Treating photography as a 'fine art' form - should titles be a part of the picture?

particularly now in the age of photo digital manipulation

I don't really think that has any bearing on it one way or the other. Manipulation in the wet darkroom isn't any different. As for the larger question: artists working in every discipline have been assigning inscrutible names - whether as clumsy pretension, coyness, sly sophistication or what have you - for as long as they've been naming their art. I expect that at least one of the charcoal bison strutting his stuff on the walls of the Lascaux cave was titled "Ummanagunna, ugh!" (with a neolithic French accent, of course) whereupon one of the contemporary critics probably smacked the artist in the head with a club just to straighten him out.

More to the point, there are no rules. There is no legitimacy in any form of name for a work. Is the work intended to sell? The artist might consider whether or not the work's name will help in that effort, or contribute in the long run to the artist's reputation and marketability. Is the work made strictly for personal enjoyment? If so, then worrying about it is especially counterproductive.

Let me understand, Alan. Are you arguing for more thoughtful or helpful labeling of semi abstract or perhaps 'social commentary' images to help viewer better appreciate the rendering? Does this label then elevate the photo to a higher level of artistic personal expression then?

'legitimate' ? - absolutelly..

Photographs have become known by their titles as well. Many of the people who are now considered Masters have photographs that are readily identified by their titles - Moonrise for example. While I find the question interesting, I don't really see how this could be any different for a photograph than it would be for a painting. Regardless of reproducibility, the reproductions carry the same title and I, at least, feel that any photographer worth their salt makes a personal connection to their subject of they would not be photographing it. So, it stands to reason that placing a title that carries personal meaning would be completely logical.

- Randy

Much of photography's power lies in its ability to document a scene. And when we look at the scene, it's helpful if the title gives it a context. A sailor kissing a nurse is one thing, but if we know it's a celebration of VJ day in Times Square in 1945, we have information that provides context, and informs the viewer as to what they are actually seeing. I've always felt the best title is a place name and a date. But then I come from a social documentary, photojournalistic tradition. I suppose a pictorial shot, a red barn in a misty meadow, for example, is presented as a pretty picture, and the time and locale are not as important. Close ups of peeling paint that create abstract forms may do quite well as "unititled." On the other hand, if you want to sell a print, "Untitled #47" might be more helpful.

Language is more powerful than pictures, imo. I avoid titles. If I were showing and selling, I'd have to create identifiers, if for no other reason than for bookkeeping.

With "Darkness at the Break of Noon" am I supposed to hear Dylan's lyric, and is that supposed to enhance my appreciation of the image? Maybe it detracts, or what is more likely, overpowers the image, and it would be better if it were labeled Image 03 or the like.

Titles often give context, and I sometimes choose my titles carefully to provide the context that they need. Two examples come to mind:

Gods of the Harvest: A parody I did on the stone gods of Easter Island. The photo shows three enormous bails of hay in a field, which actually appear to have faces. Without the title, viewers would likely just see the photo as three bails of hay. The title forces them to study the photo to ascertain why I gave it that name.

Hatched: A photo of a fractured cast iron mooring float. It looks almost like a giant egg shell. One wonders what machine hatched from it. (OK, my mind works that way.) Without the title, the viewer might simply see a photo of an enormous rusty ball with a hole in it.

One might argue that the titles are necessary for clarifying what the photograph should already clearly show. However, I would argue that there are two elements to many photos (and I would argue to the better photos): what is there, and how it is perceived. Sometimes there's a subtle and somewhat private perception that the photographer wants to share, and the title is the way to do that. This is not unlike the caption to a cartoon. The messages of some cartoons are self-evident without captions, but most cartoons require captions and labels to describe the artists' often weird thoughts or to give context to the illustration. For instance, consider a Far Side cartoon of a plant with lots of people-shaped seed pods hanging from it. The caption: Manypeoplia upsidownia -- poking fun at taxonomists. Or perhaps a chemical cartoon -- a benzene ring structure with an added central carbon bonded to every other carbon of the benzene ring (and centered in the ring). Forget that this couldn't really exist. Caption: Merceded benzene. (It looks much like a mercedes hood ornament.).

Then of course there are the photos whose impact requires the absence of a caption. For instance this irreverent photo, which is a commentary on the nature of monuments to great men:

Without the title, viewers would likely just see the photo as three bails of hay. The title forces them to study the photo to ascertain why I gave it that name.

. . . Without the title, the viewer might simply see a photo of an enormous rusty ball with a hole in it.

While a good title can add extra layers of meaning to a photo, I think these quotes demonstrate the problem with many "meaningful" titles. The title doesn't force the viewer to do anything. Intriguing photos draw the viewer in, resonate with the viewer, and invite the viewer to give more thought to the meanings of the image; a good title can provide some insight into the author's intent. A "meaningful" title on a mundane photo doesn't make the photo itself interesting.

In my photography titles are very much important because the landscapes, for instance, show nothing new in a major part, to the world. So before I go outdoor to photograph I already have a title on my mind, a context and sometimes the concept too. Or more often, during photographing I invent the title or the context. Because when I'm out in the field, I usually don't know what I'll find there. Sometimes I invent titles just sitting in front of my computer working on something else. The names and the titles always come to my mind out of the blue, suddenly as a spark. I can't imagine having no titles on my photographs. I usually don't understand the title "Untitled" of painting or of the photo. My work is narrative with storytelling. It is a part of who I am, of my personality. The titles make them more authentic, having the identity and meaning which people often are looking after. Through my photography I want to be straight, clear in the storytelling. So people might understand the work or not, but in any case I don't want to leave people wondering or saying "We've seen that already. It's nothing new." Or something like that.

As for your title, yes, I like the title. Words are for me stronger than the images. Definitely.

Sarah's post -- as highlighted in Mike Dixon's -- describes what I want to avoid: attempts to force an interpretation or understanding of a photograph on the viewer through language. Working from documentary concepts, such use of language may come too close to propaganda (or advertising) for me to be comfortable with.

"Without the title, the viewer might simply see a photo of an enormous rusty ball with a hole in it."

Then again, they might not. Viewers are not tabula rasa to be imprinted with meaning or otherwise they'll just see the surface features. Forcing a perspective on them might enhance the photographer's sense of creativity, but it is likely at the expense of the creativity of the viewer. Viewers will add their own soundtrack, narrative voice-over, resonances of memory or fantasy -- or not...maybe there is nothing there but "an enormous rusty ball with a hole in it". Too much forcing of meaning and the subject of the photograph becomes, not an enormous rusty ball with a hole in it, but Sarah Fox.

"titles are very much important because the landscapes, for instance, show nothing new"

"The titles make them more authentic, having the identity and meaning which people often are looking after."

Why wouldn't the photo itself have an identity and meaning? Why can't the photo of landscape itself show something new if that's what you want?

