The negative space that surrounds objects and places, devoid as it is, of all encompassing light still draws our attention. The intrusive spark of brightness within the darkness of an image highlighting the contrast between the two. You come to the photograph or image as an aesthetic object with no context... Then you step in and read the text and then out again to revisit the image in a completely different way. I'm interested in that space between text and image. The piece becomes the negative space between the two. Therefore conceptually the two sets of negative space the one within the image the other between the text and image come together as a kind of symbiotic paradox.
The Importance of this analysis is presumptive, in so much that it requires a level of understanding from potential viewers of the image, to make a distinction between the title (the text) and the photograph (the image) a photograph without proper caption is worthless particularly in journalism. On the other hand, you can cause damage with an incorrect title: For instance you can diminish the impact of an image by using overly cute titles, or take away the imagination of the viewer by describing too much or leading in a direction that the image is not quite supporting. Sometimes this might be an enhancement, where the author of the image wants to influence the audience in any given direction, and other times it can end up being a distraction.
In essence do titles contribute to the meaning that is seen in an image? According to purist doctrine, words beyond the image/frame are not supposed to influence the understanding or appreciation of visual form, ergo it argues that titles should function simply as identification tags not sources of meaning for the viewer. The contrary position of most discerning contemporary advocates of the free aesthetic articulate views at variance to the purist credo, moreover they have moved away from the elitist doctrine on how art should be viewed to a more open liberal approach that focuses on conceptualizing the function of titles, as an example they are concerned with titles not as mere tags, but descriptions that have a unique purpose that determine to a degree the interpretation of the aesthetic of an image.
What a work of art is titled…..has a significant effect on the aesthetic it presents and the qualities we perceive in it. Titles emphasise relevant contextual factors in the viewing of artworks and different titles engage the viewer in many ways. Some titles for instance provide explicit directives for interpretation which can add to the experience or conversely in other cases detract. In some examples the title can be a simple and straightforward description that adds little to the meaning of the work so becomes neutral in the equation.
In conclusion does the difference in the title affect what people interpret from an image or in part what they attend to, or do different people respond and react differently? That question is open-ended as we all know that art is very subjective and we take what we want from any presentation of art. I think we can all agree, that as long as we enjoy the engagement whether positive or negative, is all that matters and that so long as we take away an overall appreciation of the experience then this is a benefit to both the viewer and the artist….
© M.J. Sabine 2020
