Re: untitled

From: eric nelson <emanphoto@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: untitled
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2006 22:40:19 -0500

> To the other extreme, there's the type of work, whether photographic
> or not, that the authors feel the need to have a page or two laden
> with every art school buzzword to describe what you're looking at,
> i.e. "This symbolizes a metaphor of my need to explore environments
> and emotional states...." oi.

That seems like the case of architects. But young artists don't seem
to have any complex not being able to type a page up with that kind of
stuff. But I like architects. They stole terms from all branches of
art and sciences but they added new ways to analyze dimentionality of
space we photograph, for example.

> I think my titling needs when viewing are pretty simple; who, what,
> when, where, perhaps why, & possibly how as these are the questions
> that most readily come to my mind when viewing photography. If
> asked to title my work I think I'd be hard pressed to come up with
> something other than a description.

Oh I didn't mean to describe my titling strategy but I don't want to
give my images straight-forward, descriptive titles. If I have a
picture of an apple, I won't title it "Apple." That's completely
redundant and unnecessary. It may not be too different from what you
said, though.

But I also try to add some information, preferrably the kind of info
that the viewer didn't expect to get. If I can think of a good title
(out of my very small vocabulary outside of science and technology)
that describes something that's not obvious in the picture but can
only be derived from the direct experience of being there and pressing
the shutter button, I'd use that title.
Received on Sat Apr 8 00:58:30 2006