Does a picture really need a title?













If we think it is indispensable to name a photo; in fact, it may not be the case.

The name of a photo, of course, has encompassed the idea that the photographer wished to transmit, as sending out a signal. But, the name of a photo can also diminish the imagination of the viewer unavoidably.

It is true that a viewer can also surmise in front of a named photo; but, the  thought or supposition would be limited by the name, inevitably.

Say, a photo is entitled “Red Rose”, it would be insensitive, or even unreasonable, for a viewer to surmise it is a black rose…

(I might have more to say about this…)


About NgTom

Three fundamental constituents support my life; they are literature, philosophy and photography. And I am rather glad that I don't really need them to sustain my living. But, it only implies my incompetent.
This entry was posted in This is how I see the world and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Does a picture really need a title?

  1. Does a title really need a photo?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s