Actually many of the worlds most famous and influential photographers historically such as Bernice Abbott, Ansel Adams, Paul Caponigro, Tillman Crane, Eugene Atget, Margaret Bourke-White, Alexander Rodchenko, Walker Evans, Alfred Stieglitz etc. would only title their pieces by the name of the location or subject being photographed. They rarely used illustrative names. If you don't believe me - check it out.
This is not to say one way or another is better, however, historically, names of photographs have not played a large role. Most photographic masters relied solely on the quality of the image, not the name. In fact some of the worlds most famous images are titled 'untitled'. I think there is a lot to be said allowing the image to speak for itself. I am an artist who loves to allow the viewer to create their own experience and interpretation of an image. I think if the artist decides to leave an image untitled, or if they want the title to be an integral part of the image, that should be up to each artists discretion. However, should one choose to leave an image untitled or have a basic name, I think this should not be a reason to discount the image.
But I wonder why? Why should this "standing on its own" be an inherent value over "gaining even more from an apt title?"
Look at how the visual arts are typically presented. As you wander about a museum you will see the paintings and photographs printed large and visible from a distance, but the titles and other textual information are printed small on a plaque which can only be read from close up. No one goes up and reads the plaque unless the image has already drawn them into it. If your title is critical to the interpretation of the image, you must print it large enough to read from a distance as Magritte did.
In my industry, we call it the difference between the 10 foot view (television) and the 2 foot view (computer). Art and advertising photography are typically targeted at the 10 foot view (printed large on display). Journalistic photography is typically targeted at the 2 foot view (newspaper or magazine). How you expect your image to be displayed has to guide your approach to titles. My personal take on the Dgrin competitions is that, while they are typically displayed on a 2-foot medium (computer), they are really about developing 10-foot communication skills.
Look at how the visual arts are typically presented.
That's all good. Your position is based on tradition then? I disagree with that basis, believing that tradition sometimes is arbitrary (and waiting to be overthrown by revolutionaries), but that doesn't make your POV intrinsically less valid. Most of all, I just wanted to know where you were coming from.
I wasn't concerned about the significance to competitions here, so that's entirely tangential to me.
As a relatively trivial aside, all my work is made to print 20-30" on the long side, suitable for framing, so I get everything you meant about scale. (I actually find it quite painful to post my work on the web, it's not made to be so small and puny. And scale affects perceptions of width too.)
My own view, anyway, is that I believe titling work creatively (and visibly?) is a largely undiscovered country, rife with all that potential proven by Magritte and expounded by McCloud. But I certainly know that I'm in a minority. I'm fine with that. (I've never been real prone to following rules that make no sense to me.)
To be clear, though, I do think that an image that stands on its own is a marvelous thing.
Comments
This is not to say one way or another is better, however, historically, names of photographs have not played a large role. Most photographic masters relied solely on the quality of the image, not the name. In fact some of the worlds most famous images are titled 'untitled'. I think there is a lot to be said allowing the image to speak for itself. I am an artist who loves to allow the viewer to create their own experience and interpretation of an image. I think if the artist decides to leave an image untitled, or if they want the title to be an integral part of the image, that should be up to each artists discretion. However, should one choose to leave an image untitled or have a basic name, I think this should not be a reason to discount the image.
http://www.jonathanswinton.com
http://www.swintoncounseling.com
Look at how the visual arts are typically presented. As you wander about a museum you will see the paintings and photographs printed large and visible from a distance, but the titles and other textual information are printed small on a plaque which can only be read from close up. No one goes up and reads the plaque unless the image has already drawn them into it. If your title is critical to the interpretation of the image, you must print it large enough to read from a distance as Magritte did.
In my industry, we call it the difference between the 10 foot view (television) and the 2 foot view (computer). Art and advertising photography are typically targeted at the 10 foot view (printed large on display). Journalistic photography is typically targeted at the 2 foot view (newspaper or magazine). How you expect your image to be displayed has to guide your approach to titles. My personal take on the Dgrin competitions is that, while they are typically displayed on a 2-foot medium (computer), they are really about developing 10-foot communication skills.
That's all good. Your position is based on tradition then? I disagree with that basis, believing that tradition sometimes is arbitrary (and waiting to be overthrown by revolutionaries), but that doesn't make your POV intrinsically less valid. Most of all, I just wanted to know where you were coming from.
I wasn't concerned about the significance to competitions here, so that's entirely tangential to me.
As a relatively trivial aside, all my work is made to print 20-30" on the long side, suitable for framing, so I get everything you meant about scale. (I actually find it quite painful to post my work on the web, it's not made to be so small and puny. And scale affects perceptions of width too.)
My own view, anyway, is that I believe titling work creatively (and visibly?) is a largely undiscovered country, rife with all that potential proven by Magritte and expounded by McCloud. But I certainly know that I'm in a minority. I'm fine with that. (I've never been real prone to following rules that make no sense to me.)
To be clear, though, I do think that an image that stands on its own is a marvelous thing.