"Sometimes there's a subtle and somewhat private perception that the photographer wants to share,"

Sarah, you are describing what is often to be found within a good photograph.

I'm reading through this post and it occurred to me to Google something famous - or something universally accepted as fine art photography, if you like - for comparison. I chose Imogen Cunningham's "Magnolia Blossom" 1925. Well, I've seen a magnolia blossom before, so the title of the image really doesn't contribute much in the way of interpretation, or what the artist was trying to "say". The date is nice, but also, not really necessary to understanding or appreciating the photograph for what it is.

I think this particular image, as I think most 'fine art' photography should be, is a beautiful image. It stands completely on it's own and has no need for a title to give it meaning. I don't necessarily even need to know it's a flower to appreciate it and to recognize it as a brilliant work of art. Cunningham's Magnolia Blossom could easily be called "Untitled" with no date and would be just as appropriate IMHO.

I think one might could even argue that "fine art" photography is purely aesthetic; not at all "documentary" and if it is good fine art photography, contains a clear visual message that transcends language in the eyes of the viewer. The artist's vision or intention is communicated visually in the photograph and if done well, communicates it all the more clearly and thus, defines it as "fine art".

I better toss in a qualifier here: I am not an Art History, or any other other kind of Art major, but I am most certainly interested in producing what I'd like to call fine art photography. I'm still trying to figure out for myself what constitutes "fine art" and what differentiates it from all of the other photography out there. This two bits here is just one of my takes on the subject.

"I think one might could even argue that "fine art" photography is purely aesthetic; not at all "documentary" and if it is good fine art photography, contains a clear visual message that transcends language in the eyes of the viewer."

I don't know whether fine art is purely aesthetic, but do agree fine art and documentary are very different types of photography and the criteria for one may not be applicable to the other.

While the VJ Day Kiss is put into context by its title (and much that's written about any photo can be interesting and enhancing), I'm not sure it would be referred to today if it didn't at the same time visually transcend that title. It seems to me it's both in its particularity of the moment as well as its going beyond that moment, through symbolic and universal references, that much of its interest lies.

Unfortunately, many cleverly-titled photographs are limited to and limited by their clever titles.

Fred, In my opinion, my photos have an identity on the surface and regarding the meaning, I am the one who gives them the meaning through pure aesthetic and the concept in a later phase. My photos wouldn't stand well being untitled. When artist gives the titles to his work, for me it means that he care about deeply about his work. When I name it, I feel like I encompass the body of work, ready to be presented.

As for "the Kiss" photograph, the title perfectly suits. I don't see it as a limited photo. It could be also titled "The End of the WW II", or "Celebration of the end of the WW II", or "At Home", etc. But this title "The Kiss" draws the public attention where finally the photo became the iconic one. This photo still radiates, together with the title.

In the eyes of the beholder, I thought art was an outlet to the expression of one's ideas?

Oh wait, I forgot that art is subjectable to the Great Book of Art Rules.

Let us not forget, The Book of Photo Manipulation, Chapter 14, Verse 28:

"And great artists of the previous times doth have better titles, for their work is more significant than their modern counterpart; it has been spoken so it must be so"

Then again I'm sure not all, if any, will find taste in that joke, so who am I to say?

XD

"My photos wouldn't stand well being untitled"

Kristina, you might consider to formulate that somewhat different.

A title is just that, a practicality. Just as my name doesn't tell you anything about my personality so doesn't a title on a piece of whatever art. It just scratches the surface. For the rest it is indeed mostly pretense. And let's not forget that in quite some cases titles have been attributed afterwards and not necessarily by the artist

Kristina--

I agree with Ton. And I think you are not giving yourself as photographer enough credit and you are not giving photographs themselves enough depth of power. If the photo "The Kiss" were no good, no title would help it. If one of your landscapes showed nothing new or personal (which I don't think is the case, since I think you do approach your work personally), no title, no matter how meaningful and deep you thought it was, would make it a more meaningful or interesting photo.

I think it's wonderful that you love giving titles to your work and I imagine it creates a special spark for you to do that. But, as the viewer, whether I'm looking at Winter Spirit I or Winter Spirit X or whether you called those very same landscapes Untitled I and Untitled X, my experience of the photos would not change. If you are to give spirit to a landscape, you will do it with your vision, your camera, and your post processing, not your title.

And I may be misreading you, but surely those who title their work don't care any more deeply about their work than those who don't title their work care about theirs! I look at the photograph and determine whether or not someone cares about their work.

John--

I think photos (art) express ideas but also feelings and a way of looking/seeing. Ideas lend themselves to words better than feelings and ways of looking and seeing.

"And great artists of the previous times doth have better titles"

Great artists of previous times rarely titled anything and did not indulge in creative titling. A lot of titles of paintings were given to them in later centuries by critics and museums and just common reference. The subjects were known and common (historical, mythological and religious), so there wasn't even a need to name them with identifiers. Everybody knew the iconography for Jesus or Judas or Mary and the stories, for example.

Creative titling may have begun with pictorialist photography or maybe with post impressionist painting...just a guess, though.

"I don't know whether fine art is purely aesthetic, but do agree fine art and documentary are very different types of photography and the criteria for one may not be applicable to the other."

Doesn't Sebastao Salgaldo combine fine art and documentary?

"Doesn't Sebastao Salgaldo combine fine art and documentary?"

Yes. Imo, the artistry -- or something -- weakens the documentary quality of his work. At least I'd rather think it is art rather than something else. There is text accompanying his photos on his website about things for which there are no photographs presented. I'm assuming they were not artistically interesting to him, but they would, I think, interest the documentarian.

I think that language is important, and can be a part of any form of creation, be it painting , photography or any other visual work. If it is well done ,a title can add another dimention to the whole, but the starting point needs to be the visual content and attraction. When they complement each other, it is a pleasure.

Mike wrote: "Intriguing photos draw the viewer in, resonate with the viewer, and invite the viewer to give more thought to the meanings of the image; a good title can provide some insight into the author's intent. A "meaningful" title on a mundane photo doesn't make the photo itself interesting."

Agreed. I'll add, though, that sometimes people need a bit of help. For instance, with the Gods photo (found here: http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phgodsoftheharvestthumb.jpg), I have ot admit that these "bails" of hay, which were probably 10 or 12 ft high, were very impressive -- the reason I photographed them. I had a sense of deja vu when dealing with the subject matter, but I couldn't figure out why. Then I got the images into the computer and studied them. After a few moments: "Ah! The bails have faces! Funny!" But it still didn't click. After considerable thought, I realized I was looking at the stone gods of Easter Island. I immediately knew how I wanted to edit one of the photos -- to saturate the colors, including colorizing the hay (which was gray), to eliminate the trees, and to substitute the sky. It was a very invasive edit job. When I was finished, people would study the photo with the same reaction I had: "Hmmm Looks familiar..." But because it wasn't their photo, perhaps they wouldn't spend as much time on it and would move on before getting the punch line. Adding the title put the photo into context and helped the viewer to appreciate what was done, why it was done, and what it means. Furthermore, there are multiple levels of irony to the title. I found people enjoyed the photo more with the name. However, even without the name, people still find it visually interesting and do pause to study it.

