot of my work and personal life communicating successfully. The word "think" and phrase "also feel" don't imply rule making to me. The article I read provided me with food for thought and I was interested in hearing some other views. No, I do not post others work as examples, since I don't use either extreme, I can't post my own. Every time I post something other than images or helpful or factual information I regret it - need to remember to refrain in future.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Sandy, Don't be upset. If you didn't get strong support or objections, the subject you selected would have been boring. My own take is I like to keep the title simple although it's tempting to steer the viewer to your belief and hype the picture quality more than it is. Like, "Pretty Sunset Over a Quiet Meadow". I would tend to label it "Sunset" or "Meadow". "Photo #5" is a little to non-descript for me.</p>

<p>On the other hand, editorial, photojournalistic and essay photos need captions to put the pictures in context. But these should be explanatory and not try to hype the effect. </p>

[Brad_]

<p>Not always, but many times (especially on photography forums), I've found that explanatory text that accompanies a photograph feels like an attempt to compensate for what is otherwise an image that is weak or lacks power standing on its own. Documentary/journalistic photographs are an exception in many cases, but often do not necessarily need textual support.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

If the visual aspects of thephoto have to be explained for the aesthetics of it to be appreciated, the explanation better b

damn good and free of academic jargon and cant.

 

On the other hand it sometimes helps to know the historical context of the person, place, thing depicted and the era in

which was made.

 

Does knowing that Edward Weston's still lifes of peppers were shot on 8x10 and that they had very long exposure times

make them more beautiful? Or that Churchill is scowling in Karsh's portrait of him is because Karsh had just snatched a

cigar out of his hand? Does knowing who Churchill was and when he lived make a difference?

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I'm probably guilty of over-explaining at times. I figure sometimes an explanation of where I was or what a thing is can help, and sometimes if I find a particular idea or joke or commentary in the picture, it might help to say what I meant. Too much? Probably.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

I am of Ellis's view on this one. I enjoy a verbal explanation sometimes. Take a movie for instance. The DVD of movie History of Violence offers an add on tract that tells in detail what the actors were seeking and allows a studied thought about a powerful film. It also illuminates the way the characters were dressed or what the dressing of the set was designed to convey. Or how the lighting and color choice impacted the actors or the director. For me, I can relish it only after I have seen the movie. Otherwise it does not add much to initial response or appreciation. A generalization that is true. There are some movies and some images that beg for explanation or intent. I guess I do not like ambiguity so much. Nor obscure images. Which make me a sucker for a plain piece of good and strong workmanship in imagery, still and moving. What is good, ah, that is what I like of course. Simpler soul :-) Exceptions abound. I did not half appreciate 2001 on first viewing but I did a double take at the imagery. And later read a whole book on it. Helped a lot. Some things demand verbage. I like photos for the cleanliness and absence of the blah blah blah hint hint, etc at first blush. And especially the pretentious captioning of the mundane.

[GerrySiegel]

Phil, in reply to your comment above, re: the association of imagery with culture and context, I hasten to add that I the viewer can supply that if the image strikes me as interesting and resonant. But I hear your argument. Just do not think it is a really vital and necessary ingredient in the presentation. A discussion of what makes or breaks a photo is fodder for discussion as we see in POTW. But it all comes back to the photo, does it not?

[GerrySiegel]

If Karsh's portrait of Churchill were not immediately associated with Churchill it would still be masterful. As is his portrait of Ernest Hemingway. Look if you can locate it a Karsh portrait of His Holiness Pope John XXIII. The face and regal setting tell all we need to know. Of course a formal portrait by definition calls for a name on it. Look at his portrait of Jacques Lipchitz. Who is that guy?. An artist is a good guess.

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=IKarsh+portrait+of+John+23&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyuIHSlPfPAhUEy2MKHWdNCLIQ7AkIMA&biw=1539&bih=910

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>A title can set the stage but the image is the performance. They can work together to clarify or, equally, confuse the message.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

A riper selection of Karsh work than above. With attention to the between poses unguarded portrait of a pensive Marilyn.

http://www.pinterest.com/elinorspies/photography-yousuf-karsh/

[GerrySiegel]

Louis, would you say that a title can be like a finger on the scale? Pushing the presentation as Sandy hints in the first case. And should be minimal at most.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>A couple of title stories:</p>

<p>Man Ray's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_to_Be_Destroyed">OBJECT TO BE DESTROYED</a> has an interesting history, where the title played an important part in the work itself and is vital to the history and evolution of the work, which had to be remade and was renamed <em>Indestructible Object</em>.</p>

