Options
It's all about SEX!
AlexShark
Registered Users Posts: 198 Major grins
How important is the title? You are here, aren’t you? Tell me it has nothing to do with the title. So let’s talk about it.
I hear, a photograph should stand on its own two feet, and other such clichés. Cliché has no place in art. Maybe a photograph should lie on its knees with face in the mud. Maybe it will only benefit from uniting with the gutter!
The title establishes the theme. To my personal taste – and let me reiterate this – to my personal taste a photograph without a theme is incomprehensible. For this reason, it is already perfect, and I have nothing to add or say about it. Nor do I particularly want to look at it.
Ballerinas, unless they are up in the air, stand quite firmly on their own two feet. Yet it is significant to call their “produce” the Swan Lake or the Nutcracker, or other such West Side Story.
It seems, photographers are the rare breed who believe the title is not important. I want to demonstrate that not only it is important, but it guides the entire creative process. The title is not an afterthought, it is the pointing arrow that disciplines the photographer and keeps him on track from the first click of the shutter until the print TIFF.
Here’s an unprocessed photo, UNTITLED. What can you say about it? Good, bad, indifferent? Any recommendations, suggestions, improvement ideas? Anything to keep in mind for the future shoot?
(Credits: dancer Elieen Jaworowicz)
I hear, a photograph should stand on its own two feet, and other such clichés. Cliché has no place in art. Maybe a photograph should lie on its knees with face in the mud. Maybe it will only benefit from uniting with the gutter!
The title establishes the theme. To my personal taste – and let me reiterate this – to my personal taste a photograph without a theme is incomprehensible. For this reason, it is already perfect, and I have nothing to add or say about it. Nor do I particularly want to look at it.
Ballerinas, unless they are up in the air, stand quite firmly on their own two feet. Yet it is significant to call their “produce” the Swan Lake or the Nutcracker, or other such West Side Story.
It seems, photographers are the rare breed who believe the title is not important. I want to demonstrate that not only it is important, but it guides the entire creative process. The title is not an afterthought, it is the pointing arrow that disciplines the photographer and keeps him on track from the first click of the shutter until the print TIFF.
Here’s an unprocessed photo, UNTITLED. What can you say about it? Good, bad, indifferent? Any recommendations, suggestions, improvement ideas? Anything to keep in mind for the future shoot?
(Credits: dancer Elieen Jaworowicz)
Photography is about what does not meet the eye
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
0
Comments
To infer that working with titles " guides the entire creative process " is somewhat of a pompous reach in my book. I have never even considered a title for any of my work until the whole creative process was over.
Some of the most iconic photos ever taken ( the sailor kissing the girl in Times Square after WWII ended, the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima, the Arizona blowing up in the attack on Pearl Habor, the Vietnamese officer blowing the brains out of a captured enemy soldier, etc., etc. ) never heard of a title.
We'll respect your choice to use titles; we'd like to think that we can follow our own drummer without our work process being considered " incomprehensible ".
Tom
Tom, if you consider the discussion a waste of time -- by all means move on. Clearly, you have no intention contributing to the subject. i won't hold this against you.
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
Thank you for your reply.
Too busy for what purpose? Or is there such a thing as "too busy for anything"?
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
"Too busy"...a photog vernacular for too much going on in the photo or two many distracting elements....hard to find focal point.....I suggested the dress she is wearing has too many distracting elements going all over the place....so picture might be better if she was wearing none....stronger focal point. Get it?
As for titles........they can have correlation to mood as well as what element viewer's attention is drawn towards........some may not care if someone else doesn't get what they wanted to highlight.......for them it may not matter......most of the time it is obvious what the subject is and only a bad or wrong title will be foolish....however, if there was something that is not obvious but important to you and it prompted you to take that shot and you would like to draw viewer's attention to it....then choosing a good title may help in that endeavor.
Few months back someone posted a picture but titled it by name of a mountain......so when I looked at it, I immediately looked for the mountain top......felt it was not crisp, bit soft......then found that crispiness was in the reflection of the mountain in the foreground pond.....what prompted the shot was reflection and that is where AF point was put......so the title of the thread...if not the photo....did not do its job.
