Are photograph titles important?

[Nate Battles]

Do you always title your work? Or sometimes title it or never title it?

If you always title your work, do you feel the title is as much a part of the photograph itself or merely another way for people to remember it? Or maybe it's the part of the photographic process when the photograph is "complete".

For those of you who sell your work, do your clients appreciate the titles? Do they express more interest in a work that is titled v. a work that is untitled? Do galleries/magazines express more interest in works that are titled v. ones that aren't?

Does anyone really care?:o

I guess I seem to never title anything I do. It may seem stupid, but I don't want a title to affect the way a photograph feels. Not that I am against using titles.

After asking this, I realize that I have a knack for asking these crazy open-ended questions on this forum--sorry. Hmmmmm, I should've been a philosophy major :)

What is Art? Just kidding, don't answer that!!!

~Nate

[Michael Graves]

No, but I like captions a lot.

http://www.mwgraves.com/Lamoille_Lamentations/MO_trip/MO_Album_1.html

[Walter Calahan]

Titles are not important for gallery display.

Titles are helpful on web sites so search engines find the information. This will increase your hits.

Ultimately it is up to you, no one can tell you to do anything.

[paulr]

I think they're important.

In the sense that if words are there, they make a difference in how people look at the work, and if they're not, their absense also makes a difference.

I personally keep text to a minimum. I've given titles to bodies of work, but not the individual pictures. And I don't put things like statements of purpose on the wall right next to the work, or on the same page of a website. I don't want it to look like the statement is PART of the work; it's subordinate ... just some stuff i've said about it.

Like Walter said, it's up to you. But be aware of the effect words or lack of words can have.

[Sylvester Graham]

Yes people absolutely care. A title can fundamentally alter a photograph. Example... a picture of a sailboat with billowing white sails and a dark sky might seem at first a lovely scene to hang in the study, and then with a glance at the title "The Zong, slave ship." one might want to reconsider. A title introduces context, and a lack of title gets rid of it.

Whatever you do make sure to have a reason for it.

[Steven Barall]

Anything that helps sales is probably a good idea regardless of how it might make your stomach churn. I love practical answers. They just make things fall into place sometimes. Thank you Walter. Cheers.

[Richard M. Coda]

I give a caption... subject, location, date, on my website and any printed materials. I think that's all that is needed. However, on my prints, I just sign and date.

A photographer friend, though, thought I need to put some cutesy titles, as she does. I personally feel that cheapens my art, and makes it more like a poster. However, I do give a title to ONE of my photos "And Our Flag Was Still There" as it has significance after 9-11.

[paulr]

[QUOTE=amilne;313950A title introduces context, and a lack of title gets rid of it. [/QUOTE]

And different types of title or caption give different types of context.

For example, if you caption a photo with the name of the place and the date, regardless of the specifics, you're telling people to look at the picture as they would a journalistic or documentary image. Maybe this is your intent, but maybe you'd rather have them looking at form, or at a certain archetype of place, or at the changes of mood from one picture in the series to another. In these cases a factual caption might be pointing the viewers in the wrong direction.

[Merg Ross]

Nate, it depends on your audience. Some folks need to know what they are viewing, and some need to be told the significance of what they are viewing. It is really your call.

[Eric Woodbury]

I don't title, but I do write something: a description, place, or 'title' on the back, altho these can vary for the same print. Not much of a system.

[jnantz]

i used to think that if i titled something i made people's minds rigid
and not see for themselves but i realized if there was no title they
didn't know where to begin. so now i title everything,
even abstractions i make without negatives.

i don't know what galleries think. i used to part own a gallery, and
haven't really shown my work to galleries since i was told my photographs weren't photographs.

[Nate Battles]

I've given titles to bodies of work, but not the individual pictures.

I like that idea. When showing a series or group of work I think a collective title would mean much more than individual titles. You would still be providing some guidance to the viewer, but not holding their hand through the viewing/interpretation process. They can still play a role in the what does it mean to me? thing.

[SchwinnParamount]

Do you always title your work? Or sometimes title it or never title it? ...

~Nate

If you must title your work, for God's sake... don't use "The" in your title! For example: "The Old Man". Is there really only one old man? And you photographed him? Lucky guy!

[Nate Battles]

...since i was told my photographs weren't photographs.

I just viewed your webpage. FWIW, I think your "cameraless+hybrid" stuff is pretty awesome and pretty photograph-like!

[jnantz]

I just viewed your webpage. FWIW, I think your "cameraless+hybrid" stuff is pretty awesome and pretty photograph-like!

thanks nate!

your mind is much more open than the galleries i showed things to. :)

john

[steve barry]

i usually title things just nonsense words or phrase or sentence or something - mainly to help me remember whats what on the computer....and they usually stick when i print the thing. or i just leave it untitled. depends i guess.

[John Kasaian]

A title or descriptive title is far more interesting than a number assigned to a negative.