<p>And here's a tidbit on what a museum committee had to say about Duchamp's <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/c/c0/20150719231100!Duchamp_-_Nude_Descending_a_Staircase.jpg">NUDE DESCENDING A STAIRCASE</a>. I'm glad Duchamp was one step ahead of the naysayers. He took his painting down and brought it home rather than display it for these guys.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Duchamp's brothers, Jacques Villon and Raymond Duchamp-Villon, sent by the hanging committee, asked him to voluntarily withdraw the painting, or paint over the title and rename it something else. According to Duchamp, Cubists such as Albert Gleizes found that his nude wasn't quite in line with what they had already investigated. The hanging committee objected to the work, Duchamp stressed, on the grounds that it had "too much of a literary title", and that "one doesn't paint a nude descending a staircase, that's ridiculous... a nude should be respected".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Some titles are minimal and some are maximal and I'm glad for that continuum and variety.</p>

<p>Titles and accompanying text play all sorts of important roles throughout the history of art and photography. Check out the collaboration between photographer Walker Evans and writer James Agee, <em>Let Us Now Praise Famous Men</em> and Robert Frank's seminal book <em>The Americans</em> with intro by Jack Kerouac. Kerouac's opening line of introduction is a classic: "That crazy feeling in America when the sun is hot on the streets and the music comes out of the jukebox or from a nearby funeral . . ." </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Thanks, Fred, for that background on Duchamp's "Nude Descending A Staircase". I first saw that painting in my high school art class as one of several paintings we had to put to memory for a art history test.</p>

<p>The title and painting made perfect sense to me. Seeing a hanging committee objected to the work back then due to its title just goes to show artist make art and committees make art history and become long forgotten history while the art still remains unchanged and remembered forever. </p>

<p>They really had some weird restrictions and rules on how to present and assess art back then. In this sense the art was and still is smarter than the people judging it.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Going back to the OP analogy to jokes, an explanation of a joke is words on words or words replacing/displacing words. But a caption is words on visuals. The words don't replace or displace the visual.</p>

<p>Again, returning to the joke analogy and making it parallel pictures-with-words, adding visuals (not word explanations) to the words of a joke is <em>inseparable </em>from the joke, in most cases. Visual presentation: posture, hand gestures, facial expression are all integral to many jokes.</p>

<p>It is usually "told" jokes (as opposed to jokes in print) that need or get explanation -- because the teller didn't handle the visuals well. Where the visuals are handled well, by a really good stand-up comedian, for example, they not only enhance, they often <em>make</em> the joke.</p>

<p>I don't see people complaining that a joke should necessarily stand on its own without any visuals. </p>

[GerrySiegel]

A photograph reaches our visual cortex right off. Cortex then assembles it and connects it instantly with other parts, relating memories, our childhood, our way of processing shades and colors. Much more. And previous introduction/ emotional associaton to the subject. Is a body part offensive? Is a shadow threatening? A title can only hint at something of similar design intent in the makeup of artist photographer. Mainly I do agree with Fred S that an analysis can open fascinatin pathways, roads to be explored. Or make breakthroughs in our pat reactions. Not to be shut off... ( is not that what art should aspire to do? Shake our neural connections a little? I think so. To bring it down to the level of what we see sometimes here in PN-only sometimes I mean- comes out as a diary of what and how the landscapis artist trudged to Mt Washington and lo and behold made the muddy trek to the peak and fought the mosquitoes and used his Canon with batteries kept warm in his jockies .... Well that is very well and nice in a slide show back in the old days, like we used to deride and nod off to: " Here's Aubrey again, had a wicked hangover in this shot in front of the Duomo...." I exaggerate why of courseI think we are amused and sometimes edified or both by analysis . I never would shoot it down until I look at the photo first. If it pops, it pops, if it 'pops' later in a languorous and studied way, that is even better. But most shooters are not gifted with the words. Artists may take some digging with as well..and some time with... I want to enter the mind of the artist, caliber of Marcel Duchamp, Man Ray. Many more. Good stuff.

[Norman 202]

the best jokes have a punchline and the effect is immediate and most people wouldn't want to hear the same joke twice

(unless they didn't get it first time). the best photos, imho, don't have a punchline, the effect is not immediate and they can

be viewed many times.

[steve_mareno1]

<p>I agree w/ your joke analogy Sandy. Any work of art that can't stand on it's own w/o needing to know the title or have some long winded explanation tell us what we are seeing is an inferior piece. Unfortunately, you picked what is probably the most humorless forum in the history of the internet to post this on, as you are probably seeing yourself by now. I just gave up posting anything that might be considered even remotely humorous here years ago because many of the people, and this tends to be associated w/ people w/ way too much college education and little practical knowledge (joke? koan? you decide) just don't have a sense of humor, and have absolutely no sense of sarcasm or irony. There is probably a word for this, but it's unimportant. It happens a lot on other forums too, but this one is a real doozie.</p>