As for theme.....it helps focus search....for what you are looking for.......but should not become prisoner of either titles or themes.......in the end you capture what you see and find amazing and you want to turn around and say to everyone else....hey check this out....how beautiful or interesting.......they may or may not agree....you try again.....
For me best moments are when I am so excitedly composing a shot, with hands shaking because the light may run out.....while people passing by have puzzled look and some stop and ask.....what am I shooting....and I look back at them bewildered and point to what I am shooting and that puzzles them more.....then I realize they are not seeing it....and try to explain and they shake their head in agreement....still not seeing it but trying to make me not feel stupid.
Happened at least 3-4 times last evening......now I have to go and find out whether I was blind or if they were blind......after I process the shots!:D
Cheers!
Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful reply. I quoted two subjects only, and would like to focus on them.
The second one, on not being a prisoner -- spot on! After all, I am the master of the photograph, and I might change my mind about it, including its title and the very purpose. Actually, I have a lot of examples of taking the pictures for the sake of taking pictures, without the slightest idea of what will become of them. In most cases, I could never go back to them until I found the unifying theme. Then, and only then, I knew what to do with them.
The first bit, on the distracting elements: a nude shot like this would bring more focus to the dancer -- if only the dancer's features were the focus!
Consider the title: "The first pro studio dance shoot." Suddenly, everything in addition to the dancer becomes relevant -- the clutter, the industrial strength fan, the floor, the blank wall, and so on. In fact, there's not enough elements! Where are the Broncolors, the Beauty dish, the "wipe the shadows" strobes? With such title this should be an environmental shot, so it fails from get-go!
But at the time, I had a different idea: THE FLIGHT OF A SPIDERWOMAN.
Can it now be said that her clothing is distracting? I think it is essential.
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
Thanks! No offense whatsoever, and I do want a serious discussion. Your comments made a lot of sense. While at the same time, my drive is to demonstrate that the intent (the theme, the title) change everything. Moreover, without knowing it beforehand any critique is limited to technique alone, which is not the same as the critique of a photograph.
I'm glad you like the Spiderwoman version. But guess what? I found it lame. There's something so forceful and menacing in Eileen's posture and expression, something so dark and violent, that the Spiderwoman is a grade below her.
The final was Lilith. This is a huge external reference that needs to be understood in order to assess the photo. Lilith is a legendary first woman created, the one before Adam and Eve. She's still out there, scaring children at night, and it is also believed that she is the cause of all birth and childhood death.
So here's Lilith:
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
First b&w is about a woman! Her expression along with pose makes the shot.
Second b&w is about a super-woman. Something a teenager would enjoy reading about in a comic book.
I prefer women.
Although I would give anything to learn how to transform a woman to super woman via post processing!:D
Gives me shudders.
Now we are talking art! And art always begins with a disagreement over preferences. Art is a personal thing.
The transformation is dirt easy, by the way. Create a channel "Woman" by selecting her first. You don't need to be precise, since the background is white on the original and she'll end up being on the white background. Create a new black layer "Black". Cut out "Woman" from it. Apply motion blur. Delete the white stuff (or use mask) to make the background woman show through. You got yourself a superwoman. Not exactly the way it was done, but it'll do.
To wrap it up, this is but one example of how a choice of the theme challenges me to completely rework the image to the point that it changes its meaning.
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
Brilliant! I should send her the photo. Heck, might even finally get paid for it!
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
Thanks for the info. Someday I will be able to use it....yes, when you have ability to create an image, not just capture it, then highlighting your thoughts via theme and titles would make sense. After-all not everyone knows who the real first woman was.
I need to freshen up on my history lessons!
So when you took the shot you first posted in this thread were you thinking Spiderwoman or Lilith? Rather different creatures, I think. Or were you really focused on capturing a dancer at just the right moment in her leap?
I'm not trying to suggest that there's anything wrong with starting from an idea (and even a title) and then letting that guide the execution. But I also think there's nothing wrong with choosing a title after the fact or omitting a title altogether.
