To Title or Not to Title?

I prefer not to title (unless one comes to me) as I prefer viewers to make up their own theories and ideas behind my photographs.
 
Brian Atherton said:
Other than location, I never title.

Neither do I state what equipment I used. However, if people ask, I'm happy to say, and if they want to know the way I work I'm happy to explain.

Other this I'd rather the photos say what they have to say to the viewer.
Click to expand...

I often title, but only when I think of something good. I really agree that stating the equipment used is unnecessary. It's so 60's PopPhoto.
 
For me, it is about what Chris101 stated. Even a piece of music warrants a title to help the musician convey his feelings at the time the piece was written. I feel the same about a photo. I like a peek into the photographer's thoughts and feelings. I title something if it lends something.

A photo I took of a pair of jeans hanging in an abandoned farm house, and coated with rows of mud dauber nests, was titled Mud Dwellings. It played on the plaster walls of the house and the nests. A photo taken at another abandoned farm, friends of mine, was of their late father's abandoned jon-boat, simply titled "Mr. Rodney's Boat". People wanted to know more about Mr. Rodney. It generated interest.

I hate to say it, but most people don't get a photo unless it has a title---they need that little hint....that little nudge. Even me. At last year's town art show, we had an entry titled "Alien". It was a photo of an out of focus spider...and I didn't get it until I read the title. The back of the spider, when out of focus, looked like the head of your average invader from Mars including the eyes. With the title, it went from just an out of focus photo to something creative, humorous, and different.
 
^ Fair enough. I see photography as a fully graphic medium, so words just limit the endless possibilities of an image's meaning. With music, there's already (usually) an important written element - the lyrics - and a song title usually goes hand in hand with that.

Perhaps most people would find it easier to get the nudge of a photo title to understand it better, I know that's happened to me before, but there are many times when an artist uses a title and then I feel forced to look at it through their own eyes instead of making up my own interpretation. I find that limiting as a viewer.
 
I listen to a lot of jazz...so there are not always lyrics. But, I can see where a title can limit the experience. One of my favorite exercises in art class was when the teacher would put on Mozart or Beethoven or some classical piece, and we were to listen and draw what we thought it meant. No one "saw" it the same.
 
I title mainly for myself to remember and reference it. So I would title the photo of the boy near the fire "Boy near fire" or something literal like that, maybe "Boy and fire, Williamsberg", or if I knew his name I'd use that, "John and fire, Williamsberg". I'll write the date I took and printed the photo where I sign it, but it doesn't form part of the title.

I hate it when the title is used to tell you how to interpret the image. I'm with Ansel Adams on the titles, he said something along the lines of "If you don't get the image, there's nothing written on the back thats going to help".

I also don't like "untitled" as a title, at a bare minimum a number is acceptable in my books, and only for abstract images where the above title examples would sway the viewer to "see" a particular thing.

An interesting topic, and its nice to hear what others do and why.

Michael
 
Vince a big congrats on your show!!!! Been digg'n the new SW stuff lately also. I need to get back out there SOON myself....

I think title, no title, just depends on the work and the intent of the photographer. I tend to not title work most of the time but thats not to say that I never will. I tend to title my exhibits. Write an artist statement, etc. Duane Michals at times wrote on mats next to the photos and it worked for him and those images.
 
I always title. Always. Every time. I haven't published a single photo marked as "untitled." If it's a photo that involves a dramatic depiction of people, I come up with a title that adequately inhabits the scenario. If it's a set of posed portraits, I will use the subject's name or initials and a numbering index so I can refer to the photos later.

I agree that words often constitute a poor attempt to do what photos accomplish more efficiently, but the idea that the right name weakens a work is untrue. If a current title detracts from a photo's value, you've chosen the wrong title. A good title can be difficult to construct, but it will be worth the effort: it will finish a good photo, give it an individual polish. If successful, a good title can prove that your photo deserves to be remembered in a name.

Sure, van Gogh's "Wheat Field with Crows" is the most literal of titles. However, the painting is so great that there can never be another "Wheat Field with Crows" that doesn't infringe on that name. How can one say that the name detracts from the work? What would be the point of preferring that it be called van Gogh's "Untitled"?

On the other hand, I don't consider captions all that important as part of the work. I think they're great for reference, for letting the viewer know where the photo was taken. However, because the photo is a record of a moment that can't be repeated, and, if good enough, conveys specific emotional value, I don't see any point in explaining anything. It is romantic to think that "Wheat Field with Crows," because of its magnitude, was van Gogh's last painting. It's so good that we may call it the apex of artistic skill. Is it any wonder then that, technically, though it was NOT van Gogh's last painting, we desire more than anything to give it that story, the value of a whole life? It's been determined that several subsequent, less spectacular paintings of the same wheat field were probably van Gogh's last -- but we are always disappointed to think less of "Wheat Field with Crows."
 
CloseContax said:
I always title. Always. Every time. I haven't published a single photo marked as "untitled." If it's a photo that involves a dramatic depiction of people, I come up with a title that adequately inhabits the scenario. If it's a set of posed portraits, I will use the subject's name or initials and a numbering index so I can refer to the photos later.

I agree that words often constitute a poor attempt to do what photos accomplish more efficiently, but the idea that the right name weakens a work is untrue. If a current title detracts from a photo's value, you've chosen the wrong title. A good title can be difficult to construct, but it will be worth the effort: it will finish a good photo, give it an individual polish. If successful, a good title can prove that your photo deserves to be remembered in a name.

Sure, van Gogh's "Wheat Field with Crows" is the most literal of titles. However, the painting is so great that there can never be another "Wheat Field with Crows" that doesn't infringe on that name. How can one say that the name detracts from the work? What would be the point of preferring that it be called van Gogh's "Untitled"?

On the other hand, I don't consider captions all that important as part of the work. I think they're great for reference, for letting the viewer know where the photo was taken. However, because the photo is a record of a moment that can't be repeated, and, if good enough, conveys specific emotional value, I don't see any point in explaining anything. It is romantic to think that "Wheat Field with Crows," because of its magnitude, was van Gogh's last painting. It's so good that we may call it the apex of artistic skill. Is it any wonder then that, technically, though it was NOT van Gogh's last painting, we desire more than anything to give it that story, the value of a whole life? It's been determined that several subsequent, less spectacular paintings of the same wheat field were probably van Gogh's last -- but we are always disappointed to think less of "Wheat Field with Crows."
Click to expand...
Exactly, especially the highlight.

Cheers,

R.
 
When I started to become a bit more serious about photography some years ago I felt photographs need a title to convey an idea I had about the photograph, when I took it to a viewer.

At some point I saw that this utterly ridiculous.
I now do not title my photographs anymore, but write in a short description into the IPTC title section.
I use this description for personal purposes only (to distinguish L00123_.DNG from DSC_03456 by having a hint on the content).
These descriptions end up as titles, when uploaded to photo sharing sites as flickr.
I don't go trough the troubles of removing or editing them.

I also keyword my photos pretty religiously (to be able to find photographs on my computer, which acts also as my directory for my archived film). Often these tags land in the files as well, when sharing.


My opinion about titles is now, that a title should only be attached to a photograph, when it is naturally grown by a photograph having become known and titled in the process by others or of course in editorial, sports, etc … where more detailed information about the content is helpful (expanded with deeper info into the description field if necessary).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom