What is in a Name?

While preparing my canvases for the 11 April 2010 Naked In The House show, an epiphany occurred to me: should a photograph have a title? If a photograph is intended to generate an emotion or just document an event, should that message not be clear and unambiguous and generated by the interaction of viewer and photograph? That certainly is the position of the purist camp.

Backing up a bit, what exactly can a title bring to the viewer? A title can expand on the message within the photo. It can illuminate or focus the viewer on an initial focal point. A title can also provide an insight into what the photographer was thinking and feeling while experiencing the moment captured. And isn’t that the main goal of the photograph?

Ultimately, naming or titling an image is another tool a photographer can use to support their vision. It is up to the photographer to decide what a title will bring to a viewer’s experience and if it will hinder or support that experience.

Does this image stand on it’s own? I feel it is best left untitled: the image leaves the viewer to pursue their own thoughts and emotions while a title would constrain to viewer.

Without a title, this next image is interesting but quickly looses the viewer as it has no real or implied subject. I’ve entitled it Raku as I feel that sets the viewer’s frame of reference. The viewer now has a starting point and can marvel at the detail of the paint and the mystery of what thoughts guided the potter. If the viewer is unfamiliar with Raku pottery, perhaps they are enticed to investigate, further involving them in the image.

Raku

Thanks to Alan Mirabelli for the opportunity to experience to grow as a photographer and artist.

For me, it will come down to the crafting of each image on this photographic journey of mine.