Heck, I was married to her!
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
All good questions, Richard.
There can be a theme without a title. There can be a theme even without a photograph. And usually there is one!
When I go to an exhibit, not only I look for the titles, but also for the audio tour, in order to understand the background of the work I'm looking at: the motivation behind the work, the history of it, the circumstances that prompted the artist to dwell on this particular subject. I find it important, and most certainly I get out of it much more than by merely looking.
Do you believe it is important to understand Cartier-Bresson's idea of the "decisive moment"? Will you see his work in a different light once you become aware of it? I think so.
A while ago I visited Florence and admired Michelangelo's David. Both, the replica on the square and the original. Did you know that Michelangelo spend an entire year staring at the marble pillar, deciding what to do about the David he was about to carve? And while his predecessors and contemporaries depicted David at the moment of his triumph, standing over the head of Goliath, Michelangelo decided to portray David as the shepherd youth who suddenly realizes that he is about to lead the nation. The moment of truth! The "decisive moment" 450 years before Cartier-Bresson was born. So tell me Richard, would this information add to your experience of Michelangelo? It sure did it for me.
Did you know that Beethoven was entirely deaf when he wrote the 5th Piano Concerto "Emperor"? He sawed off the legs of his piano to get the vibrations off the floor, while he was writing it. No one will claim that the concerto does not "stand on its own feet," but my experience of it is enriched by knowing this. And the concerto also has a title. Why "Emperor"? Is it about an emperor? No, it was commissioned by an emperor. I think it is of artistic value to know all this.
Incidentally, there's no need to sit on a shoulder of an authority figure. I can afford having an opinion even if Cartier-Bresson would disagree with it.
Nor do I believe that there's such thing as "commonly accepted values of the visual". This is a "paint by numbers" scheme that installs the ideation that it is possible to teach talent. Every single - no exception! - genius that is exhibited at Pompidou Center had violated all this "commonly accepted" stuff. (including Cartier-Bresson with plenty of portraits with the eyes dead-center and not one third up or down or to the side.)
When I took the shot in question I was learning the skill of studio dance photography for the first time. I was interested in the technique, nothing else. But there was no final product until the theme became obvious to me. And a few years later I changed that too, and reworked the photo. The theme guided my entire process even after the fact. The rest of this shoot can be found here: http://alexbraverman.smugmug.com/Photography/Dance/Air-and-Light/
You will notice that neither the Spiderwoman, nor Lilith are featuring there. I do not find this image strong enough.
I view the RAW photographs exactly as that -- raw material, a slab of marble. Often, they are just a pile of shots that I don't know what to do about (and I have about 150,000 of them). But if I just process them without a plan -- I get postcards. And I chuck them. Nowadays, I make the best effort to have a plan, a theme, before I head out the door. I found it useful, focussing, and it improved my general picture-taking process. I don't insist that anyone has to work this way. But it helps me. The simple question: why do I take specifically this picture? -- is of enormous consequence to me; it sure improved my ability. Try it once, and see whether it has an effect on the quality of your shots.
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
I do agree that having some context adds an additional layer to the experience but the title per se doesn’t always do much. Michelangelo's David is not called “David as a youth realizing he is going to lead the nation, carved after a year of contemplation of a marble pillar”, but simply “David”.
I looked at your work in particular your dance photography; I am a fan of Lois Greenfield too. I was taken by your “Uncertainty Principle” photobook. Great work! I love blur and movement, as I was browsing through it I quickly found myself just looking at the images and ignoring the titles. Given the nature of this discussion I did read them all afterwards and felt most did not contribute to my perception of the image, while some were clever. Perhaps we have different ways of engaging with art, mine seems to be “feel, then think” while yours might be the other way around.