Don, you wrote: :"Sarah's post -- as highlighted in Mike Dixon's -- describes what I want to avoid: attempts to force an interpretation or understanding of a photograph on the viewer through language. Working from documentary concepts, such use of language may come too close to propaganda (or advertising) for me to be comfortable with." You then comment about shortchanging the viewer's creativity. I do understand your point, but I don't agree with it. I very much resonate with Kristina's approach. I, too, am very much about story telling, at least in the photographs that matter to me. (I also have some work with no message -- visual chewing gum, if you will -- that people seem to like, but I don't consider it my best work.) I want to focus more on story telling in the future, and I don't want to be at all vague about it.. One thing I want to try is to start doing staged shots, where the elements of the photo are selected and organized to tell the story. That's not much different than giving an image a contextual title. It's very much about forcing a message, and I see nothing wrong with that. In fact I see everything right about it. I would think I would be letting the viewer down by saying, "Here is the scene. Perhaps there's something interesting in it for you." My job, as I see it, is to observe and interpret. It's the difference between straight-up reporting and editorializing. Both are legitimate in my view, but it is the op-ed pieces that I find the most interesting.

Looking at the work of others, I see very little of interest in any work that it not, at lest in some measure, a reflection of the artist -- a glimpse through his/her eyes and a bit of time spent in his/her head. If a few words, or even a paragraph or two, help to get viewers into my head, then I feel I've accomplished something intimate and worthwhile.

It's very much about forcing a message, and I see nothing wrong with that. In fact I see everything right about it. I would think I would be letting the viewer down by saying, "Here is the scene. Perhaps there's something interesting in it for you."

I don't feel that I'm letting viewers down by having enough respect for and faith in their intelligence and perceptiveness that I trust them to form their own views of my work.

"Looking at the work of others, I see very little of interest in any work that it not, at lest in some measure, a reflection of the artist..."

How do you determine something is "a reflection of the artist"? Because it catches your interest?

"How do you determine something is "a reflection of the artist"? Because it catches your interest?"

I think there are various ways in which something may seem a reflection of the artist, some of them false. I often hear critics, both on PN and in the "real" world, projecting things onto artists/photographers with abandon. Often seems misguided to me. Then again, when viewing a *body* of work, there may become clear a certain consistency or progression. There may be a particular approach or repeating themes. Especially if different subject matter is approached with a uniting visual and/or emotional focus, it is more likely that something can be determined about the artist. When making such a determination, I try to be aware that I could be wrong. Narrative interpretations can be tricky and artists can be opaque or evasive, even intentionally misleading. Sometimes, when I know an artist personally or have been privy to biographical information, it will seem that at least part of his personal story comes through in his art. Some of that could be projection and some is probably on the money.

"Meaning", then is something requiring familiarity; it is timebound, placebound. Language as art: written language and the coding of language into images (paintings, constructed photographs -- composites, studio setups) become incomprehensible or the "meaning" is changed as the codes are read differently by a different people at a different time than the artist's, until it is only the cultural anthropologist who can make an educated guess at the artist's intentional meaning -- for the rest of us, there is perhaps an appreciation of the artist's skillful technique or the art's utility as decor. Meaning is then only of antiquarian or academic interest.

Don, I'm not sure what your specific point is related to knowing something about an artist by viewing his work. I agree with you about "meaning." That would apply to meanings that we give everything, words, symbols, people, images, movies, hand gestures, facial expressions. So, yes, "meaning" is context driven. All meaning. And what meaning we will give to a photograph or the photographer who creates the photograph will be, as you say, timebound and placebound. I'm not sure how that relates to your question, except in very general terms, about how we determine what's a reflection of the artist. If we're trying to determine something about Rembrandt, for example, we'd take into account whatever we might know about his time and place. If I'm trying to determine something about Sarah's work, I would take into account what I know about Sarah's environment and history. I would still do it with all the qualifications that I made just above. That meaning is changeable, variable, fluid, and dependent on context still allows for meanings to be attributed and understood, again, with care taken to avoid traps and assumptions.

I title all my work because it, the title, has meaning for me no matter how obtuse. I don't care whether viewer "gets" the title. I also find that purchasers seem to like the idea of having a titled and signed (in pencil) work.

Legitimacy is a more subjective issue. If you fell comfortable titling your work, then that's all the legitimacy necessary.

Fred, thank you for your critique on my Winter Spirit photos. Actually, these photos titled "Untitled I, II ..", might work well only in the situation where the photos would stand under the one title which already exist as a title of the folder - "Nature at its Play: Winter Spirit". Yes, I'm very much satisfied with that portfolio. But how does it lack the power in these photos? What do you suggest? How can I empower it? There are many ways to do, but what did you have in mind, specifically?

Ton, I might say different. There is a natural urge and need to define the objects and subjects that are around me in my life. Every form in nature needs the name. Monet said something about the form that in order to see the depth of object, we need to forget the name of it. I agree on that. Yes, I may neglected the name of the objects in the nature in order to give my mark to it by photographing. But later, I feel the need to name it on my own. In such a way I create again one more time, or even fulfill by my own vision. I enjoy the beauty of the words. Form, meaning, identity - they are all clips of the one chain.

"Don, I'm not sure what your specific point is related to knowing something about an artist by viewing his work."

Responding to this: "Looking at the work of others, I see very little of interest in any work that it not, at lest in some measure, a reflection of the artist -- a glimpse through his/her eyes and a bit of time spent in his/her head. If a few words, or even a paragraph or two, help to get viewers into my head, then I feel I've accomplished something intimate and worthwhile."

in the context of: "Do photographers consider it 'legitimate' to title a photograph with personal meaning..." and "...the artist chooses a title that may have personal meaning..." and so forth as it runs through the thread.

I've pointed to the issue of the limitations of the artist's "personal meaning" with which they attempt to imbue their work, and those in this thread who construct their photos to have explicit meanings and use text and titles to guide the viewer to that meaning -- that too is ephemeral because soon enough no viewers will be around who share the artist's cultural iconography and sentiments. The meanings will change or become incomprehensible in time (we can point to an enormous number of examples to the boredom of most reading this).

After nearly four years of reading this forum, I'm still perplexed by this. I would have thought artists, especially photographers, would want their art to have universality.

I would have thought artists, especially photographers, would want their art to have universality.