I can see it now.... Patrick McGoohan in a Lotus Super 7 racing through London (on the wrong side of the road of course) to the tune of White Rabbit. A guy in a topper and a hearse puts a gas hose through the mail slot of the flat. The room starts to spin...he wakes up in a fairytale town guarded by weather balloons and there is no escape! In frustration he cries out:

"I am not a number--I'm a descriptive title!"
:D

[Renato Tonelli]

I cringe with embarrassment when I think of the titles I used to give my photographs during my college years and beyond.
I now limit myself to who or what, when and where.
I've seen brief text with accompanying some photos here and there (some issues of LensWork) that works really well also.

I don't like titles that sound pretentious to my ear, titles that influence how I should feel or think.

[domenico Foschi]

I cringe with embarrassment when I think of the titles I used to give my photographs during my college years and beyond.
I now limit myself to who or what, when and where.
I've seen brief text with accompanying some photos here and there (some issues of LensWork) that works really well also.

I don't like titles that sound pretentious to my ear, titles that influence how I should feel or think.

I agree Renato.
Title that give a direction to my experience of the photograph, might preclude a more personal experience on some viewer.
That is why many of my images are "Untitled".

I am playing around with the idea of incorporating Poetry with my images, but only in form of a book.

[Vaughn]

Titiles, and the absence of titles, are very important...if the photograph itself is important.

Vaughn

[Ash]

Something to avoid "that picture with the thing and that person at that place" is good, but there's someone in my photography class who has the compulsion to name everything, even 50 year old photo's that are untitled, even 60 year old photo's WITH titles.

That drove me more and more towards untitled work, maybe a number or a code for the date or time or location or something.


I really enjoy captions.

[John Powers]

[QUOTE=Renato Tonelli;314001]I cringe with embarrassment when I think of the titles I used to give my photographs during my college years and beyond.
QUOTE]


One local judge's opinion, when cutting 500+ entries to 50 images for a show, "I discard cute, trite, silly titles. Use simple descriptors of time, place and situation".

John

[paulr]

One practical thought ...

my work is all untitled, for reasons I've given a lot of thought to, but I pay a price for it.

I end up in conversations like, "so you're interested in the one with the tree and the telephone pole and the skyline, or the skyline and the two trees and the telephone pole? Oh! I know, you mean the telephone pole and the silhouetee of the skyline and half a tree!"

it gets old.

[Dick Hilker]

I try to stick to one-word titles that make it easier for galleries and potential buyers to identify the piece and, in some instances, direct the viewers' attention to an aspect of the picture I feel might profit from a little help.

[Vaughn]

I try to stick to one-word titles that make it easier for galleries and potential buyers to identify the piece and, in some instances, direct the viewers' attention to an aspect of the picture I feel might profit from a little help.

This is what I do...Place and date. Of course ,since I do the majority of my work under the redwoods, along a particular creek, I do find I have to get a little creative with titles...one can have only so many "Redwoods, 2007", or "Prairie Creek, 2007" :D

Vaughn

[Deane Johnson]

I've long thought that if a photograph needs a title, the photographer has failed.

[Dick Hilker]

I've long thought that if a photograph needs a title, the photographer has failed.


I've had that opinion, too, but pragmatism's prevailed and, as I mentioned above, I like to use a word or two to clearly identify a picture.

To say that a picture is only successful if it's unaccompanied by a title seems tantamount to condemning all "talkies" at the movies. Sometimes, a title or even a brief description can augment an image that on its own would have been successful.

[paulr]

I've long thought that if a photograph needs a title, the photographer has failed.

I don't know about "needing" a title, but a good number of history's great photographers (and painters, sculptors, composers, poets, etc.) have chosen to title their work. Makes me think that titles have a place, even if I've chosen not to use them.

[Deane Johnson]

I'll explain my thoughts a little further. When a title such as "Serenity", "Winter Wonderland", "Magic Moments", and "The Splendor of Love", to offer a few corny examples, it's telling the viewer what they should think or feel from the photo. I think the photo should speak for itself.

Now, on the other hand, I think it's essential to offer some basic information about the photo and to identify it. For instance, I would see it perfectly appropriate and even necessary to title something "Trees and Morning Fog, Sonoma County, 1973".

Let's think about Moonrise. Titled "Moonrise, Hernandez NM". What if Ansel had called it "Haunting Moments" or something similar. He would be telling me what I should be feeling from the photo. As it is, the photo clearly speaks for itself, but I am also informed as to where the scene is.

[Vaughn]

While you are correct, Deane, titles can serve other purposes other than telling what the viewer should think or feel. Images can have layers of meaning, and titles can often provide non-visual clues to, or create a bridge for, the viewer as to how mentally get from the obvious surface layer to the deeper ones. Again, not telling the viewer what to think, but providing guidance on finding those deeper layers of meaning....thus allowing the viewer to discover more and gain greater insight into the image.