That’s fine.
www.mind-driftphoto.com
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I can only reiterate that without the theme -- none of my photographs that you liked would have came into existence. I simply would have no idea what works and what doesn't, and where to put them, and how to process them. The Uncertainty Principle is quite extraordinary in the sense that it comprises entirely of what I considered throw-aways! Every single photo in that tribute to Bruce Wood Dance Company had failed my very first screening -- purely on technicalities. Until one day, in a lively discussion of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle in Quantum Mechanics I drag out the title photo as an illustration. And everything fell into place, I knew what to do with that season's premier photos. There's no way I could have done it without the title. The individual photos may or may not shed more light within this collection, just like in a novel the chapters may or may not have their own titles. Yet there's no question in my own mind that without the unifying theme "Uncertainty Principle" -- nothing at all holds these pages together.
Thanks for looking, and thanks for your input.
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
Of course, you are free to say and do as you wish, and define terms in any manner you wish... however, to conflate Quantum Mechanics and Photography is,
from the Physics side, a non sequitur. Quantum Mechanical concepts cannot - in any meaningful way - be represented graphically... as with language, it falls short.
For someone capturing something appealing, may only have vision that this is something appealing to me, and then share it with fellow mates and ask, do you also find this appealing.
Maybe afterwards they can give what they found appealing a "name" to see if others could be pursued in that directions, or whether others affirm that direction.
For someone purposely trying to create art, a core purpose, a dream, a vision needs to exist and then some previously scrambled parts can find home in that vision or can be manipulated to find home in that vision.
It may be that sometimes before they begin, they already have a concept, a vision and then they capture raw elements that they can use to bring their vision to life.
It may also be that sometimes some raw elements were collected, just based on "appeal" and then later on a vision came to them and they find bits and pieces here and there to create a theme so it can be presented as such.
I don't see what the quibbling is about?
The appeal and visions are common to all of us.
So many times I stare at a beautiful landscape and am moved, but then I look at it through my view finder and nothing is there. I mutter under my breath out of frustration, "'Today, the eye is not working".
But then one idea comes to present the element in best way and sometimes that turns into train of thoughts.
Again, this is probably part of everyone's creative process.
Sometimes a vision comes before capturing anything, and sometimes something triggers an idea and bits and pieces of raw elements can be gathered to create a theme.
Sometimes, just one single raw element stands on its own, as it needed no theme, it doesn't need other accompanying elements.
So what is the argument about?
You can present one or two photos that stand on their own, or you can present photos tied together with a theme, and you have to define that theme as not everyone would readily pick up on it with out a description.
Eric, non sequitur is my middle name. To Einstein, Bohr and Heisenberg were non sequitur. But that's aside.
We are dealing with art, and if a particular art collection (of my own, dammit!) was inspired by a discussion of QM -- who is there to fault me? I'm not offering a new scientific theory based on artistic endeavor, nor will I care much about an anatomical dissection of the inaccuracies of Modigliani.
By the way, Bohr was the first to suggest that the language of QM should be poetry.
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
The issue is simple enough to avoid confusion.
1. I can collect raw data without a theme, but I cannot make it into art. This is intrinsic to my creative process.
2. I can discuss the technical merits of a photograph, but I cannot assess its artistic merits without being made aware of the underlying intent.
3. I make no demands and place no restrictions on any soul, living, dead, or a zombie, and I do not insist that my workflow be accepted by anyone. I do suggest to try it, as it worked wonders for me.
4. I cannot find any particular reason why the subject of an intent becomes so heated and confrontational. (I can understand the animosity towards all Nikon shooters of the world, yes, they are somewhat lacking, indeed!) In the end, if you just want to go and shoot "pictures" -- enjoy!
5. I'm more interested in discussing the creative process than the technicalities of PP and workflow. And in this process the initial intent is almost everything. Now we can start asking the questions "why this?" instead of "what ISO did you use?"
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
IMO, a perfectly appropriate sequitur, because I find poets and poetry to be as fuzzy as a probability wave!!
It's all good Alex - I couldn't resist stirring-the-pot, with a different spoon... :skippy
***
That is your own problem. Maybe someone else can collect raw data with theme in mind beforehand.
***
2. I can discuss the technical merits of a photograph, but I cannot assess its artistic merits without being made aware of the underlying intent.
