Thanks a lot for the detailed reply, Doyle! I am glad that you like the cropped image so much! Taking some looks at it I also think that a tighter framing would have turn it denser.
A very interesting point of view, that you exposed here, and I am glad for that, since it opens many doors for myself too. I really wished that such discussions would be more often here. Just like standing in front of a great photo in some museum, and then discussing until late night. And I consider this place to be a virtual museum.
About titles and abstracts I follow the definition of arts as the materialization of vision - which implies also titles that are tightly coupled to what the artist "saw" and wanted to say. So, the thing about a title of an abstract (and thus about the abstract itself) is that it is *not* what is widely believed to be - way not that kind of "indefinite something". The freedom of interpretation does not arise because of some title that is only "loosely" coupled to the photo itself.
Let's consider for example "Guernica" though it is not exactly an abstract - it could have been "City in Flames" or "Destruction" or even more indefinite, but the artist has to say something very very definite about exactly that city under bombardement! Or let's go more "abstract" and consider titles like "Stenographic Figure" or "Moon-Woman Cuts the Circle" by Pollock, or "The Persistence of Memory", "The elephants", or "The Temptation of St. Anthony" by Dali, which are all titles of paintings that are not depicting "reality" and still carry very very definite titles, since there was a very very definite vision behind them. It is not that kind of "etherious something" that the artist had to say, and so the interpretation has to happen inside the frame of vision of the artist, which of course does leave more than enough space to make the very own interpretation. It is interpreting the own way a very dense and very definite story that is created by the artist, even if the story is not a "depiction of this world".
The bias, which you already talked about, *is* one of the main characteristica of any great piece of arts - and at the same time there are as many kinds of bias as there are spectators. Such pieces of arts *do* deliver bias and polarisation, but to any possible direction depending on the mind/eyes/ears/etc of the observer.
Anyway, it is only my own thoughts, and exchanging them makes it really great, for which I thank you very much!
WOW! I like it MY way even better than I thought I would!! VERY COOL anyway . . .
You're right, particularly with abstract work that personal preference plays a prime role. My only concern about labeling or titling as you say is with abstract work . . . otherwise I do agree with what you say. With abstract, (IMO) by titling what YOU see you kind of lead the mind of the viewer to see it your way. Other than abstract, I think that's a big plus . . . to present a vision by capturing an image in a way that conveys how you see it . . . and to title it that way as well.
But when it comes to abstract, I think we differ. I just want to get a viewer apreciating shapes and forms, tones, colors, shadows and relationships - freely wandering the work with an unbiased eye . . . so that the conclusion might be entirely different than what was suggested. In this, for example, one might see overlaying eucalyptus leaves in a jungle type density . . . but having listed it as you did . . . they may not have the pleasure of this discovery because the mind tells the eye what they're supposed to see. In this case, you run the risk of unnecessarily limiting the full potential of what (IMO) is a work of art.
Anyway, just my thoughts . . . I want the image enjoyed for the sake of the image. I'm no expert on abstract . . . so you certainly can formulate your own opinion on the subject without fear of being wrong due to my comments! :P
Thank you very very much for the detailed nice comment and the ideas, Doyle! What I see is somebody in tight trousers sitting somewhere, so its interesting to know that it also can be seen as a chair.
So, let's try your idea for a tighter crop. I hope it is the way you meant. The cropped image seems denser to me, and at the same time the "sitting somebody" gets less "recognizable". I have the impression that your crop focuses much more directly on the shape itself than on its relation to the surrounding space.
As about the title, and I can only speak for myself here, I do understand exactly what you say, Doyle. It's only that I don't like such titles at all. For me the "etherious" character of a title, like for example the many gerunds used here, or other such "indefinite" titles have something very poor and cheap. They feel to me like trying to introduce some pseudo-philosophical content while the image itself is not really anything special. In addition, the awaken mind can always start brainstorming without the need for such "decorative" titles. The sensitive spectator doesn't need such artificial orientation from pseudo-literatic names. Better to introduce the own vision by using a short but strongly descriptive title of what the vision was, which is always what the meaning of the title in any artistic work - or else the implied fact is that there was no vision. In that sense, even Pollock didn't use such titles that do not say anything after all.
To make it clear using an example, I'll always prefer such a title for a song like "The seer" from Big Country, or "Philby" from Rory Gallagher, or "Another tricky day" from the Who, than anything else.
Oh well, preferences are always something very personal.
Best wishes and many many thanks again for the comment and the ideas.
Wow Nick. VERY different and an effective abstract . . . particularly in b&W. The arch across the top, and the top left corner, taken with the title evoke a patio chair type image . . . On a personal (suggestive) Idea, I would tighten the crop top and left and change the title so that the mind isn't so clearly directed . . . perhaps a title which provides no answer but describes the mind as it contemplates the image . . . like "Intensity" . . . let the viewer work for it, you follow what I'm trying to say?
0 