But titles should be used as carefully as polarizing filters, graduated filters, wide-angle lenes, high contrast, sharpening filters in PhotoShop, etc. Over-use or heavy-handed use can make the image to appear a bit trite.

Vaughn

[domenico Foschi]

I'll explain my thoughts a little further. When a title such as "Serenity", "Winter Wonderland", "Magic Moments", and "The Splendor of Love", to offer a few corny examples, it's telling the viewer what they should think or feel from the photo. I think the photo should speak for itself.

Now, on the other hand, I think it's essential to offer some basic information about the photo and to identify it. For instance, I would see it perfectly appropriate and even necessary to title something "Trees and Morning Fog, Sonoma County, 1973".

Let's think about Moonrise. Titled "Moonrise, Hernandez NM". What if Ansel had called it "Haunting Moments" or something similar. He would be telling me what I should be feeling from the photo. As it is, the photo clearly speaks for itself, but I am also informed as to where the scene is.

Wholeheartedly agree.

[Struan Gray]

Minor White's "Windowsill Daydreaming" is my favourite example of a great photo spoiled by an over-cutesy title. I suspect he was trying to emphasise the spiritual and guard against people like me who enjoy formal aesthetics too much, but once read the title is impossible to forget, and it colours the work forever.

I have a personal dislike of dates in titles, except for photos that are meant to be journalistic. I also think the "Untitled" shtick has gone too far when you get things like "Untitled #42 - The Meaning of Life, Adamstown, 1962".

I am reluctant to title my own work, preferring to put together groups of photos which address themes that might not be obvious from the individual shots. A title priviledges one aspect of the photo above all others, and that makes the collection less rich: instead of a skein of ideas twisting and looping through the whole, you end up with a dead straight highway with a single meaning.

[Annie M.]

Photographs are a poetic communications that are semblances of experiences. The unique nature of photographic media is that it is hinged to time, light and object... aspects of reality that we subject to a divisive cultural branding through language... I would not consider naming one of my photographs any more than I would consider upon waking naming my dreams.

A photogaph is an experience of the world... it extends far beyond it's material form... there is no aesthetic consciousness that is common to all minds... within the image resides possibility... I prefer to have my images presented independent of preconception... my images are my experiences waiting to be manifest in the mind of another and in this way they are like water... they take on a form shaped by the others experience...to me naming only restricts the flow.

[paulr]

I am reluctant to title my own work, preferring to put together groups of photos which address themes that might not be obvious from the individual shots. A title priviledges one aspect of the photo above all others, and that makes the collection less rich: instead of a skein of ideas twisting and looping through the whole, you end up with a dead straight highway with a single meaning.

That's my favorite approach as well. Words are one way to create a context for undertsanding a picture, but other pictures are a more elegant one, I think.

[paulr]

Several folks have mentioned the title may render a photograph documentary or journalistic in style...

i think documentary or journalistic style titles have that effect, not tiltles in general. for instance, "Flat Iron Building, New York City, 1932." Those pictorialist pics don't have titles like that.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I agree with Deane Johnson. Emotive titles are worse than drawing a big "X" with a thick black marker over the photograph. You might as well just take a match to it.

Documentary titles, such as the name of a portrait subject or the location of a landscape are a good way of getting the "what is that?" question out of the way, so that those who are able to appreciate the photograph for other reasons can do so. I remember once attending a Carleton Watkins show, and people were saying things like "oh, that's Telegraph Hill before they built it up. My sister lived there in the 70s." People who can only see a photograph as documentary will be that way no matter what the title is.

[paulr]

Steichen's Flatiron Building 1905. Any thoughts, regarding a title? ;)

Well, with Steichen I think his reputation, larger body of work, and the luscious printing style (hand-tickled, double bromoil-dipped ambrotype with a swirl of semisweet palladium ... right?) is enough to tell us that this picture is as much about craft and an esthetic experience as it is about architecture.

All these things come into play in setting up a context for the viewer.

You might also argue that anything having to do with the flatiron building at that time was about Modernity, since that thing was the height of modern coolness. Both Steichen and Stieglitz spent time talking about modernism back then, even when their own work still looked quite victorian. It's possible that photographing that building (and putting it in the caption) bought you some modernist street cred. But I'm just guessing.

[Christopher Breitenstein]

Some may say that titles are only as important as you make them, which possess some degree of truth. If your work is to be entered in Juried competitions, submitted for showing proposals, or being sold into collections then titles are as important as composition. Your photographic nomenclature needs to be consistent, and complementary to the concept behind the body of work. Even if you use titles to distinguish your work in rhetoric or as a reference. A name fills out the meaning of a photograph. While I have made several claims the only I feel for which I Can provide adequate support in forum length response is regarding a name and its complementary nature to a picture.
Assigning words to a picture creates a common ground between the viewer and the artist. While the picture may do the same thing, words do so more directly. We can all agree that words carry an immense amount of meaning, in both literal and metaphoric use, many of which are equivocal amongst speakers of the same language. That being said we can all agree on the literal meaning of words; 'trash can,' 'mountains,' 'abstract' etc... It is through these mutually understood literal meanings that a solid common ground is constructed. This may explain why ambiguous titles, which are seen a lot in modern art, can make a picture perplexing. And the literal use of words grounds the picture in the real world. Such examples would be Bret Weston's abstractions, which are usually titled according to there non-recognizable subject matter. This applies to the name of a picture, series, body of work etc...