Sometimes it's not that complicated, Don. There are billions of people in the world. A universal anything is pretty hard to come by (death and gravity come to mind). But seeking a universal note or impact, among humans as they react to a photograph? Nah. I think more photographers than you might want to admit simply want an audience. An audience for their world view, or an audience to acknowlege their efforts, or an audience to persuade, or an audience willing to pay, or an audience with a curator. I don't think anybody would want or expect a universal audience, because the requisite draconian cultural homoginization would be dreadful, artistically.

"Beauty" may be a universal concept, but it can't be universally communicated in any given photographer's visual language no matter how well informed or nuanced. It will fall flat or miscommunicate across many cultural or individial gulfs. The desire to hit on universal themes - no matter how powerfully that fuels every young art student's restless nights - seems most often to result in presumptuous, or pompous, or condescending, or platitudinous, or childish art. And there's nothing wrong with that (since it's art!). I've fount that elegant, stirring, and nuanced art seems likely to speak in more direct terms about something a bit more bite-sized. And even with very limited interest - in a world of billions of people, it can have - by any historical measure - a huge audience. But the more focused the art, the more that clues about context can help the process along.

The artist's personal meaning may indeed fade away into nothingness (sometimes by this time next week), but I would think that most artists won't worry themselves about that. If their art is to meaningfully outlive them as anything other than an historical earmark or curiosity, they need to bundle it up with some context, or leave enough of a trail for others to provide such later (the alternative being a later audience's utter miscomprehension of the work - and so be it!).

I think of a title as an opportunity to place an image in context. That might be a disadvantage if you want the viewer to bring more of their own history to the subject matter. It might be an advantage if you are trying to direct the message of the photograph. The title can limit the interpretation or enlighten the viewer to the photographer's purpose. there are also numerous examples of artists who include passages of text on their photographs. I sometimes feel it is an attempt to add something to a photo that is less that expressive, but I'm sure it can be done well.

Don--

I think many photographers are after specificity, not universality. I think many photographers are photographing for the here and now, not for posterity. I like to think I fall somewhere in between. I think if one is trying to imbue their photos with meaning, it's an admirable endeavor, and with it comes the knowledge that that will have its own limitations, especially in terms of different cultures and times. When I photograph and process, if I consider a viewer, it is usually one who I think "speaks" the same "language" as me. I imagine Beethoven composed knowing that far eastern ears most likely would not "get" his music, if he thought about it at all. And while I think he composed under the spell of a muse, I think he also considered his audience and their taste and musical knowledge and history.

Kristina--

I was not offering a critique of your work at all. My statement about spirit was hypothetical. I was not saying that your work didn't have spirit or needed more spirit. In fact, I wanted to say that the spirit is found IN YOUR PHOTOS, and your title doesn't give it spirit. As a matter of fact, for me, the title takes some spirit away because it leads me to believe you felt the need to tell me the photos have spirit instead of trusting that your photographic skills captured and conveyed the spirit of the landscape you presented. I don't think those photos lack any power and I don't see why they need to stand under the title either of the photos or of the folder. They are clearly winter scenes and they clearly capture a spirit of nature, so what exactly is the title providing, except of course a labeling mechanism?

Duane Michals was one of the first, if not the first, to incorporate text and writing on his photographs, handwritten, and often on the image itself or on the borders around the image. Writings about philisophy, states of mind, etc...to give a whole other depth and meaning ( wich is not without hints of humour ) to the photographs. One of the most interesting photographers around also,so if you don't know his work already, get to know it.

I don't mean to be disrespectful here but..99 percent of the time when I read a title given to a photograph, it makes me cough up some barf.

That goes for the title on the photo that leads this thread...in fact, it's a perfect example.

The artist is making vast assumptions about the worlds respnse to art when doing this and attempting to hold the viewers hand is a total buzzkill...let your viewers do a little work..it's really what they want.

Hello. I think titles differentiate one photo from the other. It gives it an identity. It is the same reason we give titles to books, poems and movies and even with titles they do not make sense sometimes to why they are named what they are named because the title has nothing to do with the theme. " Hey did you see that movie? Wasn't it great. Which movie was it. Movie number 1, 2, 3 or 4? It was movie 4. Yes it was great but did not see movie 1,2, and 3 yet."

A few years back I read several journals of Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan. Some had photographs of their tour. I was struck by the normality of Kabul in one photo of people boarding a trolley either on their way to work or on their way home. A similar photo might be found of Saigon in 1967, or London or New York in 1897 -- or, for that matter, a photo I could take tomorrow morning. Salgado's photos of construction workers...they are my neighbors, and they pass my kitchen door each weekday morning, the same race or ethnicity, probably Mayan, with a sack of tools and hard hats on their belts, like the Seneca who raised the skyscrapers of New York -- and like my grandfather and my father and my uncles.

The universality of the human condition, don't leave home without it.

Fred, of course, the titles don't give them a spirit. I guess, I just wanted to determine with the words at last. I defined my vision more clearly in that period. For me it was a new recognition of the nature in that time. My perception began to change than. It became more powerful than ever, and when I was looking at this photos, I wasn't sure of what I wanted to tell. I didn't want to speak of complexed philosophical issues, but to speak of my relation toward these scenes that I strangely found among the chaotic snowy decor. At the end I comprehend that it was about my soul that I projected in these scenes. That's why I felt the urge and the need to determine it for my self, and in this way I posted it here without thinking of what might tell others. Probably in that way I would exhibit it whether titled "Untitled" or "Winter Spirit".

What do you think for the exhibition purpose? The same, right?

Every classical music lover would know of moonlight sonata. They can talk about this piece. Much has been written about it. Its true that part of the reason why it is so famous is because it has a title - a meaningful title. One can argue that music, like photography should be judged by its content - not by its title. but a name can be brought to the lips faster than say untitled-4 or opus-119. While a catchy title certainly can't make a bad photo good, lack thereof can certainly ruin the chances that a great photograph is widely recognized.

For photo journalistic works, context is very important. If there isn't an accompanying article, a title is a must.

"Its true that part of the reason why it is so famous is because it has a title - a meaningful title."

Good advertising, eh?

"The Piano Sonata No. 14 in C-sharp minor "Quasi una fantasia", Op. 27, No. 2, by Ludwig van Beethoven, is popularly known as the "Moonlight" Sonata. The work was completed in 1801[1] and rumored to be dedicated to his pupil, 17-year-old Countess Giulietta Guicciardi,[2] with whom Beethoven was, or had been, in love.[3] The name "Moonlight" Sonata derives from an 1832 description of the first movement by music critic Ludwig Rellstab, who compared it to moonlight shining upon Lake Lucerne" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_sonata

And since Beethoven was dead five years before, we don't know what he thought of the "meaningful title" given to this work.

