Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Thinking About Trame




I could endow this picture with trame by adding some text.



Consider this slight variant.



And now for your consideration, a little series:






  1. I find the second example (flower and ring) quite interesting, because the story is not in the picture - the picture shows only a glass of water with a flower in it and a ring. The story - end of a love, divorce - is contributed by you, the viewer, it is part of your mind. Maybe you've been through a divorce, maybe you've read an interesting novel about it, this doesn't matter. The picture is a trigger to bring up the association, like a metaphor. Consider someone with a different background (e.g. someone who suffers from Asperger's disease) - to this viewer, the picture is probably only what's depicted - a glass of water with a flower in it, and a ring.

    Best, Thomas

  2. A commenter who wishes to remain anonymous points me to Ming's site, in particular this post: and remarks that the captions are in a way the opposite of what we're talking about here.

    I agree. I think that a violently literal caption cuts off roads of imagination. Had I titled the first picture "flower" or "orange" it would have made the picture even more insular, self-contained, even more cut off from any sort of surround.

    I had no actually though in that direction. It's considered chic in some circles, I think still, to use extremely literal titles. "Pepper No. 30" is a hell of a title to saddle a picture with, and it only works because the picture itself is so strongly something else. The bland title is probably smart to dilute nearly-smutty picture.

    If you've got a picture that's already closed off from the world, using a literal title seems to be weak. If you have a very powerful picture that is extremely obviously connected to a larger context, literal titles/captions can have some power.

    Must ponder, perhaps more on this later.