Can a photograph speak for itself?

I don't want to pretend not to see the other topic that arose in this thread and I would say that I have to agree with johnwolf's original post. A leader ought to adhere to a higher standard. I really think there is an important point that's been made, politely and I would even say generously. Your stature would increase further if you acknowledged it.
 
CMur12 said:
In my opinion, a well chosen title, the product of the same creative mind that produced the image, can add dimension, context, further insight into the photographer's thinking to the photo.

Roger's example of a photo of chairs with the title, "The Life of Chairs," illustrates this very effectively. I think this title adds dimension to the image.

I think the fewer "rules" we have governing creative processes, the better. This reminds me of statements like, "I never crop." I don't dodge and burn;" I don't do any post-processing;" etc. I have my own purist streak (more than a streak), but I don't expect others to adhere to my personal rules. I think this is an example of that.
Click to expand...
Fewer rules such as the rules "title your photographs" and "don't title your photographs"?
 
Richard G said:
I don't want to pretend not to see the other topic that arose in this thread and I would say that I have to agree with johnwolf's original post. A leader ought to adhere to a higher standard. I really think there is an important point that's been made, politely and I would even say generously. Your stature would increase further if you acknowledged it.
Click to expand...

He did acknowledge it. He clearly said he didn’t understand the issue some of you have with his posting method. I have to say I don’t understand the issue, either. Would you prefer he copy the article from his website and post the whole piece here? I say, what is really the difference? Is clicking a link to another site truly so offensive to you? What’s more, I think it’s incredibly rude to have diverted the topic of this thread with this issue. If it’s that important to bring up, do so in a PM or start another thread on the issue in another sub-forum.
 
This discussion is as old as art! Do cave paintings need an explanation, title or caption?

If a photo (or ay piece of art) needs a title or explanation by the creator, maybe it is not strong enough by itself?

What I find more important for any piece of art is to leave space for interpretation to keep the viewer engaged.
 
Nathan Lyons presented all of his work, over a large span of time, with no text, preferring a more cinematic presentation wherein the viewer could follow the progression in a linear fashion while still recognizing the interplay in nonlinear form, hoping the images would speak for themselves. Wright Morris, working primarily as a novelist, presented his images with extended captions/short story approaches. Jeff Bruows provides strong essays, and gives locations for each of his photos in "Approaching Nowhere". Walker Evans and James Agee created "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men" placing equal importance (my opinion only) on the narrative as well as the image. All are remarkable works by remarkable artists. Diff'rent Strokes for Diff'rent Folks...
 
Roger,
I think I know what you are getting at!
However consider "Migrant Woman". Everybody knows the photo I am talking about but consider how difficult it would be without the title --- "You know that picture of the poor woman in the opening of her tent with the kids"
I often wish for a title/location when an architectural or similar post lacks one
 
I recently printed thirty black and white landscapes from the desolate Westfjords region of Iceland. I'm not going to title them; they could only be identified with GPS coordinates, and I refuse to make up hokey names like "Lonely Mountain" or something even worse.
 
I am not a big fan of descriptive titles, but within a body of work I sometimes find it useful to have a way of referencing the work without posting the actual photo... "Near Inagaki, Tsugaru City, 1960" by Ichiro Kojima. The same as with music, e.g. "Mahler · Symphonie № 9".

With photo books (index) or exhibitions (catalog) the background story or descriptive can "add value" in the sense of historical reference... or context such as when viewing 'contact sheets'.
 
Huss said:
huZ Galleries, 341 West 7th St, San Pedro, CA.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...anuary-12-15-2017_us_58740e6ce4b08052400ee579

http://voyagela.com/interview/meet-huss-hardan-huz-galleries-san-pedro/

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/...flex-and-the-road-to-prescott-by-huss-hardan/


http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/05/20/art-of-the-grind-by-huss-hardan/



But I don't create threads just for the intention to link to it, the way you do.
Click to expand...


Huss I know off topic but I always really liked that series. The one with the photo featured in that first link. I remember I commented on it one time on another site.
Big fan here bro.
 
Any photograph can obviously speak for itself. It will always say something to someone.

I think the more important question is, if the photographer hopes to express a point of view, can the photograph or portfolio, by itself, convey that meaning with any certainty? Most likely not, I'd say.

Images are too subjective to be a precise communication medium by themselves. We have far less shared understanding of pictures than we do of words. I think that's why there is such a strong tradition in photography of combining words and photographs. Duane Michaels, Frank in his later work, Tomatsu, and many others tried to better articulate their meaning by including words.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top