"Moonlight Sonata" was the name given to Beethoven's work by a music critic because that music critic imagined moonlight upon hearing it. It's popularity and use as elevator music would seem to go along with that sort of title, despite the fact that it's a glorious piece of music.

The main verbal description given by Beethoven, as an instruction on how it should be played -- which is typical of "Classical" music (Andante, Larghetto, Adagio, etc.) -- is "Quasi una fantasia" (Almost a fantasy). It is generally accepted that such an instruction was given by the composer because this sonata does not follow the traditional sonata pattern where the first movement is in regular sonata form, and where the three movements are arranged in a fast-slow-fast sequence. But I don't think Beethoven would have provided a literal title such as "Moonlight." His relationship to music was more sophisticated than that.

Kristina--

I'm giving only my opinions both about naming and about how I react to names. I hope you will do what feels comfortable for you. While I may share your visual appreciation of a landscape, I don't necessarily share your narrative descriptions of them. I don't see nature as being "at play." And I don't often find spirit in landscapes. (Moonrise may be an exception but it's the amazing technical achievement that I respond to in Moonrise more than anything in the content of the photo.) So I tend to dismiss your titles and just look at your work. For me, that act of dismissing can be a distraction. I think titles that describe as neutrally as possible (which is hard) are better than titles that try to capture the feelings of the artist or infuse the viewer with some knowledge of those feelings. Because, often, art doesn't work like that. My feelings are not yours and my reaction to a work is not necessarily what you put into it. If you feel emotionally about your work and convey it in such a way that touches me, it may touch me strongly, but also with very different emotional attachments than you have. I appreciate it when that artistic process is honored.

I just looked through two art books I love. Here are a random sampling of titles. The first 4 are from a photography compilation, the next set from a book of paintings.

Tim Gidal, "Beergarden"
Erich Salomon, "A Press Ball"
Erich Salomon, "Politicians at Dinner"
August Sander, High School Student, 1926

The last is a German Expressionist and very suggestively-posed, stylized photo of a handsome young man in a very "designed" suit holding a cigarette a bit like Marlene Dietrich might. I'm sure the photographer had any number of feelings about the boy and the shot, as I do. I prefer to allow myself the liberty of feeling those feelings unfettered by someone else's impressions, even the photographer's. If I want more story, which I often do, I will read what I can about the photographer and the particular photograph. But I prefer my first experience of a work to be of the work itself, unaccompanied by someone else's (even the creator's) interpretation of what I'm seeing. Even the word "student" leads the viewer a bit, but that still makes more sense to me than adding an adjective and, for instance, calling it "The Alluring Student." I don't think the word "student" is quite as suggestive or leading as the word "alluring" would be, and I think adding "alluring" would take away from the experience, first of all because not all people will find it so and second of all because, even those of us who will, want to experience it visually and viscerally, not narratively and literally.

Next, I found three paintings by Gaughin: The Green Christ, The Yellow Christ, and On The Beach. Truthfully, some of the Impressionists did give their painting more descriptive titles such as Monet's Yellow Nirvana. The title of the last one, I read and reject and enjoy the painting.

Sorry Don, I was writing about Beethoven while you were.

Yeah, Fred, but you did it so much better than I. Thx.

I am not so much critical of meaningful titling as I am of the notion expressed in this thread that a photo is somehow superficial and without depth if it isn't infused with meaning via a creative title.

It came to me while sipping morning coffee that I experienced a rush of creative titling around the time of the onset of puberty. I just didn't have any works to pin them on. If I'm not alone in that experience, then maybe it is something parents might look for and encourage it as an "artistic bent" or potential talent. With maturity, I've found the work comes first and titling, if done, an afterthought.

I know this is taking the thread from the sublime to a more banal level but here is a pet peeve on titles I share with you. When I look at photos in the daily critique section I am surprised to see shots of birds and flowers that are untitled. I wrote one mild suggestion about a fine untitled shot of a coastal sea bird backlit wings spread against the sky and beautifully caught- which I praised-, opining that I wish I knew what kind bird it was ( a cormorant perhaps) the shooter replied like follows : " If I had time to look up the bird species, I would not have even little time I can spare to go out and take pictures at all....." Oh-Kay.....

That approach gives me tingly misgivings, friends. Bottom line= titles attach, help define,and reveal about the artist and unlock feelings,even if they are incidental to the work itself. Also just plain inform, a la the bird species example. If we title it "Bird" does it not say something about creator and involvement in the image?

Beethoven and Mahler might or might not have agreed. What did THEY know about PR anyway? :-)

Hi All,

Glad I asked!!! Truly interesting feedback, and I'm glad the responses developed into arguments and counterarguments between and among the 'threadists' or is that too close to 'thredony'? ; ) I'm going to print out the thread and read it in hard copy when I have a little more leisure. I only raised the issue because it came to my mind that when referring to a painting of which people share a common knowledge, the painting is always referred to by its title. To read the analyses here helps me realize one could probably write a book on the subject, and I'm sure someone has. The one thing that does seem to distinguish let's say painting from photography in terms of 'aesthetics' is that, I think, people in the 'fine arts' abandoned the idea of a work of art needing to be 'aesthetically pleasing' to be art, whereas in photography, it seems many people equate artistic merit to the idea of being pleasing to the eye, except, of course, photographers who might have tastes along the line of Diane Arbus. I don't like her photographs particularly, probably because her subjects seem so similar to the people I grew up with so there's nothing revelatory about her images to me, which is a personal response, so I think I'll leave it at that. 'That which is pleasing is pleasing because it is pleasing to the beholder' from 'Critique of Judgment' Immanual Kant. I'm sure that's not one of his more prescient observations, though. I'm sure about one thing, however. If someone offered to purchase an untitled photograph of mine for $500, but would offer $2,500 if it had a title, I'd come up with a title real quick! Or I might just say, "Darn, I can't believe the little tab with the photograph's title fell off the exhibition wall!"

To all of you, books has names( title), poems has names, songs, music,music bands, theatre shows, dance creations movies, etc, I agree that the art work need to be attractive touching, evoke feelins , interesting , but a title gives an identification to a given art work.

Fred, if I want to ask you a question about one of your previous works, and you have 10 photographs titled : " untitled ", it makes the question hard to ask, if it has a title, it is much easier to refer to the one I want to talk about . If I will write in the google- Lonardo da Vinci,- I will get a lot about him, but if I will type" Mona lisa" I will get the photo. I think as well that in our era where so many photographs, paintings, articles , books and other art work are exhibited, printed, and presented,( let alon the photographic sites) I find it important to have some title, a name, to make it easy to reffer to .

We all use words( language) to communicate, why not add it to a photo as another mean ( parallel and /or second in hierarchy after the work itself) of creation? I think that part of what the artist creates,he does it in part( at least) as a mean of comuniction,( if not ,it can stay in his drawer). word, names, titles are nessesary imo. For me it is a part of creation. One can like it or not, but I still see it as a part of any form of art .

