To Title or Not to Title?

[Vince Lupo]

I'm just finishing up exhibiting work at an area hotel, and they had a reception for me earlier this week. The turnout was decent (about 35-40 people), and I'm hoping for more opportunities to let this work live and breathe beyond my four walls.

One person who was there asked me about the titles of my work - or more specifically, the lack of titles (many of my photos are 'Untitled'). Many times I don't feel it necessary to affix some kind of made-up title to a piece (if it doesn't come to me, it doesn't come to me). Or maybe I'm just not imaginitive/bright enough to come up with such titles.

Similarly, I don't always think that using the location (Reims, France for example) necessarily helps one way or another - I find it can sometimes be a burden or add some kind of 'glamour' to a photo that it might not otherwise deserve ('Chairs in Paris', sounds much more romantic than say 'Chairs', but it might just be a boring photo of chairs either way). Or maybe the location doesn't really matter (though admittedly I did have some people at the reception ask me where some of the photos were taken).

Many times I don't feel that I want to impose my title onto a viewer. They might see something completely different than what I was intending - which is fine - and I'm assuming that most people are intelligent enough to figure it out for themselves or create their own narrative.

I'm always reminded of this cartoon that my first year undergrad art history teacher at Ryerson, the late John Solowski, showed the class (if I can dig it up, I'll post it here). It shows two little kids sitting on the floor looking at a book. One of the kids is pointing to something in the book as if to ask the other kid what that thing is. The other kid responds something to the effect: "Those are words, and they're there for the people who can't read the pictures".

Any thoughts on the matter? Does titling help? Does 'untitling' not help?

 

[Paul T.]

I'm agin it. The title is in the eye of the beholder.

One thing I notice on RF is that good photos, with facile or clichéd titles, instantly become average photos. They hardly ever, or never, work. Coming up with a good title is as hard as coming up with a good photo, so if you're in doubt, get rid of it.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

In my opinion, titles are a waste of space, whereas a sensible caption is a help to the viewer.

My advice is that, if you are going to provide captions, they should always use the six honest serving men: who, what, where, when, how and why.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Interesting that you mention the use of a caption. There is one photo of mine that I had considered using a caption, and it's the one of the woman in the cathedral. The shot ran in the NY Times back in late 2011, and the caption they used perfectly summed up my experience of the scene and taking the photo. But, that's not to say that a viewer would necessarily need this particular caption in order to 'read' this photo, and I'm not sure that I'd want to give a 'blow by blow' account of how I came to take a particular photo ("While driving in rural Montana I came across this scene etc etc etc"). I do, however, provide a general 'artist statement' that gives a view the overall intent of the photos - but whether they actually 'see' what I'm seeing can be a matter of some debate.

But that is an interesting possibility though - providing some background about each photo. Yet knowing the 'truth' about the situation of each photo and the circumstances surrounding the taking of it could spoil the 'illusion', if that makes sense.

 

[Brian Atherton]

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.

 

[shimokita]

I have been to exhibitions where the prints are numbered with the photographers name if a mixed show and a hand out is available. That way I could get some background information "if" I wanted. In general I would not title, maybe the location and year... maybe not.

Casey

 

[telenous]

There's no one size fits all answer, you have to judge on a case by case basis. It's true that most often photographs are not accompanied by titles, especially in the tradition of documentary photography, where location and date are (if at all) the only indications. I also agree with you, a title predisposes the viewer and 'closes off' certain interpretations -- presumably not a good thing. For this reason, if you can't make up your mind whether to use titles or not, it's safer to eschew them altogether. That said, I can imagine using titles as a device for intertextual play with the intended audience and that's why I said one size doesn't fit all. Your comment that certain location-titles (e.g. 'Paris-chairs' or, worse, 'Paris - chaises' when the viewer/reader is not French) may glamorize by implication is certainly true. If one's aim is to keep the work as open to interpretation as possible, it's also a hindrance. I don't know if this can be completely resolved, but (IMO) it's an interesting problem.

.

 

[Chris101]

I title my photographs. Especially if they are to be exhibited. The title gives the picture context, and that can only increase interest and understanding of the photo. I always prefer a title, or (in many cases) a caption for pictures I look at. I feel it focuses more interest in the content of the picture, rather than on the technique or style.

 

[daveleo]

As a viewer, titles don't matter one way or the other, except that the irony of the gallery / museum titling the piece "Untitled" is irritating.

 

[--s]

The connection of pictures and letters..... For me there is often much more depth to a photo when I can read a few words about the location or the circumstances in which the pic was taken. A title, a short description, I appreciate that. It helps me to connect with the image and the author. Sometimes I find it even annoying being left alone with a photo without a word.
But it depends on the topic, many photos speak for themselves, of course. Portraits or landscapes, for example, often don´t need words.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I generally go for captions, not titles (especially twee titles), but there are times when the artwork relies on an interplay between image and caption. Also, without a caption or title, how do people identify the picture? "Um... Er... The one with..."

