Tree

4 Responses to Tree

1. Gordon says:

   December 18, 2006 at 1:46 pm

   Your photos are great.

   Titles could do with some work though ;-)

   How about “Branching out” .. no perhaps not.
2. Pete Ashton says:

   December 18, 2006 at 2:11 pm

   Having done this for a while I’ve come to appreciate why so many artists title their work “untitled”. After all the work of getting the image and processing it coming up with a decent name is just a step too far.

   More pretentiously, a florid title closes off the potential interpretation of the image a bit too much for my liking. I’d rather the viewer were able to read whatever they want into it, to make it part of their own experience rather than for me to try and influence that in a cack handed manner.

   Or some shit.
3. Paul says:

   December 18, 2006 at 5:20 pm

   I don’t believe there is a hard and fast rule for titles. Some images simply don’t need titles, either because the image is obvious or because the artist wants the viewer to approach the image without any bias. Other images absolutely need a title in order to draw the viewer in, set up the scene and add some explanation that is required. A third category is the “clever” title that compliements the composition without detracting from it in any way.

   But perhaps a golden rule with titles is to avoid using one if you think the image can survive without it. I break that rule all the time!
4. Gordon says:

   December 19, 2006 at 1:14 pm

   I’m with Paul. Sometimes you can just call, say, a photo of a red rose, “Red”. Other times that approach doesn’t work.

   In my humble opinion, in this example, “Tree” isn’t either right, or enough. But, as you say, you could get bogged down worrying about photo titles and, frankly, who has the time to bother?!