"The one thing that does seem to distinguish let's say painting from photography in terms of 'aesthetics' is that, I think, people in the 'fine arts' abandoned the idea of a work of art needing to be 'aesthetically pleasing' to be art, whereas in photography, it seems many people equate artistic merit to the idea of being pleasing to the eye, except, of course, photographers who might have tastes along the line of Diane Arbus."

You are unfamiliar with Draganizing? What about Ms Leibovitz's wide-angle portraits?

"I don't like her photographs particularly, probably because her subjects seem so similar to the people I grew up with so there's nothing revelatory about her images to me, which is a personal response..."

Yes, a personal response. I like them for the reason you don't.

"Fred, if I want to ask you a question about one of your previous works, and you have 10 photographs titled : " untitled ", it makes the question hard to ask, if it has a title, it is much easier to refer to the one I want to talk about . If I will write in the google- Lonardo da Vinci,- I will get a lot about him, but if I will type" Mona lisa" I will get the photo."

(seeing if I can beat Fred to the draw...)

"The painting's title stems from a description by Giorgio Vasari in his biography of Leonardo da Vinci published in 1550, 31 years after the artist's death." quoted from you know where.

Once again, it is not the artist, but the critic (or historian, or curator) who names the work. Viewers, readers, listeners need titles, it is true, if for no other reason but identification. The artist does not. Since the painting was a commission from a client (Francesco del Giocondo, Ms Lisa's hubby), da Vinci had no need to creatively title it.

Good, Don, thanks!

Pnina--

I have only one photo in my portfolio called "Untitled." If we refer to that, we will know which one we mean. I promise that, if I upload another photo without a title, it will be called "Untitled-2" or something as clever.

I don't have an objection to titles per se, especially (as you recognize) as a labeling mechanism. I have an objection to supposedly meaningful titles, because of all the reasons I've already stated. Naturally many of my titles (e.g., "Mark," "George," "Michael," "Emil") have meaning as much as any name does and I don't think the titles add much in terms of my own interpretation of these photos or the subjects' expressions. I could have called "Michael," for example, "Looking Toward the Light," and I imagine many people would have been moved by that and allowed their imaginations to soar along those lines. Frankly, a title like that, as was so eloquently put above, would make me barf. I would find it pretentious and drippy, not to mention unnecessarily leading. I relate more to the viewer who would look at the photo and be moved by what he sees, and independently reach some emotional place or experience a moment of at least some significance. I don't necessarily believe every photo or painting needs to be interpreted by the viewer and often I feel that such interpretations miss the visual point.

Those of us on the anti-title side, at least me, should probably admit that not all people who title their work do so out of an inability to express what they want in their photos. But, in my experience on PN, I'd say it is quite often the case that clever or meaningful titles are an unconscious attempt by the photographer to overcome his inability to say what he wants to say visually. Further, I think clever titling stifles many photographers here from really thinking through what their perspective and lighting, their exposure and depth of field is saying, how their processing is affecting what they're saying and could help them say what they want to say if they want to say something, how symbols are working, and what visual clues could be included or excluded in order to make their point. Some are simply presenting what they see and want to allow the viewer to see it the viewer's way. When I feel someone is accomplishing expressions effectively in their photograph itself, a title won't bother me so much. When I don't see it in the photo, but it's alluded to in the title, I reject it.

I've seen plenty of photographs with titles that are not descriptive of the subject. They sometimes have titles like the ones in the original post.

Here is a link to a photo of a flower which I would have named "White Flower" or something like it, but the owner names it something different. I guess some people are just more imaginative.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/12034714@N02/2693685950/

Fred, you may feel free to perceive my photos neglecting the titles. It's not about nature at play. It's about the nature in its own play, or in her own play. My play of the nature might reveal innocent and endeared playing in her own space, without affecting our own. The frosted branches of the pines have been created of millions of snow flakes. They became heavy and branches bounded. The trunk was frosted too and its structure that I saw, was simply amazing in its aesthetics. The pine three became define in that moment, or even, the snow flakes created the thick layer of a curtain. And there is a path that leads behind that curtain, into the realm of my winter. Of course, this is the story without the forest nymphs, hares, birds, and other fairy tale creatures.

Kristina--

I will let your personal description of your image speak for itself and I will continue to enjoy your images in my way and I know you will continue to present your images as you see fit, which is as it should be. Thanks, as always, for a thoughtful and stimulating dialogue! It's great.

--Fred

I think "meaning" only exists in verbal terms.

Therefore if you want photos (yours or somebody else's) to have "meaning" there's no reason not to attach it with Dymo tape (...for folks too young to recognize the brand,Dymo's a plastic tape that can be embossed with labels). Visualize "David" or "Half Dome" with a Dymo label.

Along that line, I see no advantage to postulating "universal" or "eternal" when there's more obvious, brief, currently relevant meaning.

In fact, I think the more posturing that's done, implying weight or depth (or fine A**) in a photograph, the less truth.

The more aversion to openness to obvious meaning, helping with simple informational labels (date, location, name of thing), the less truth.

The greater the aversion to intentionality, the less "truth" (the greater the deception) as well, since intentionality is absolutely unavoidable.

Consider raku' pottery in which intentionality is maximum until a last minute intentional accident...another zen notion, one that applies not incidentally to Salgado's work. The truth in his work is found in details beyond his control.

I use "truth" here in what may be a zen way, referring to the obvious. Therefore, if you suspect somethings going on in your photo, Mr. Jones, and you don't know what it is...leave "meaning" to the viewers and don't label beyond the obvious: "Lily #2" or "Open Pit Mine, Brazil 1990."

Somewhere back there Jordan made a point that I agree with which is: isn't it all about individual expression. It's as personal a decision as what goes in the frame to start with. Fortunately there is a huge range of views on the topic, otherwise we would be lookig worringly like the 'establishment' dictating what is acceptable or not.

Another point is that the title is 'detachable'. Ultimately, if a photo is succesful, but has an awful title then the title can and often will change. I wonder how many titles of art in various forms are original titles? Personally I use literal titles because a) I don't think 'deep' suits my work and b) it would seem a bit pretentious given the standard of my photograpgy!

Fred

;-)) I know you don't have 10 "untitled ", it was for the argument sake, as I meet that kind of files with a lot of untitled titles, and if I want after sometime to refer to a certain photo, I have to gosearch for it. But if it has a title that impressed me as well, it makes things easier,.

I can speak only about myself, when I see a photo on the thumbnail that attract my attention, I open it to look at the bigger size, I don't look for the title, and if I decide to write a comment I may look at the title as well, but my impression has to be first and foremost, if the photo touched me in any way( positive/negative).

