Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

When FYC first opened for business, I posted this question.

Since we have many new members, I thought it might be fun to have another discussion, and for those who replied last time, maybe let us know if you have changed your position and why/why not.

Do you title your own work in a way that attempts to influence the experience of the viewer?

Do you think that titles of other people's works influence your own response?

Let's talk!

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Let's!

The first concern? Is the image worthy to stand on its own simply as an image?
The second concern? Can an appropriate title enhance the viewer!/ experience?

when picasso pointed his image of the indescribably horrendous devastation of a small Basque village by the Nazi "bombing practice" during the Spanish Civil war, he knew, I believe, that the time would come when that image would be view by people with not the slightest knowledge of its specific origin and full meaning. But he knew that one word, the name of that innocent Basque village -"Guernica" - would live forever in history of man's casual inhumanity, and he had his title.

Dave

(Download)

RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia

I do not consider most of my photographs to be "art"
A lot (most) of my images I post to Flickr. They all have titles to let the prospective viewer what to expect.
For event coverage, images (posted to my web site) do not have titles.
Sometimes the image that I create (not a photograph) is derived from the title.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Linda, if it weren't for the requirements of this site, as well as others, to have a title and some text in order to post a photo, I wouldn't title anything I posted. The only beneficial aspect of having to create a title is one can go back through their posts and find a previously posted photo a lot easier.

The posted photograph should stand on its own. Additionally, I see no need to post the camera, lens, and settings one used to take a photo, as many do on UHH, unless one is preparing a tutorial or lecture on a specific camera/lens and its capabilities. Again the photograph should stand on its own.

At times, since a title is required here, I will put something to creatively describe the image. Other times, it's a location title. Either way, it's because it's forced by the requirements of the site.

Generally, I tend to look at a lot of images on this site without looking at the title or the photographer. In some cases, a particular name will "jump out at me" and I'll look to see what they have posted, but the title only serves to provide a link to click. In cases where the photograph posted is notable, I'll take time to comment and remember who posted it so I can see more of their work in the future, or search for more that they have posted in the past. The titles rarely influence me one way or the other.
--Bob

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Normally the title is in my head when I click the shutter. Sometimes they're fanciful. Seldom are they simply descriptive.

I've spent a lot of years in the art world, and I've learned that titles are very important. First, it lets the viewer know what the artist's thoughts were. That helps the viewer assess if the artist was successful in expressing that thought. Second, it makes it a LOT easier to identify the piece if it has a title - separates it from the thousands of "untitled" pieces out there.

Frank2013 Loc: San Antonio, TX. & Milwaukee, WI.

Since I really only post here and usually for suggested improvement ideas, critique, or what ever you want to call it, I struggle with titles because I feel they do bias the viewer. Funny this came up in Bob's thread http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-462973-1.html#7776047

Edit: I concur with Bob that I only title images because it is required....

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

Personally, I like titles that add a touch of humor, enhance the subject, provide context, etc. A well done title adds to the total experience. Words are an art form on their own. I would still enjoy a great shot without a title but I enjoy the added dimension.

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Without entering the morass that is "what is art" I consider that any image I create is created for one purpose: to increase and enhance my enjoyment of life. Some ultimately are less valued in that regard than are those few that wildly exceed my hopes and expectations. What about the effect of my images on others? Beyond comments that enhance my learning process...preferably kindly and constructively...that's immaterial. No image I've ever made has met with totally uniform disapproval nor totally uniform approbation.

Why title?
Simply to identify the subject or scene
"The Mona Lisa"/"La Gioconda",
"Moonrise over Hernandez"
The Kent State Image (I know of no uniformly applied title)

And this one:
Two men of different generations, on a thoughtful walk in a park
Do we need to know that they are Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower at Camp David conferring five days after the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion?
Does this need a title? or caption?

And yes, I'm woefully unclear as to a definitive, clear distinction of the two..
Can the humorous caption serve as a title?

If the assumption is that an image must stand alone, why, at art shows and in museums, are the titled works invariably displayed with their titles...and the others are, for some reason, labeled "Untitled" ? What, and whence the expectation?

For example:

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

Intimate Portrait of Snow VIII

(Download)

MadMikeOne Loc: So. NJ Shore - a bit west of Atlantic City

Sometimes. There are times when I prefer not to title my photos and just let the viewer interpret them the way they, the viewer, see the photos. Of course there are times that I much prefer to title my photos BECAUSE I want the viewer to have some inkling of what I saw when I captured the image. Then there are other times when I feel no title is needed either because the image speaks for itself OR I want the viewer to arrive at their own interpretation. I have attached some images.