This common ground conveys an immense amount of meaning to the viewer, should they decide to consider it. It is always possible that you take a great picture give it a great name, and the viewer walks away without the reading the name and in sense with only half the story. or the viewer looks at the picture feels they understand what the artist was doing until reading the title, which will either support or refute the viewers conclusion regarding the artist. the title may turn a photograph they hate into one they love or vise versa.

Moral? Choose wisely, some place undue weight on the power of words that are next to pictures.

Ambiguously yours;

[Annie M.]

'titles are as important as composition'...

I just flipped through a small book of Edward Weston's images...

15 images titled 'Nude' ... 9 images titled 'Dunes'... 5 images titled 'Clouds' ...
4 images titled 'Cypress' etc... etc...etc...

[Christopher Breitenstein]

Had Edward Weston Titled "Pepper #9" "eggs and bacon," or "Saint Denis descent to hell" given then composition the same implicature as "Pepper #9" or even "pepper?" Weston Chose pepper number nine for a reason. Because those words say something about the photograph.

Had he titled all of his work metaphorically would the modern opinion of him be the same? Would modern photography be the same had the founders of created a tradition of titling photos based on the last words they said before making the exposure, or title it based on which exposure it was on that given date, rather then a title that describes the scene? unfortunately we will never know.

Bottom line is that titles can carry an immense amount of meaning. And whether or not the viewer takes that title, and their interpretation of it's meaning, into account when viewing a photo is up to that viewer.

[Struan Gray]

I suppose what we are really talking about is the wider issue of context, and whether -and how - the photographer should control it.

Some pictorialists went in for the "Blessed art thou among women" approach. Others, like my favourite Alvin Langdon Coburn, used deliberately matter-of-fact titles. Weston kept things plain, but other modernists like Manuel Alvarez Bravo enjoyed a large dollop of symbolism.

There are no rules, only choices.

It is hard though to think of an example of a bad art photograph made good by a caption. Even there though, you have the example of W.G.Sebald's books.

When I do choose titles I have to guard against my personal love of puns and alliteration. I sometimes think I should have been a tabloid headline writer for a living. I tend to go for plain titles that emphasise the inadequacy of a simple name: but they are no less directive of the viewers' experience than "Fading Away" or "This photograph was my proof...". There is no way to get out of the game.

[Struan Gray]

Christopher, I always assumed that using the numbers for the pepper photographs was a way of emphasising the photographic nature of the pictures. The classic modernist idea of allowing processes and materials to show their own intrinsic qualities. The #9 says "I took at least nine photographs of peppers, and I'm showing you this one." You can't help but wonder about the other eight (or twenty nine), and you can't help but realise that you are looking a pepper because a thinking, purposeful human being with a definite criterion for selection wanted you to do so.

[Annie M.]

a pose by any other name....

[Kirk Gittings]

Compared to images, titles are not very important.

[Vaughn]

Ted Orlands uses titles well, but then he is a good writer, also.

For example "One and a half Domes"...only adds to the image!

Vaughn

[Christopher Breitenstein]

Christopher, I always assumed that using the numbers for the pepper photographs was a way of emphasising the photographic nature of the pictures. The classic modernist idea of allowing processes and materials to show their own intrinsic qualities. The #9 says "I took at least nine photographs of peppers, and I'm showing you this one." You can't help but wonder about the other eight (or twenty nine), and you can't help but realise that you are looking a pepper because a thinking, purposeful human being with a definite criterion for selection wanted you to do so.

Struan;

That is exactly my point! Titles project an immense amount of meaning; on the photograph, the series, and the photographer. Titles are never arbitrary, even if the artist created it "arbitrarily," the titling was a conscious decision. Whether thought and emotion went into the creation of a title is another issue.

Yours;

[Ken Lee]

I like numbers, like Beethoven's Ninth.

This discussion of titles, reminds me of the joke about the fellows in prison, who had to commit their jokes to memory, and refer to them only by... number. After lights-out, brave inmates would shout out only the number, hoping to avoid being identified, and punishment for breaking the rule of silence.

A newly incarcerated prisoner, on learning of this custom, decided to try his luck one night. He shouted out several numbers at random - but there was no laughter, only an empty silence.

The next morning, in the cafeteria, he asked his next-door neighbor what went wrong.
"Look buddy, some guys just don't know how to tell a joke.", was the reply.

