On the question of captions: I say, if a viewer's appreciation of a photograph, and of the artist's intention, is enhanced by a caption, then it is a legitimate addition to the photograph. As an artist, I love the idea of presenting a photograph with "Untitled" as its caption, I have to be careful about its use. It is in a way a slap in the face. "Oh, you looked down here for an interpretation? Well, you'll just have to do the work yourself!" At times that is a very gentle slap and the viewer reacts well, and does see what the artist wants him to see, or ends up in the state of befuddlement the artist wants him to be in. But finally, the viewer has to decide whether this is a mind he wants to fathom.

Because what is this artistic transaction? The artist went to a lot of trouble for somebody. The viewer is investing his valuable time. (You don't think your time is valuable? Just get old!) Something has to be trans-acted. From one to another. What makes it worthwhile?

The artist of "The Surrender of Breda" knew that his client was the king, and the audience beyond him was the people who would feel inspired by the triumph and the magnanimity of the victor. It was a complex message to be transmitted: shared glory in victory, and a lesson in humanity, kindness toward the vanquished. And Velasquez created a lovely moment even while overwhelming the viewer with grand scope. Here you have the judgment of a patron that the artist had an intellect that could grasp his purpose, even magnify it. But today most art is created without patrons, and the viewer is alone deciding whether the mind he is entertaining for the moment is worthy. Should he invest time in this artist's imagination?

If words can help the artist make his case, I say use them. If he feels that his image speaks for itself, fine; call it Untitled or give no caption. But if he worries that what he sees in the subject will be missed by most viewers, let a few words help.