Letting photos speak for themselves

[Charles Webb]

A very interesting thread, I appreciate everyones comments, and my thanks to all that shared their thoughts about what I feel is a very dificult at times, controversial topic.

 

[Ed Sukach]

There is no 'easy" answer to this -- or anything else in art.

It depends ... How do you want the work presented? If you think it "works" without a title, so be it. If you think the photograph "works" with an ornate frame - or a simple one - or frameless ... again - so be it.

A title CAN "set the stage" - precondition, to an extent, the "experiencer." I wonder if Picasso's "Guernica" would be viewed in the same light without the title as a pre-stimulus / reminder of the inspiration for the work. Dali's "Dream Evoked by the Flight of a Bee Around a Pomegranate", would be another example.

However, nothing in art, as far as I've able to tell, is set in stone, or infallible. A "cutesy" title, a bad pun ... can as easily set the stage unfavorably.

A few months ago, I had an interesting experience. I was on board in the modest Town-owned and operated Gallery that I ... "curate" (?) with the Curator of a serious, well-respected, established New York Gallery... and the informal, off-the-record conversation drifted to the matting and framing of a certain artist's work, which was hanging at the time. Nothing formal, just "side" comments ... but I was immediately struck by the incredible depth of knowledge this curator had of the nuances and visual stimuli added, and modified by, by the "peripherals" .. the "voice" added by an complicated, ornate frame- which was ... not really appropriate on the complex, ornate oil painting it framed. There were other examples... a minimal, simple frame on a photograph with "simple elements" - again, out of place... something "heavier" would have added a great deal.

All this is not meant as a digression - I'm only trying to establish the idea that everything that goes into the work - holistically - in the exhibition has an influence on the way it is perceived.

Now - where to learn about the "elements" affecting the work ..? I haven't a clue. I know of no books on the subject and I've heard of no Art Classes incorporating all this or even some of this into their course of study.
I probably learned more from my conversation with that Curator in the space of fifteen minutes than I have from all other sources up until then.

I will tell you of the method I used for determining a title for one of my works. I developed the print ... was fascinated -- by "getting a good one" (for a change). I ran upstairs, to where my youngest daughter was, and asked her, "Give me a number". She did, "twenty-six". That was my title. "Abstraction #26". Not entirely random ... the final part of the exercise was my judgement of whether "Abstraction #26" worked or not. It did.