[KenM]

Personally, I abhor titles when they're displayed with the photograph - I mean when the title is written on the front of the mat or mount as opposed to the back.

By titling a photograph, you're placing it into a context for the viewer, which can alter how they perceive what they're looking at. Let the user decide - if you've done your job as a photographer/artist, then a title should not be required.

Yes, there are other reasons for titles, such as increasing hits from a search engine such as Google; I'm referring to the act of physically titling a print hanging on a wall.

There was an instructor at a workshop I took a few years ago (who's name escapes me at the moment). He did wonderful color work, but he titled each of his prints, and he would TELL you what the title was when he presented the work. In his book, the title was printed across the bottom of each page. It ruined the experience of looking at the prints since it placed each image in some sort of context, thereby affecting your opinion. Too bad, really.

It's very similar to how Bruce Barnbaum runs critique sessions - students look at a collection of prints, without comment. No talking. By not discussing that you're looking at with other, you're not affecting their opinion of the work. Titles do the same thing: they can sway your opinion. Perhaps in some cases this is ok; for example, documentary photography may benefit from titles.

I do title my prints, but generally the titles are location based, and written on the back of the mount. Locations for abstracts don't make much sense, so I usually come up with some other type of title that tries to convey what I felt when I made the photograph.

[paulr]

By titling a photograph, you're placing it into a context for the viewer, which can alter how they perceive what they're looking at. Let the user decide - if you've done your job as a photographer/artist, then a title should not be required.

But everything you do with an image places it into a context for the viewer. Chosing to hang it on a white wall vs. present it in a book; hanging it in a formal gallery vs. a punk rock bar; museum-style framing vs. face mounting to metal vs. tacking the corners directly to the wall; images hung with lots of space vs. hung salon style; every aspect of the grouping and sequencing of the pictures; the name of the exhibit; etc. etc. etc... I don't know how titling vs. not titling work is fundamentally different from all these other choices.

[tim atherton]

There is, however, much work in which the action of text (I'm avoiding both caption and title here) is integral to the work as a whole

Taryn Simon's work comes to mind for one, and Max Sebald's books are as much extensive, in depth, captions to his photographs as anything.

In addition, even the use of "untittled" on many a work says much about the work as giving it a title.

In addition, many many (even "good") photographs actually say very little in and of themselves without some other context and information - whether that is supplied by the viewers own previous experience or - in many cases - by the artists/photographer.

Many a photograph certainly hasn't failed if it is also accompanied and enhanced by accompanying text (not necessarily a title though). There is no hard and fast rule.

Surely we all realise that a photograph being worth a thousand words is pretty much a fallacy...

[paulr]

Christopher, I always assumed that using the numbers for the pepper photographs was a way of emphasising the photographic nature of the pictures.

And of course, numbers let you pretend to be more serious and prolific than you really are. My friend in college made a welded lobster out of rusty car parts as a piece for his senior art show. He called it "Crustacean #17."

Of course, there were no crustaceans # 1 through 16. I thought he was brilliant. Looking back I wish I'd bought #17.

[Struan Gray]

I had a friend at school who won a composition competition with piece entitled 'The Watercress'. The Chair of the Judges enthused to him afterwards about how its gentle rhythmic variations conjured up a perfect sound image of beds of watercress swaying in the eddies and flows of a chalk stream's meanders. My friend, clutching a cheque for the price of a new bike, strangely omitted to say that the piece and its name were inspired by a steam engine traversing the eponymous railway line (http://www.watercressline.co.uk/).

I like technical language, jargon and cant. A current plan is to make a photograph worthy of the name "Bumfitt".

[Kirk Gittings]

Is the title of a book important?

[Sylvester Graham]

Is the title of a book important?

While I agree that titles are important, I'm not sure the analogy works, since a photograph and a book are two completely different things.

[Vaughn]

Is the title of a book important?

Sure it is...and once one reads the title, one opens the book and starts reading. Same with photos, read the title, then LOOK at the photograph. Someone who gets hung up on titling prints and lets that affect their viewing of the image, probably lets other things get in their way of viewing images (color vs B&W, digital vs analog, type of frame, the concept of "purity", et al).

Personally, when a print is on the wall, I look at the image first...then check out the title of the work on the wall-tag. Sometimes the title allows me to return to the image with a different outlook than my first impression -- sometimes it doesn't add and I move on.

Vaughn

[Kirk Gittings]

While I agree that titles are important, I'm not sure the analogy works, since a photograph and a book are two completely different things.

Are they? Really? Both are simply introductions to a work of art. What is really different?

[Sylvester Graham]

Are they? Really? Both are simply introductions to a work of art. What is really different?

I think they are, a book vs. a photograph that is. They aren't even processed by the same part of the brain.