***
Again, some art doesn't need description. Many times I hear a piece of music and enjoy it, without knowing who wrote it and why. Sometimes I listen to songs in french without understanding a single word. If someone tries to tell me what they mean, I stop them, because I like my imagination more than what the words might actually mean.
To say no one can have a meaningful discussion or thoughts without description is just plain wrong. To me a really good picture is one that requires NO description. It is pleasing and beautiful and affects the mood and causes imaginations to run wild, without a single word being uttered and without any label.
If you don't work that way, that is fine, but it is still your issue. Not a requirement for everyone.
****
3. I make no demands and place no restrictions on any soul, living, dead, or a zombie, and I do not insist that my workflow be accepted by anyone. I do suggest to try it, as it worked wonders for me.
***
Great. Let the pictures speak for themselves. I heard sometimes they are worth 1000 words.
***
4. I cannot find any particular reason why the subject of an intent becomes so heated and confrontational. (I can understand the animosity towards all Nikon shooters of the world, yes, they are somewhat lacking, indeed!) In the end, if you just want to go and shoot "pictures" -- enjoy!
***
Initial intent originates from appeal and feelings......first we see, then we feel and think, and then we say how can I bring it to everyone else's attention so it has maximum impact in one way or another.
May you go out with "initial intent". Most people's sequence starts with seeing, feeling, thinking, planning, executing, presenting.
You have been all over the place.....because before you said you had raw elements now knowing what to do with them and then a theme came to you. Now you seem to be saying that those who don't have "initial intent" are just taking pictures.
Make up your mind.
***
5. I'm more interested in discussing the creative process than the technicalities of PP and workflow. And in this process the initial intent is almost everything. Now we can start asking the questions "why this?" instead of "what ISO did you use?"
***
So "why this discussion"? Your tendencies are yours. What works for you, works for you. There is not one single right way to create. Theme is not a requirement. Title is not needed. A good piece of art will move and can move people who have zero context and don't understand even the basics. To claim that they don't have real understanding is foolish. Their understanding is not same as yours. What they feel is one of the outcomes of what artist intended.
Best is to say less. Everyone reacts to art differently. To force a line of thought or feelings upon them is just over valuing your own opinion.
***
Cool!
But now you're telling me that photos are less fuzzy than the spins of unprepared particles? Check out the Uncertainty Principle in photos yet again! http://alexbraverman.smugmug.com/Photo-Books/Uncertainty-Principle-1/
Though I really have to get back to it and do a better job. Bruce Wood died this year. He was 53. I owe him a lot.
PS Knight in White Satin. Ha! Tell me titles suck. Is that Ronald Reagan in the background? (Or shall we conspire to call it 76 before it sinks without the feet? Heck, I can stir with the best of them.)
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
I'm not sure you're replying to me anymore.
But if, for some bizarre reason, you will be interested in my opinion on a photo with the view of improving it, I will require to know your intent.
I cannot say how to perfect a gadget without knowing what it's supposed to do! All I can say then, well... it is square and it has a hole on the side. Not much useful feedback in that.
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
iFace
Be my guest: Alex Braverman Photography
You are changing subjects.....
No one was talking about how you provide feedback on a shot.
Discussion was about "intent", "titles", and "themes" and your insinuation that without those attributes, creativity is either not possible or people who don't believe in those are not creative at all.
Read it again.
For a subject where point made by artist is very subtle, or the subject is very confusing, and most observers might miss the point or be completely confused, and artists really wants to draw attention to their intent, then MAYBE 'title' or explanation of the theme makes a slight difference. More often than not, good pictures speak for themselves. Poor titles ruin otherwise good pictures that can trigger imagination.
Like the lack of power of title like 'iFace'.
Instead of the picture drawing me in...which I have seen somewhere else btw...but that is not the main point here.....the title iFace does not one damn thing about enhancing my experience, instead pushes my thoughts towards Apple and their products....and copy right laws, which are completely cold and distracting subjects.
Instead of allowing my mind to wander and try to find some deeper meaning....where I wonder why such a design was chosen....I am thinking about Apple products.
Title cheapened it. Use those wisely.