Title that states the obvious, is needless Imo, but if it is imaginative ( like yours " A cozy seder and than what? "... Or "de young lion") adds some thoughts and wider general context, I see it as blessed, and I speak in general terms, not only PN.

As Julian stated, it is a personal decision, good or bad, will be the viewer impression.

A note to John Kelly. John, I'm sorry to say that with my language barrier, it is many times hard for me to understand your points of view, as expressed in your comments., your last one included... It is not your fault of course, it is mine. ;-))

Hi, Alan and everybody in the debate. I think it is a question or giving a title or not. It is true that in this art called "photography" there are many times that images are no titled, "Untitled" (looks poor), and, in those cases, perhaps other people, because of their feeling, or critics, or I do not know who will put a title to the image and perhaps that title will be permanently fixed to the image if it is successful or not.

When I am taking a look at a photo, if the author put a title, that is better; I will have the opportunity to know some more information about the photo FROM the origin: perhaps what city that street was shooted, what country that boy lives in, what sea is so furious, what mountain the author wants to keep, why that girl is smiling, and so on. Another question is that many photographers do not want to put titles to their photos because making titles is another "art" (closer to literature, not to photography) and they feel good and confortable at photography art but, sometimes, they do not feel so good at making titles. It is just a question of feeling. From my part, I always prefer the title and comments from the original author, because both in the photo and in title he/she will be giving something from his inside. Titles made from other people could be "external" to the image and, so, subject to many different interpretations.

Please, photographers, PUT TITLES, GIVE INFORMATION, PUT COMMENTS: this will reinforce and will be valued by the audience in most of the cases. At least I will give thanks any time I am reading a title and, in many cases, that could be as good as the photo-image itself. I go.

Pnina--

I'm laughing to think of a photo of mine being referred to as "blessed." :) Anything but "blessed," please! Those mythological terms just don't sit well with me. :) Especially the Cozy Seder photo, which is a guy dressed up in mimicking Jesus carrying a cross to an Easter Sunday celebration that, in my mind, was posted with a bit of a bow in mind to David Meyer (Gordon and others noticed this). The reason it got titled was specifically to be tongue-in-cheek about the photo and about titling itself. Giving it a title was, in part, paying homage to David, who always titles his work and who I've given a good-natured hard time about those very titles. Like I said, I'm not always opposed to titles. Occasionally, they perform a function or play a role.

I'm not sure what thoughts or general context "de young lion" creates for you. It's a photo of a lion statue standing outside the de young museum, pretty much in keeping with my standard way of titling, which is to identify subjects and places by name.

Greetings from South Africa. Maybe all photos should have 2 captions. One : stating the place or time or subject or any relevant information about the actual picture. Two : the photographers reason ! or message that he would like his audience to consider. What he saw or felt or wants the audience to feel about his picture

Pnina, I apologize for my last post's intensely American and abstract (or space cadet) style. A few of my countrymen may even note a reference to Bob Dylan, but probably not many.

Language barriers are irrelevant to this: you should know about raku ceramic discipline. It's practiced in the context of zen (which, like photography, is a discipline, not a religion). The pot is made and glazed, ideally with with high expertise and outdoors with no kiln http://www.claygirl.com/raku.html.

Just before firing or perhaps during firing, an accident is welcomed. The pieces are never "perfect." The accident is hoped for and valued.

I think raku is a lot like Salgado's work, which is highly disciplined and intentional but which is valuable primarily because of details that are beyond the photographer's control. In fact, I think most of my favorite photography is like raku.

Thanks Fred for your kindly words. (Yes, I've been improving my English for the last 12 months.) As for my other folders, I'll have to rearrange History in a Stone.

John, thanks for your answer, and the link for raku.I started my way with ceramic and have had my own kiln in my younger years...Still it was an interesting link

.....and I still did not understand the connection to titles and truth in creation that you have explained, I assum. it is also the wording of your expression that is hard for me as not well familiar with american way of life ,culture nuances, language nuances, codes, etc. Again, it is not your problem, it is mine... ( but I learn every day...)

In fact , in my experience, photos has elements that are beyond the photographer's control, it depends where it is taken if you are well aware and observant of them.There is a bit similar phenomenon in painting that is called " A happy accident", something that happened while working and was not as the painter's planed intention.

"...it is also the wording of your expression that is hard for me as not well familiar with american way of life ,culture nuances, language nuances, codes, etc."

Pnina, what was your reaction to the OP's title (Darkness at the Break of Noon) for his image?

This is the first line of Bob Dylan's lyric: It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)

John's "Therefore, if you suspect somethings going on in your photo, Mr. Jones, and you don't know what it is..." references the chorus to Bob Dylan's lyric: Ballad of a Thin Man ("and you know something's happenin' but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones?)

"Again, it is not your problem, it is mine... ( but I learn every day...)"

I wouldn't be so sure of that, Pnina. Both John and I are members of the same generational cohort, one which plays with language, makes obscure references and leaps of logic that can be really entertaining or even insightful -- assuming the listener is a member of the same cultural cohort.

I don't know if Alan G, the OP, is a member of my generation, and whether his title is meant to evoke Dylan's lyric.

But, "noon" does not "break" in English. Dawn breaks, but not noon. Dylan might have intended to bring to mind Koestler's book Darkness at Noon, too. I don't know. I do not recall any other use of 'break of noon' outside of Dylan's lyric, and it would be interesting to know if any of the 622 Google hits on the in-quotes phrase are from a work before Dylan. Some might consider Alan G's use plagarism; some people over react like that.

Maybe Alan is making a generational cultural reference just like John and I. If so, your response to John's post makes me wonder about your reaction to Alan's title. One criticism I'd make of creative titling is unintended consequences regarding its impact on the viewer. In my case, upon reading the title, my mind pulled up the first three verses of the song, I wondered at how much I recalled, then googled the lyric and read it through, then found the tape of Bringing It All Back Home an listened to that. I really never got back to Alan's image.

It is a good idea not to put things in the way of the viewer, if you want them to look at your photo.

This is a good forum. It would be interesting to open it up to other artists besides photographers. Or at least compare personal backgrounds of those who are writing here. Who comes from a fine art background or an engineering one? Would that make a difference? Perhaps post a photo and host "name that photo" forum just to see what titles everyone comes up with. I remember, way back in elementary school, reading class, multiple choice, "what would be the best title for this story?". I always picked the wrong one, go figure.

"It is a good idea not to put things in the way of the viewer, if you want them to look at your photo."

I nearly agree. But I don't think the photo should dominate in all situations. In fact, many "important" photos would become totally insignificant without context information (such as in a title).

For example, Nick Ut's famous napalmed girl would not be nearly as significant if you don't know that it depicted a typical instance of historic villany (as does Picasso's Guernica, about another historic instance). Without contextual information the girl could as easily be fleeing a village fire. I know an addled Vietnam grunt, his body badly burned, who alternately claims napalm accident and exploded stove. If I photographed his burns, should I say "addled" or "Vietnam Vet" or just show show a scarred, late-middle-aged black hispanic named Ed?