I can pick up a book (that I've never read) with the cover ripped off, start reading, and still get from it just about everything the author intended. But if I find a photo lying in the street that's entirely anonymous I have no context in which to place it other than the context implicit with the information in the photograph, information which may or may not let the image stand on it's own (probably won't).

Titling a photograph contextualizes the work in a strange and powerful way that simply doesn't happen with written works. Or at least it can. If I title a photograph of an apple, "apple" or "macintosh" then that's it. The photo is entirely self explanatory. The title is just an introduction as you said. But if I take for example, this:

http://drx.typepad.com/psychotherapyblog/images/2007/09/26/nazi_suicides_mararet_bourkewhite_2.jpg

A photo by Bourke-white titled "German Suicides at Leipzig City Hall, April 1945." The title is more than just an introduction. In fact the photograph relies entirely on the narrative of the title to give it its significance. It could not exist without it. If I found this picture on the street, it would be puzzling, perhaps intriguing, but without a whole lot of outside knowledge I would not be able to identify what exactly is going on in this picture. Although there are many photographs that need only an introduction, there are many others whose power and significance are entirely dependent on their titles.This is something unique to photography, or at least to visual art.

That's what I think the difference is, and I do think it's an important one.

[paulr]

I can pick up a book (that I've never read) with the cover ripped off, start reading, and still get from it just about everything the author intended. But if I find a photo lying in the street that's entirely anonymous I have no context in which to place it other than the context implicit with the information in the photograph, information which may or may not let the image stand on it's own (probably won't).

This is true, but I think it has little to do with books vs. photographs, and everything to do with small scale vs. large scale works.

If the book you're talking about is a novel or a book of poetry, then it includes enough material to create its own context. The title would just be a small piece of the whole puzzle. But finding a single photograph is like finding a single poem torn out of a book. Maybe you'll have enough context to get what the author is up to, but more likely you won't. Small scale works, like photographs, songs, poems, short stories, etc., rarely offer enough to stand by themselves as a complete statement. So we need lots of additional context, even if it's just in the form of the body of work to which it belongs (a photographic portfolio, a collection of poems or stories, an album).

Finding a book of photographs that's missing its title is a better example. If you found Walker Evans' American Photographs, or Cartier Bresson's Decisive Moment, without a cover, you'd be missing something, but you'd do fine. You'd have enough to get it. Finding a single image torn from either book would be a different story. A title or other text accompanying the image wouldn't substutute for the rest of the work, but it would probably help you a bit.

[Vaughn]

Paul,

I guess we can jump from here to titles for photography shows -- that would fit the scale you mentioned...similar to the title of a book of photographs.

On the same scale of a title of a photograph, the preface of a book perhaps would be more of an apt comparison. I read Hesse's Steppenwolf a couple times before reading the preface -- and reading that changed the way I saw the whole book.

Vaughn

[Sylvester Graham]

Paul,

Absolutely poems are closer to photographs, and photo-books closer to novels. But I still think the title of a written work, any written work, has a far different effect than can titles of some photographs, and is of less importance.

Many of Emily Dickinson’s poems were discovered untitled. In these cases editors assigned the first few words or line of the poem as a title. While certainly some of the significance of the poem stems from its identity as a “Dickinson” (maybe that being a kind of title in itself) and other external context, all of the information needed to bring about an emotional response is contained within the actual poem, title or no title. Many of these works are only a few words long. So, what might be similar to finding a Dickinson poem would be finding Weston’s “Pepper” (assuming I’d never seen it before). I could very easily title it like the editors titling Dickinson’s poem with the first word. I could very easily title it “Pepper” and that wouldn’t significantly add or subtract from its meaning. But there are some photographs where the title is essential. Like the Bourke-White photo I linked in my last post (sorry I can’t think of any more examples).

Even if I found the Bourke-White image untitled and in a book about, say, post WWII Germany (also without a title), I still don’t think I would know what it was exactly without a thorough historical sleuthing or prior knowledge to some lucky piece of information. Even if it were surrounded by photos of Germany’s defeat, I would still be forced to ask, who are these people? Are they sleeping? Are they dead? Have they been shot? Gassed? And, maybe, did they commit suicide? Without the title I could only guess. But with it I instantly recognize the significance, things snap into place, I become instantly aware of many German Officials’ overwhelming shame and dishonor, as well as the vindictive god-sanctioned attitude of the Allies/America by Bourke-White’s choice of a high angle. I use the pronoun I here on purpose. This is my opinion and I don’t want to sound condescending. Without the title, and in a book of similar documents helping to contextualize it, I would “do fine” as you say, you’re right, but also as you say, I’d be “missing something.” And that something is anything but trivial. In this particular example and in countless others, omitting a title is like biting skin off an apple instead of eating the whole thing. Incomparable. The addition of a title in many photographs moves them from ordinary to extraordinary, and from incoherent to genius.

The simple juxtaposition of written title and visual document creates something entirely new, something that depends on both. These photos are rare, but when they do happen (accidentally or not) they create something that doesn’t exist anywhere else in any other medium.