Sometimes. Many times I like the idea of having the title so that I can compare what I see when I view the photo with what the photographer saw or intended the viewer to see when the image was taken.

"Mommie and Me"


"Feed Me"


"Return to Jurassic Park"


"So Embarrassed"


NO TITLE NEEDED


"Wild-Caught Salmon"


This was a really crappy shot (pun definitely intended!).Make whatever you want of it. It was there. The devil made me do it!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

In the original topic for discussion, MinnieV offered a link to an essay by Guy Tal. I found it a fascinating read that many of you might enjoy:

http://guytal.com/wordpress/2013/07/18/the-title-conundrum/

Dave, thank you so much for your comments, provocative questions, and perfect accompanying art/photos. So much to take in and ponder!

Thank you for commenting, Richard. The idea behind your sentence that I quoted here is discussed by Guy Tal. The gist of the issue, I think!

Thank you for taking the time to share your views, Bob! The comment re camera and settings could be its own topic - and I have some strong feelings on that, so maybe I'll post in a day or two, unless you'd like to host the discussion? Would love to have the idea expanded.

Thank you Kathy! I do that sometimes, too - or I go out with a theme in mind, such as "long distant landscapes" (telephoto lens only). Very cool to know your views.

Your short conversation with Bob Yankle in that thread is what prompted me to post this topic, Frank! I wonder if subject matter plays a role in how influential a title is? Seems would be more an issue for photos of people than landscapes. Must ponder that further.

Carol, I love your reference to words as art form. I just skimmed through the previous topic and Minnie feels similarly. I very much enjoy humorous titles, as well, along with the other examples you gave. Thank you for commenting!

Thank you for your thoughtful comments, MMO, and for the delightful photos. I feel very similarly to you: it all "depends"

As for humorous captions on animal photos, I suppose many serious photographers cringe at anthropomorphizing, but I freely admit to the guilty pleasure of enjoying immensely!

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

Linda,
Here's an essay of mine written for my Camera Club's Newsletter on this topic...it may -or may not - reveal some changes of attitude on this topic with the passage of , as I recall, five years.


http://davidleegraham.biz/davidleegraham/news/Entries/2012/5/8_Titles_of_Artworks.html

Dave

fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...

Interesting that when the topic was first brought up, my interpretation was, “How do you describe your creation? What hint do you provide the viewer with which to see? What eyes shall the viewer use to share your vision?”

Others latched on to naming as a means to differentiate, a mechanism for separating… a handle for control, a spotlight in a prison break.

Two very different ideas.

But, what does “naming” actually mean? Adam’s first job was that of naming the animals. Heidegger suggests nothing exists outside our mind until it is named. A name – the signifier- IS the object – the signified- held in our mind… Thus, naming is the act of creation. Try opening an image in Photoshop of a file with no name.

Also, naming establishes dominion, ownership and control. An image is yours, when you name but, if you photograph a banana and title the image “Pork Chop” you have dominion within your realm. Others will most likely reject your title, assign their own and remove your authority rendering the image no longer yours- except in your mind… and perhaps the court but that’s not our discussion. As example, you may have a special name for your spouse or kids or dog- YOUR spouse, YOUR kids, YOUR dog… how do you feel when another addresses spouse, kids or dog with your title of ownership?

In short… I don’t generally title an image until it is shared with others… and then, the naming is deliberate and with a good deal of seriousness… even if seemingly whimsical

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Thank you, Dave! An excellent, articulate essay.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Fascinating and thoughtful input, fuminous. Thank you so much! (I didn't even like it when my uncle called me the pet name my mother gave me )

Anvil Loc: Loveland, CO

For me, a title has at least two, possible purposes. First, and more obvious, is the identification of the photo -- it is an easy way to refer to something. I've taken hundreds of photos of bobcats, and I need a shorthand identifier to distinguish the best ones from each other. "Bobcat on the March" is better than "You know that bobcat picture I took, where the bobcat was walking through the tall grass?"

For me, the secondary purpose of a title IS to bias the viewer. There may be several ways of looking at a photograph, and I might wish to guide the viewer in one direction. For instance, some time back, I was experimenting with forced perspective, and I took a shot of a teapot with a ball of LED Christmas lights about six or seven feet behind the teapot, in an attempt to create a shot in which little, colored balls were coming out of the pot, like steam. I could easily have called that shot, "An Exercise in Forced Perspective", which might lead the viewer to concentrate on the technical aspects of the shot. Instead, I called it, "Magic Teapot", thinking that it would gently coerce the viewer into concentrating on the whimsy of the shot, rather than how it was done.