I put a twenty-something intern in charge of writing titles and descriptions for some images that we were going to put up online at the end of this month. I give him the same instructions and training that I give everyone that will be writing "metadata" for us. These instructions usually include the words: "describe and title the item as you see it and be creative. Just not too creative because we don't want to offend anyone that might be still alive or make the university look bad."
No one to date has had a problem with these instructions.
Well, until now.
Title: Half and Half
Description: A shot of a gentleman with half his upper face missing
Now, I don't know about you but I think that if my upper face was missing I wouldn't be posing for pictures.
Title: It's a Cruel World
Description: A shot of a sad looking little girl.
Probably not what the photographer was going for but a great shot anyway
Title: Lights...Just Lights!
Description: Two men working on some lighting instruments for (TV station call letters)
Not sound, not camera, not film.....Just Lights.
Title: Man In Charge
Description: A shot of two gentlemen in which one is commanding the other.
Considering the smile on the face of the man sitting I'd say the that the man standing isn't very commanding.
Title: One of a Kind
Description: A lady in her later years giving some sort of speech
First off; later years?
Second off; later years?
Title: Spring Ouarterback
Description: Man in a stupid shirt
Uh yeah, it was the 1950s when this photo was taken. It might have even been the 1960s.
And the two that win the award for creativity are.......
Description: A young gentleman smoking his pipe as he listens to an ongoing presentation
Descritpion: A strange woman making a silly face
Phyllis Diller did make silly faces but was she creepy?
We obviously didn't leave these title and descriptions as they were but it was very tempting. What do you think? Was my intern being creative or a smartass?