[paulr]

I see what you're saying and think it's an excellent point. i'm not convinced it's universally true, but it definitely holds true for whole swaths of photographs. particularly ones like the ones that you mention, which have ambiguous looking content, but that take a profound new meaning when you see the title. I think there are examples of poems that use titles in a similar way, but they're not nearly as typical.

I think other kinds of titles in photography have a less profound effect. Some just state the obvious ("pepper") or embelish the obvious with some subtle hints about the artist's intent ("pepper #34") or give us information that's factual but not profound ("chrysler building, 1945"). And some just annoy the crap out of us ("the splendor of love" ...) these kinds of title create some important context for how we see the image, but in general I don't think they completely redefine our experience like the titles you're talking about.

[Sylvester Graham]

Alright. Thanks.

[Turner Reich]

Yes, it's worth doing, adds some information that's not to be found elsewere.

[Scott Morgan]

Let's think about Moonrise. Titled "Moonrise, Hernandez NM". What if Ansel had called it "Haunting Moments" or something similar. I thought of this image as well for this discussion. What if he would have called it "Untitled"?

I think an image will lose much significance (to the viewing public in general) over time if left without a title. It will become lost over the ensuing years.

In support of this idea, I googled "Ansel Adams Untitled" and came up with few matching hits (keywords became hard to find after the first page). But google "Ansel Adams Moonrise Hernandez New Mexico" and there were 47 pages of 100% match.

Just an observation. I realize some photographers/artists aren't concerned about the lasting significance of one of their images. On the other hand, I believe it would be much harder for a print to have a timelessness--to become a classic-- if it is "untitled".

Scott

[Andrew_4548]

I generally title my work but as most of it is architectural, I believe it needs a title as it's a technical subject. The few bits of pictorial work I've done, I have tried to title it but find it difficult, especially trying to keep away from the cheesy ones as "Approaching Storm" etc ;)

I don't put titles on the front of prints as I haven't got room - most only have 1/8" border around the 20"x16" picture and as they're framed, the title would be covered anyway. If I see recent pictures with titles on the front, it screams "digital" print to me (I only wet print) - especially if the text is on the actual print, in a known font and the picture has a pencil line border... My Dad used to title prints on the front using Letraset but I never thought it looked very 'professional.'

There's just been an exhibition I've organised at a gallery - the people hanging the works (effectively representing the general public) liked the pictures but were frustrated at the titles not saying where they were taken - most of the exhibiting photographers had included "pictorial" titles, e.g. "Dawn over the pier" and the people wanted to know where it was. Maybe just out of interest or maybe somewhere they could call in on if they were in the area - the extra info would have given them something to 'link it to their world' and they may not have forgotten the image as quickly as mentioned above.

On a different slant, for some of the other competitions I've been involved with, there's picture classes for "General" and "Applied" subjects. I know of someone who takes a lot of similar pictures (natural history subjects) but titles them so they can go into both classes. You might get "Robin - Erithacus rubecula" in the Applied class and then near as dammit the same picture (next frame on the motordrive) in the General class entitled "The Happy Robin." It's hardly playing fair even though both pictures are good but he wins both class trophies with almost the same picture but a different title... :mad:

[Tajmul12345]

I don't title, but I do write something: a description, place, or 'title' on the back, altho these can vary for the same print. Not much of a system.

I thinks it is important because It is help people to find out and It increase reputation.

[unaisc]

Captions are most important things in photography. That will direct peoples to your photographs.. always title your photograph and enjoy the poplarity.



Unaiz
My blog (http://www.antsmagazine.com/)

[Robert Langham]

Titles on artwork as important as name on a person. You have an opportunity not to drive the viewer, but to point the direction you want them to go. I'm having a little struggle right now with a rockface or two- I don't want them to be Rockface #1 and Rockface #2, #3, but currently a little stumped. I'll get it, eventually. Important to title with words that ring and don't clunk!

85307 85308 85309

I'm mostly pretty factual and straightforward- No on: "Splendor in the Mist" and Yes on: Cedar Shadow sliding into Treeline, 2012, but you have to leave space for something like Wynn Bullocks "Navigation without Numbers."

Related- I point out to students often about how words IN a photo affect it. T-shirts and Logos being a big thing in the college crowd. If a T-shirt message is prominent in a photo, the words are going to influence the viewers, et, et.

[DrTang]

Meh..when I used to do shows..I would name them something like: EVENT 2003 - 1, EVENT 2003 - 2, EVENT 2003 - 3

EVENT being the name of the event

My friend on the other hand, lives for the titles even more than the photography I sometimes think, making up bad puns and word play for his titles

[paulr]

It's worth considering the difference between a caption and a title. They are not the same thing and their roles / effects are not interchangeable.

