My position about titles is that they're execrable intrusions of text. To me, an image must be immediate and descriptive by itself; any text is excessive and unnecessary, unless the photo is bad enough to require one. (Obviously photos as documents are slaves to text.)
So, in a nutshell, I hate titles, any title.
It happens, though, that -- as you point out -- they're much better as image identifier than "You know, that photo with a dog and..." So, I provide them as identifiers.
Given that, I do prefer deadpan titles such as "Orange" for the photo of an orange, so a to limit the intrusion of text into the image. Lately I introduce my own photo's serial number so as to find it easily in my archive.
You comment about white is quite interesting. Well, the wall *is* white... at least in the Platonic sense, in the ideal world. Of course that white doesn't exist in itself, and the "everything" around the white in the wall, namely a nearby star we call the sun, modified it with tangent light, and we have a greyish thing, tainted by a blue from a litter bin, etc.
I try to keep things as simple and deadpan as possible, but simplicity becomes sometimes very complex. Recent photographic trends, as you know yourself, say, Eggleston and Shore, rely upon such a simplicity as to produce an "aesthetic void" which ends up being filled in by the observer; and there we get into epistemology.
I also find curious that two people commented upon this image almost one year after it was posted.
Hi Joćo, The one thing that attracted my attention to this shot is the bright reflection of the blue lid of the container on the white plastered wall. It's fabulous! The striking light on the front face is perfect, as is the composition. Very good capture!
I've noticed with interest that the title of this photo raised some expectations in me that are not quite being met by the photo itself. The 'Blue' part is clear, but what exactly does the 'White' refer to? I'd expect it to be the wall - it is the largest highlight area that would surely be perceived as shining white on such a sunny day - but compared to the white Usefilm background, it's nowhere near real white. So I start considering the other options - does the white refer to the sign on the container, the plastic sack, or perhaps the (currently invisible) white border around the photo? In the end, the answer probably doesn't matter, but what counts for me is that this little "mystery" has really made me stop and look and think about the image.
This raises the question - to what extent is the title a part of the photo? Is it better when the photo speaks for itself and the title, if indeed there is any, serves only as a means of unique identification of the image, or is the title an integral part of the presentation? Does the existence of a meaningful title limit the ways in which the viewers perceive the content of the image, or does it stimulate independent thought processes? In my own work, I prefer simple descriptive titles - and I'd say your own titles are like that as well. Isn't it strange then that such a simple title can turn the photo into a visual riddle? Does this effect of the title run counter to the original intention of keeping it simple, or was there no such intention in the first place and the apparent simplicity was skillfully designed?
Simple and clean composition--ironic in that this is a photo of a trash bin! Good idea. I appreciated your comments on my "Late Swim" photo, and I added a response to your observations. Please go back and check it out.
0 
{K:24381} 5/22/2004
