When Titles of Photos are Important

[CatherineA]

I love Stephen J. Morgan's photo, "Where My Grandfather Drank." http://argenteagallery.com/exhibitions/507/

It hits me with a wallop and the impact stays with me. It is a photos that I return to again and again. I don't think though that that would be the case were it not for the title. The title and the photo are both components of this piece and they work together.

I wondered whether other people see it this way. I also wondered about other instances of photos working with either the written word or another medium to deliver their message.

[Shadowman]

I think the title pushes you to either romanticize the artist's relationship with his grandfather or it could also inspire empathy, it depends upon the viewer's experience with alcohol, alcoholism within the family, and or the types of experiences or occasions associated with drinking halls. Some viewers may only associate drinking halls with times of sorrow or times of joy; so you really cannot direct the viewers reaction to symbolism or terminology but then perhaps as an artist you don't want to.

You might like the film linked below as it has a bit of the symbolism of Morgan's images.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1550524/?ref_=nv_sr_1

[Manfred M]

I have mixed feelings on titles.

Part of me says the images should be able to stand on their own and if it needs a title, the photographer has not done his or her job properly. The other part of me knows that this is not always possible.

That is always a bit of a point of contention when judging photos. Under CAPA rules, the judges do not know what the title of the work is, but when they are doing the public review of the images, the title is read out prior to the judges comments. Sometimes (not often), the title sheds some light on the image that was otherwise not there.

[CatherineA]

Thank you for your reply John. That's interesting, it didn't cross my mind that this could be a picture that referenced joy. But when it comes to an artist's intention, I think some artists want very much to direct a viewer to a particular reaction. In fact, I would think some great art is made for that reason.

And thank you to the link to the film too.

[CatherineA]

Thank you for replying Manfred. I see the question very differently. I think the artist should use whatever means are available to convey and capture what they want to express. It wouldn't be a matter of, "oh well, it's not possible to do anything other than use words here, so I'll have to go ahead and use them." I don't see the value in the restriction or in a hieracrchy of means. It always a marvellous thing to hit the mark and communicate well and movingly. If it is done, then the method used was the right one.

[TonyW]

I strongly agree with Catherine here. I recently went to a presentation by a local photographer of some standing who presents the argument that titles are, or can be, crucial to the understanding of the significance of a photograph. He showed a few examples to demonstrate that. With my own pictures, often the title is quite unimportant and it is obvious what it is about but, with others, there are aspects that need a word or two to express them.

[royent]

I consider titles essential for Record and Wild Life / Natural History also handy identifying Landscapes
Roy

[jonjdoe]

Thank you for replying Manfred. I see the question very differently. I think the artist should use whatever means are available to convey and capture what they want to express. It wouldn't be a matter of, "oh well, it's not possible to do anything other than use words here, so I'll have to go ahead and use them." I don't see the value in the restriction or in a hieracrchy of means. It always a marvellous thing to hit the mark and communicate well and movingly. If it is done, then the method used was the right one.

Here, Here

[James G]

I'm of a similar opinion to Manfred and also have mixed feelings about titling.
If the image is 'good' then it should be able to stand on it's own and I often feel that titles can 'limit' an image. Particularly if it, (the image), can evoke conflicting views or feelings, all of which in an artistic sense may be valid for individual observer's.
The photographer's title does of course, speak to the photographer's intent.

So, I'll post an image below, which I created some years ago, without the title I gave it at the time, since it was essentially an exercise to create an abstract, something I do not find easy to do ....

I will post the title, which occured to me at the time of creation, and which still works for me, tomorrow or the day after, and people can decide if my title enhances or interferes with their initial assessment/interpretation/perception/reaction... etc... etc etc.

[JBW]

I would suggest that the importance of titles also depends upon the venue. Unless I'm mistaken you can't post on CiC without a title. Certainly this is not for artistic demands but still and all venues do have their regs.

[James G]

you can't post on CiC without a title

Never thought about this .... but it is entirely feasible to post using a title of 'No Title'

And, to complete my post from Sunday evening, the title I somewhat whimsically chose for my abstract creation was and still is ... "When Dragons Speak".

[JBW]

Never thought about this .... but it is entirely feasible to post using a title of 'No Title'

And, to complete my post from Sunday evening, the title I somewhat whimsically chose for my abstract creation was and still is ... "When Dragons Speak".

it fits and it puts just the right amount of focus into my thoughts