Embracing the Mystery
I made the as-of-yet-untitled image below earlier this fall. But, let’s pretend you made it. What would you name it? Would you give it a literal title, essentially the where and the what? Or, would you name it something more metaphorical? Perhaps something that conveys an emotion, or maybe a deeper meaning.
I’ve written previously about the difficulties I’ve always experienced with titling my work, a seemingly easy task that is usually anything but. There are two schools of thought when it comes to naming photographs. Some photographers take the literal route and use a title that contains some obvious and directly relevant information about the work. Alternatively, others may choose a less straightforward title, giving it a name that conveys an emotion they felt or some other personal connection. Referencing John Szarkowski, it’s a choice between naming it after what it is a photo of, or what it is about. I have wavered back and forth on the issue. Even though I aim to make creative and personally expressive images, those that are based on subjective interpretations rather than objective appearances, I now prefer a more direct and literal name. It seems contradictory given that I preach about photography’s creative and expressive potential. However, there is a reason. Well, two reasons, to be precise.
I was listening to a recent podcast in which the author questioned why photographers give obvious names to their work when they are trying to do more than simply illustrate what something looks like. For example, he stated that he finds the name of Ansel Adams’ iconic photograph “Clearing Winter Storm” to be “dumb,” arguing that it’s clear to anyone what it is. However, by that logic ALL of Adams’ titles are dumb, not to mention those of Harry Callahan, Paul Capogigro, Brett Weston, Eliot Porter, etc. Many of the great photographers from the last century as well as today gave or give their photos very mundane, obvious titles, despite the subjective and metaphorical nature of their work. I find that very interesting. Wynn Bullock’s famous photograph of a nude child lying in the forest is titled, as you might expect, “Child in Forest,” even though there is a deeper meaning to it. What that meaning is I’m not sure, and that’s the point.
As mentioned above, I prefer literal titles, despite the inherent incongruity. The reason has to do with mystery. Mystery in a photograph, or art in general is a desirable quality. It engages the viewer and keeps them interested, asking questions rather than giving answers. If I name my photo after an emotion I felt or what it makes me think of, I feel I am leading the viewer to a specific conclusion. I want them to be left to wonder, to have to deduce and be given to thought, to not have everything spelled out for them, and to arrive at their own conclusions. If they’re not certain what they should be feeling or what they’re seeing then all the better. Why did he make this photo? What did he see? It’s a mystery, a riddle, something to keep them thinking. Well, in a perfect world, anyway. No doubt some don’t give it the time of day and move and that’s fine, too. It is why I no longer make images of scenes with obvious beauty like sunsets or the northern lights. There is no mystery, no depth. It is forgotten as quickly as it is viewed. Obvious is boring.
It’s the same with music. There are songs I’ve listened to for forty years in which I am still uncertain as to the meaning behind the lyrics. Moreover, I don’t want to know. The mystery helps keep them interesting, even after decades of repeated listening. It elevates the listening experience, just as a sense of mystery in a photograph elevates the viewing experience. I find the most compelling and enduring artwork in any medium is not immediate, it reveals itself gradually and only after repeated viewings. Think of the work of Robert Adams. I believe most people, photographers and laypersons alike, don’t “get” Adams’ work at first. It’s only after time and learning something about his intent and philosophy that one begins to understand and appreciate his photography.
The other reason I don’t name my images after a specific emotion or meaning is that I am often unclear as to the meaning behind the image, assuming there is one in the first place. I have stated before that I work on instinct and intuition. It’s my subconscious at work. My images reflect a relationship between me and the thing photographed. I react, there is no thought given as to meaning and metaphor. It may become evident to me after the fact, or maybe not. I leave that to the viewer to decide.
Ultimately, how we choose to title our photos depends on the intended utility. I view a name as nothing more than a necessary identifier. It is not intended to add anything to the viewer’s experience. I realize that the use of a metaphorical title won’t necessarily preclude the viewer from forming their own opinions. If chosen wisely, it can elevate the photo and offer a glimpse of the photographer’s intent without giving away the entire “story.” Unfortunately, all too often such titles are banal or cutesy, either of which can have the opposite effect and diminish the impact of a good photograph.
Comments