Capa's shot partisan is just one more instance of a mundane, daily event in many parts of the world...it is significant today only because generations have held it up as significant, few aware of anything about the war about which it's purportedly symbolic. It seems important that the label calls the dead man a "partisan." If we were Nazis we might call him a "Red" or "criminal." What if an Al Quaida corpse was labeled "partisan?" Would the image tell us something different if he was labeled "terrorist?"

"Both John and I are members of the same generational cohort, one which plays with language, makes obscure references and leaps of logic that can be really entertaining or even insightful -- assuming the listener is a member of the same cultural cohort. "

That sums it up Don. I don't belong to your "cohort", ( you sound very proud and a bit elitistc...;-)) I come from another culture, even a western one but still different, my language is different. My ability to express my point of view has a language barrier( in English) that I try to develope ,and still I have my point of view as you have yours, so lets agree that we don't see eye in eye. I think that a title is part of creation, at least for me, you think differently( I saw your untitled folders). As I wrote the title has to be creative as an addition to the photo, or at least give it some identification.The photo has to "speak " first.

I don't have more to add to this discussion, not easy but interesting, thanks all of you .

Should be " even though a western one but still different" (thanks Fred)

According to the usual source: "The full title of the photograph is Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death, Cerro Muriano, September 5, 1936." I assume the title is the caption at its publication. The Militiaman's name was Federico Borrell García. Another title used is The Falling Soldier.

Assuming it is published over the title Partisan (that would be descriptive, too), the reaction of the viewer might depend on whether it was in a Left publication (resolve to do more for the cause) or a fascist one (a gloating snicker and serves 'em right). It is also likely that the meaning of "partisan" in some parts of the world (like the US) is obscure -- the partisan label fits both the Sunni resistance in Iraq and the Pashtun/Taliban resistance in Afghanistan. The positive connotations of 'partisan' linger, though, so they are not referred to that way, here.

Assuming a naive viewer who does not know 20th century European history or this photo, and if it is not specifically or creatively titled, I think the photos impact is still there. Nothing is lost. "The Falling Soldier" is good enough. It speaks to the realities of war. Language can be dangerous to photography, especially documentary photography and should be handled by the documentarian with tongs.

Don, I agree that "language can be dangerous to photography" and with most of your points.

However (you knew that was coming) I think "photography" has an important role in history, and unexplained shots of mere burned children, shot soldiers, or (for that matter) presidential assassinations are little different from pornography.

But, labeling sunsets and mountain streams with mystery titles, hoping to add significance, is usually a silly exercise in ego and desperation...a photo that lacks merit without a label doesn't gain it with a label.

Pnina, I don't think Don E is at all "elitist " but he seems genuinely "elite" to me. That means he's better, in the absolute sense, than many others. Everyone is not equal. Some members of "our generation" in the US have a great deal to be proud of. Many young Americans do today, as well. By definition, bystanders and "silent majority" rarely have much to be proud of.

Looking at the title of the post there's maybe a bit too much emphasis here on the relation between documentary photography and written language ( in the form of titles and text ). With documentary photography this relation between the image and the written word is pretty standard and common and not too much open to various interpretations. With more subjective photography, not meant to document something as objective as possible, the relation between image and word is less standard, with more things to explore between the interaction of word and image. That's why I linked to Duane Michals because the things he talks about allign best with the question. I can't think of any other photographer who explored this interaction between image and word so very interestingly and come to think of it, who explored in photography the notion of ' philosophy & photography ' so profoundly. certain words must be said -- interview -- article -- (the second link works but it takes some moments for the page to load)

"Looking at the title of the post there's maybe a bit too much emphasis here on the relation between documentary photography and written language ( in the form of titles and text )."

The OP did not refer to 'fine art photography', but to "Treating photography as a 'fine art' form". He then goes on to write, explaining that he is more familiar with "art history", "painting and sculpture" than photography. So, he wants to discuss photography from that perspective (that paintings and sculptures have titles) concerning the issue of titling a photograph and not just regarding fine art photography. He asks "Do photographers...", not "Do art photographers..."

I did not understand him to be limiting the discussion to fine art photography, or "more subjective photography" (meaning non-documentary).

Yes, maybe. Nothing wrong with throwing documentary photography in the discussion but I think because the image / title / text relation in pure documentary photography is more standard, more strictly defined then in fine art photography, it's less certain to give insight into this question by the OP, wich I was basing my previous answers on and is not that for of to the title of the thread :

'' Most titles of photographs are pretty much short descriptions of the subject matter. What about a photograph that is intended to be more interpretative? Do photographers consider it 'legitimate' to title a photograph with personal meaning. ''

Of course one could argue that a documentary photograph can also be made to be more interpretative instead of pure objective.

Thank you Phylo for the link about Duane Michals. I feel him as my brother. I feel I'm not alone, definitely. His philosophy is reachable to me. His photographs look totally strange to me, whereas on contrary his philosophy is very much familiar. It's more than interesting how photographers apply the same philosophy in a different manner, having different visions.

I agree with him on the part about how to express anger. For that, photographer has to recognize it by feeling it. When he become aware of it, he can act on it. But it needs a great vision to achieve the photograph that may speak of anger. It is very healthy and good for the soul to experience all kind of feelings whether sexual, anger, joy or love, as long as it is pure with conscious, where your body and face merged totally into that feeling or that kind of vigor.

Pnina, living in a different culture too made me to improve my English so that I can enjoy and learn many things from these Forums. Sometimes I need to reread it John's posts, and of others too. Regarding the English language, I can't say totally I'm from different culture. I've been always passionate about the American English language and their way of life.

John, with all due respect, I have what to say about" elite" and "elitistic" , but it is off topic on the title subject asked by Allan....

Paylo, thanks for the link, I still read it, and it is interesting. I connect to his photography as well.

Kristina, we are individuals, I see a language as an ocean, and I feel that I need a lot more to understand it better, also in the forums.. Western culture has many forms,in each form there are positive and negative qualities.....I'm older that you are and I have learned to choose.

"Of course one could argue that a documentary photograph can also be made to be more interpretative instead of pure objective."

I think the discussion has been about the virtues and pitfalls of titling; not only photographs, but titling of paintings and music, too. Since the OP has not returned to respond the question of his titling of the image in his original post, his formulations on the subject no longer apply. His input is over 70 posts back; the discussion has moved on. I just don't think documentary has been emphasized in this thread. It does provide a base for defining "objective" and thus "interpretive" regarding titling.

It doesn't matter if it is a PJ's documentary photo that is titled "Partisan" or a fine art photographer's.