[Kirk Gittings]

Titles are a simple way of pointing the viewer's thought process in a particular direction. As virtually all of my work is about spirit of place a simple title/and or location can inform people about the location or region I am interpreting. From watching people at photo galleries I know that people overwhelmingly look at the image first and them the title/caption. If the image doesn't grab their attention in some way they don't bother looking at the title/caption. It is clearly secondary to the strength of the image but IMO for my work, necessary to flesh out the artistic thought.

[cosmicexplosion]

Titles prove imagination attitude or offer a riddle for the ages.

[unaisc]

@paulr can you please explain me difference between caption and title..? :)


Unaiz

http://www.antsmagazine.com

[paulr]

@paulr can you please explain me difference between caption and title..? :)

I was half-hoping to talk about this :)

Caption and title suggest different roles for text, which can range from radically different to almost completely overlapping. A title is generally connected permanently to the image, by the artist (not necessarily true but this is the presumption) and serves the role of announcing the image, naming it, connecting it to a genre, or a system of meaning, or a mood, and thereby preemptively coloring how we look at the image.

A caption works by explaining the image. It tells us what we're looking at, or what (in the opinion of the photographer or editor or whoever attached the caption) is important. Captions are typically less permanently connected to the image. They are written and attached based on how the image will contextualized and recontextualized.

Traditionally, but not always, the title precedes the image while the caption follows it. The title deliberately announces the image as a work of Art, while the caption subtly colors the image as communication of truth, or at least of information.

We associate titles with Fine Art (however you want to define this) and captions with journalism or document. Over the last century, however, artists have gotten very sly about adopting the styles and techniques of journalists and documentarians. This has led to titles in the form of captions—text which manages to serve both purposes, and blurs the lines between fiction and non-fiction (lines which are always blurry, to some degree ...). Much of the photography that's been in vogue since the 1970s has been in a documentary style, and uses documentary style captions as part of its presentation. Walker Evans himself talked about the important distinctions between documentary style art (like what he did) and pure document (like a crime scene photograph or drivers license photograph). I'm not sure if he talked about the role of text.

I think most of us in this thread are talking titles, although many of the examples have been titles in style of captions. Which raise a lot of these interesting questions.

This site (http://courses.washington.edu/hypertxt/cgi-bin/book/wordsinimages/stablerels.html) says a little about the roles of text.

Clive Scott's book (http://www.amazon.com/Spoken-Image-Clive-Scott/dp/186189032X) goes into the issue in great depth.

[unaisc]

Thanks for your brief and informative reply... it really help me to understand the exact difference between caption and title.. :)


Unaiz
My blog: http://www.antsmagazine.com

[Steve Smith]

I am terrible at thinking up titles but I hate to see a photograph or painting labelled 'Untitled'.


Steve.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I really don't care titles that much as long as they are not too imposing. On another note, whenever I had a show in Japan, people would always ask me, "where did you take that photo?". Is location really that important? Do people ask a painter, "where did you paint that?".
Titles that bug me: "Clearing Storm", "Clearing Rain", "Clearing Sky", "Approaching Storm".... Uuuuuggg!

[paulr]

I really don't care titles that much as long as they are not too imposing. On another note, whenever I had a show in Japan, people would always ask me, "where did you take that photo?". Is location really that important? Do people ask a painter, "where did you paint that?".

i have a ritual argument with dad about this. He always wants to see text explaining what he's looking at, or at least where it is. In my work, since the esthetic is often similar to the "documentary" one, I have to use context to point people's attention elsewhere. One of the tools I use make them untitled, but to name the series or project. My dad believes that he and everyone else on earth will not be satisfied if they don't get their primal questions answered a caption. I tell him he needs to open his mind or just go look at a show of documentary style pictures. We're both too stubborn to give an inch.

[Steve Smith]

Artists statements are much more annoying than titles. I could do without them every time.


Steve.

[paulr]

Well, I hate bad statements. I really like good ones. The good ones are rare, but no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Chuck P.]

I prefer a title that is informative at just the very basic level i.e., date, location, etc....but ones that try to put some kind of "meaning" to the image are the ones that annoy me the most.

[Kirk Gittings]

Well, I hate bad statements. I really like good ones. The good ones are rare, but no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Alec Soth's haiku statement:
"My name is Alec Soth (rhymes with ‘both’). I live in Minnesota. I like to take pictures and make books. I also have a business called Little Brown Mushroom."

[lenser]

I really appreciate a title that is informative such as a landscape having at least a minimal name such as "Hughes Mountain, Missouri", or a city name where the image was taken, but the esoteric titles like "Opus 1" or "Equivalent" just turn me off. I'd rather have no title than that nonsense.

[paulr]

Alec Soth's haiku statement:
"My name is Alec Soth (rhymes with ‘both’). I live in Minnesota. I like to take pictures and make books. I also have a business called Little Brown Mushroom."

Someday I'd like to be so well known that I can get away with such a great slice of minimalism.