data

Let me try to get this discussion back on track after Sean de Merchant's interjection. :) I think his suggestion that this debate should be limited because it might limit artistic freedom is ludicrous and completely at odds with itself. That would be like suggesting that all the comments and forums on this site should be deleted because they might limit artistic freedom. Fortunately, art doesn't exist in a vacuum and a strong vision requires a strong will to express it. Everyone has their images critiqued here, why not their titles?

If no rules for titling are appropriate then I would expect this discussion to eventually resolve that. It hasn't however. It has turned into an excellent discussion on how weak photographers use bad titles to prop up their mediocre work. That's what I object to.

De Merchant suggests that "Yes such captions can be inane too, but you wish to create a rule to force the same type of contrived perception upon photographic captions." I disagree. I merely suggest that you should be as critical and aware about your titles as you are about your images. Don't put a trite title on your photograph and expect to have it taken seriously. I'm not talking about photographer's who do this intentionally. I'm talking about photographer's who do exactly the type of things that �[� Z's describes. His post expresses completely the frustrating things that led me to start this discussion in the first place.

The point is not to suggest that great photographer's aren't great or that they misuse titles. The point is that average photographer's could be better if they actually paid attention to how a title works with an image. I don't think there is any harm in a rule of thumb for people just starting out (like the rule of thirds) and I don't think there's any harm is discussing such a rule either.

I knew this would spark some lively debate. I guess I'm less concerned with how great photographers, painters, and poets use titles then I am with new photographers who, as Mark Abbott suggests, use titles to try to be "deep" or make up for what is really a mediocre photograph in the first place.

In a way it's silly to make rules like this, as Jeff Spirer suggests, but rules like this can be successful in raising the lower level of the art. Think of how much the rule of thirds has made mediocre photographers better. You eventually have to move beyond the rule if you want to be a great photographer, but there's no denying that it's a useful rule of thumb to start with.

I would suggest that titles that give "background" instead of "interpretation" will force the mediocre photographer to realize that if the image doesn't say what he or she wants, the title isn't going to make any difference.

As for the "Mona Lisa," it would be a masterpiece regardless of the title but a bad title would only serve to detract from its greatness. If Leonardo had called it "The whore of Pisa," I think it would make people think about it in a different way.

Yes, you can push past the title and see the true value of any image but the title will linger as a question in your mind. Ever go to a movie after you've read a bad review. It's hard to get past looking for the problems the reviewer pointed out and getting something for yourself out of the movie. Your interpretation of the movie becomes either an agreement or disagreement with the reviewer. The same is true of a bad photo title. Great artists know how to use titles to enhance their art. For everyone else, why not a simple rule until they learn enough to break it. Remember, you guys were once amateurs using the rule of thirds too.

I've often complained to my friends about captions on photographs

that force the view of the photographer on the viewer and I wonder

what other photographer's think about this.

The classic example is the girl sitting by a sunlit window with a

book in her lap staring dreamily off through the window with the

caption "Inspiration." I find that sort of pre-conceived

interpretation frustrating. I don't think it's up to the photographer

to interpret the photograph for me.

The caption that really set me off was one my friend mentioned this

morning. She described an apparently beautiful B&W print of an old,

drying out sunflower still on the stalk with the caption "The tales I

could tell." It's as if the photographer wasn't confident that the

work would stand on its own and had to make sure the viewer "didn't

miss the point."

Honestly, poets don't write plain language versions of their poems to

make sure that they're not misinterpreted. In fact, there's no way

for a poet to capture in plain language all the subtleties of a poem.

Each individual will interpret the poem differently and sometimes in

ways that are no less valid than the way the poet intended.

I think photographs are like poems and that an interpretative name

can turn a wonderful photograph into a joke. An interpretative name

asks nothing more of the viewer than to see what is expected. It

creates a barrier to the viewer connecting personally with the

photograph.

I think captions should be as factual as possible. I think the

picture of the girl should be title something like "Girl sitting by

window." The one of the sunflower should be "Fall sunflower,"

or "Dried-out sunflower."

Could you imagine if Leonardo da Vinci, instead of calling it

the "Mona Lisa," had called it "Enigmatic smile" or even

worse "Mystery." What if he called "Italian landscape" as a reference

to the background? How would we interpret his intentions then?

Instead he gave his painting the name of the sitter and let the

painting stand on its own. I hope more photographers do the same with

their photos.

<p>People have been dancing around the point without ever hitting directly on it. All photography is subjective. A photograph is a two-dimensional representation of a three-dimensional space. The photographer consciously chooses how that space is translated into two dimensions. There are an infinite number of translations, the photographer only captures one. There is no reality in this context, just a two-dimensional image.

<p>I think a more important point about photography was made earlier on in the discussion by S. LIU.

<p><i>I have a copy of Bruce Davidson's "East 100 Street". Almost all the photos in the books were staged, there is no way to conceal a large format camera. What amazing is that it took Bruce Davidson two year (4000 negatives) to finish that project. When I look at these photos, I see more than the staged images, something deeper.</i>

<p>He says he sees something deeper in these pictures. Roland Barthes wrote about this idea in <i>Camera Lucida</i> (I haven't had a chance to read it yet but I have read <i>The Photograph</i>, part of the Oxford History of Art series, which has a chapter that applies Barthes' theory to documentary photography).

<p>Barthes uses two terms to describe any photograph: <i>studium</i> and <i>punctum</i>. <i>Studium</i> is that part of the photograph that is studied and under the photographer's control. It is the subjectivity of pointing the camera and pressing the shutter button, but it can also include arranging objects in the scene or even paying models. <i>Punctum</i> is the much more important part of the picture. It is the part that is not under the control of the photographer. It is the puncture in presentation of the photograph that allows you to enter the photograph and get more out of it.

<p><i>Punctum</i> is that deeper part that S. LIU talks about. He even says that he sees more than a staged photograph, because it is the unintended parts of the picture that open it up to interpretation.

<p>Take the runners for example. Even if it was staged, S. LIU couldn't control where the runners' feet were, their facial expressions, the distance between them, exactly how the would be positioned when the shutter released. At best, he could have said, "Chase one another around the corner."

<p>The same is true for HC-B. Even if he did ask the girl to run up the steps (I agree he almost certainly didn't), he couldn't control exactly how she did it or exactly (I mean exactly) how it would be recorded on the film. Does it matter to the photograph if he did? Really, it only matters if he lied about it.

<p>The majority of pictures you see out there only have <i>studium</i>. Ever look at a picture and say, "That's beautiful," and then just move on. It's because it's the perfect sunset/flower/girl/street scene and nothing more. Without <i>punctum</i> there is no engagement of the viewer. There's nothing deeper to look for.

<p>I suspect pictures used for propoganda have nothing but <i>studium</i>. We think that some photographers are great, whether they stage their shots or not, because they give us more.