Michiel Schierbeek
Well-known member
Re: thanks again everyone for the comments!
Giving titles are a part of my life too, but I don't think there always is a neccesaty to title Photographs, or artworks for that matter.
Sometimes they pop up in your mind instantly, sometimes you can't find anything you find appropiate, especially right after production.
Then a title can come in later.
When it's a part of a serie, you can just give the work a number.
How can you title the mood your in, or was.
Anyway I don't think a title qualifys a work as being more interesting, in many cases titles are so obvious, you would not need them.
I like your photograph, don't get me wrong, but a good work can speak for itself, I think.
In other cases they can help to give people a handle for association.
A good title (can) help(s).
Conclusion; :talk028:
Best regards, Michiel
Yes Hallo,@street:
Oh I understand that, yes indeed. The imposition of a title does change the perception of an image.
As the author of a piece, one can either leave it untitled or title it. The problem is one of communication, in my opinion. If you leave a piece untitled, it still has a name ... "Untitled" ... which can either say to a viewer "I didn't know what to make of this, maybe you do" (kind of a weak message imo) or it can say, "The piece speaks for itself, you should be able to figure it out; if you can't, tough" which seems pretentious to me. Too strong a title pushes the viewer into too narrow a channel of perception. Too weak a title often reduces the viewer's interest in a piece. The most often heard question on showing a person a photograph that isn't intended to be totally literal is, "What is that a picture of?"
So there are hard and yet fuzzy lines in the pavement to step around.
I feel I have to title my work somehow, as a practical matter, for the simple purpose of having some handle for a person to refer to it by. I dislike the pretension implied in a title like "Untitled #2044a". I spend a lot of time thinking about the titles I apply so as not, in my opinion, to box in the viewer's perceptions too much while giving some suggestion of my intent in the authoring of a piece.
NO solution to titling is perfect, I've found, and it affect some people more and in different way than it does others. Many completely ignore the titles I put on the photos, others seem to become fixated on them and suggest changes, alternatives, elision ...
All points of view are worth listening to, however, so I thank you for bringing up this interesting topic.
Giving titles are a part of my life too, but I don't think there always is a neccesaty to title Photographs, or artworks for that matter.
Sometimes they pop up in your mind instantly, sometimes you can't find anything you find appropiate, especially right after production.
Then a title can come in later.
When it's a part of a serie, you can just give the work a number.
How can you title the mood your in, or was.
Anyway I don't think a title qualifys a work as being more interesting, in many cases titles are so obvious, you would not need them.
I like your photograph, don't get me wrong, but a good work can speak for itself, I think.
In other cases they can help to give people a handle for association.
A good title (can) help(s).
Conclusion; :talk028:
Best regards, Michiel