Titling

[climbing_vine]

I used to not title photos (or drawings, or anything else). Not because I felt like the work should stand explicitly on its own, but just because it felt a little weird and pretentious.

But, I've started changing my mind. I've been giving everything lately a title like this:

Something Jokey / Something Literal

An example:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=117909&ppuser=4535

"Reefer / American Orchard"

I'm finding this to be a lot of fun, because the reactions I get from my friends and acquaintances tell me something about them. I was, frankly, shocked at how many people thought the above title meant that there was something surreptitious growing in that field, when in fact it referred to the refrigerated trailer.

I know titling and contextualizing of photos has been beaten to death in a lot of threads, but this particular aspect (different readings by different audiences) is something I hadn't considered much before. Funny, given that stuff like "reception theory" is what I spent a lot of undergrad time on.

 

[morback]

That is a very interesting "Freudian" approach you have. I think it might add another dimension to the photographs: with disinformation (a title not clearly related to the picture) you seem to get the audience more involved. They apply their own perception & understanding to your pictures (through your title) and transform it from a simple visual recording of time & place into a personal experience.

Or so I would like to think.

 

[climbing_vine]

That is a very interesting "Freudian" approach you have. I think it might add another dimension to the photographs: with disinformation (a title not clearly related to the picture) you seem to get the audience more involved. They apply their own perception & understanding to your pictures (through your title) and transform it from a simple visual recording of time & place into a personal experience.

Or so I would like to think.

Yeah, I think that's a good way of putting the idea that's developing here. I mean, at the end of the day, we've all seen a million pictures now of a guy in the street, or a cornfield, or whatever. Other than just lucking out into that perfect once-in-a-decade lighting that graces your picture with a unique shine, what can you do at this point to get the viewer to feel something and be a part of it?

 

[antiquark]

Interesting approach. In general, I think that a title can add to the picture. Maybe by adding some humor, or by creating a riddle, or simply by explaining what the picture is.

The title "Reefer/American Orchard" could be seen as a double entendre. First, you could interpret it as a refrigerated trailer (which I had to look up, I never heard that called a reefer). Or, you could take it as a statement that marijuana is a form of American orchard, because so many people grow the stuff.

Interesting to think about, nevertheless.

 

[climbing_vine]

The title "Reefer/American Orchard" could be seen as a double entendre. First, you could interpret it as a refrigerated trailer (which I had to look up, I never heard that called a reefer). Or, you could take it as a statement that marijuana is a form of American orchard, because so many people grow the stuff.

That's an interesting point, that maybe *I* was the one using an out-of-the-mainstream denotation there. In doing this intentionally, a person is going to run into the fine line between stupid, and clever.