Frances tends to prefer titles, and indeed her most recent exhibition was captioned sequentially, almost in the form of a poem. It was well received.

For examples of captions (and one title), take a look at http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/photo school index.html

As for false glamour being added by including the location, I can't see the problem. If it was taken in Paris, it was taken in Paris. If it's a boring photo, who cares where it was taken? And if it's a good picture, how is the fact that it was taken in Paris going to detract from it?

Cheers,

R.

 

[daninjc]

It's very simple: location, and year (at most).

Nothing is more irritating than a title that tells you what to see in a picture, or how to interpret it.

 

[daveleo]

. . . Also, without a caption or title, how do people identify the picture? "Um... Er... The one with..."
. . . .
R.

That's a good point, esp if there are several similar pictures in the exhibit.

Maybe then just numbers (#234) would do as well ?

 

[gns]

Beyond the most rudimentary ("#24" or "House #24") just about any title or caption is going to change the way the viewer sees the picture, so I would really think about whether I want to do that and to what effect. It's an aesthetic choice.

 

[Addy101]

It all depends.
A title or caption could be helpful to identify a picture. In a way, a number is a title and "location, year" or "location, date" is a caption.
Sometimes a title can help getting the intention of the photographer, it however never will make a good photo instantly become an average photo - good is good, no matter what anybody wrote besides it.

So, use titles when you think it would help, don't use them if it is superfluous. And Vermeer never called it girl with the pearl earring 😉

 

[Bob Michaels]

There can be no universal answers given the diversity of objectives for differing photographic styles. There can also be influences of a single photograph vs. one that is included in a larger body of work, intended audience, or if stand alone vs. accompanied by an article.

"clearing winter storm" the infamous Ansel Adams photo is but one example where only enough words to identify the photo is all that is needed. Additional text would be a detraction.

I had an exhibit at the University of Mississippi last year where each photo was accompanied by a 2-3 paragraph panel giving cultural information. Two professors, one teaching a communications class in the English department and another in general documentary class, made visiting my exhibit a class assignment. Neither had any particular interest in photography.

Even the need for locations have no universal answer. The book "on the beach" by Doug Mcculloh and Jacques Garnier, a series of random strangers who staged themselves for their photos does not identify which were shot in California and which in Florida.

I debated the need for locations in my book "Vignettes Cubano" since "Cuba is Cuba" to 99% of the audience even though the photos were made all over the country. I was glad I was quite detailed watching Cubans who have a copy go through the book because which town or specifically where in Havana identifies cultural differences to them.

So there simply cannot be any opinions for those who realize there is much more to photography than their own particular style.

 

[Bill Clark]

To Title or Not to Title?

What if the master painters had no titles with their art? Or Greek & Roman statues?

Would the Mona Lisa still be famous w/o a title? Or the "Girl with a Pearl Earring by Vermeer? You can decide. As can everyone else here.

I believe a title is important.

I know with PPA print judging a title is pretty important.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's very simple: location, and year (at most).

Nothing is more irritating than a title that tells you what to see in a picture, or how to interpret it.

Or sometimes, nothing is more useful.

As Bob says, "There can be no universal answers"; as Addy101 says, "So, use titles when you think it would help, don't use them if it is superfluous"; as gns says, "Beyond the most rudimentary ("#24" or "House #24") just about any title or caption is going to change the way the viewer sees the picture, so I would really think about whether I want to do that and to what effect. It's an aesthetic choice."

There's not much future in saying that only one aesthetic choice is valid, and that others are uniquely irritating.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What if the master painters had no titles with their art?

Would the Mona Lisa still be famous w/o a title? Or the "Girl with a Pearl Earring by Vermeer? You can decide. As can everyone else here.

I believe a title is important.

I know with PPA print judging a title is pretty important.

?

aka "Portrait of Lisa Gherardini"

aka "La Gioconda"/"La Joconde"

None of which is likely to be what Leonardo called it. My guess is that he called it, "Your wife's portrait is finished, Mr. Gherardini, so I'd appreciate it if you could pay the rest of the money."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Great input everyone - I appreciate it.

As a couple of you have pointed out, I'm not sure if I want to impose a title on a photo that could change the way a person interprets a photo.

This may or may not be a good example, but let's try:

Untitled:

by Vince.Lupo, on Flickr



Christmas Eve In Colonial Williamsburg:

by Vince.Lupo, on Flickr


Midnight Meeting, Vicksburg, Mississippi:

by Vince.Lupo, on Flickr


On another tack, this is one that John Berger used in 'Ways of Seeing':

This is a painting by Van Gogh, entitled 'Wheatfield With Crows":



This is the last painting Van Gogh painted before he killed himself: