Out of Context

In the New York Times, Errol Morris discusses the relationship between images and statements in “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire." He begins by explaining that each image is either "true" or "false." He declares, "the issue of the truth or falsity of a photograph is only meaningful with respect to statements about the photograph."  The statements that we make about a photograph is what indicates truth. In this way, he feels that a photography without captions is really... meaningless. "All alone — shorn of context, without captions — a photograph is neither true nor false." Morris says that practically, a  photograph should stand alone. "They are only true or false with respect to statements that we make about them or the questions that we might ask of them." 

I don't know if I fully agree with the way that Morris describes the meaning and significance of photographs. I never really thought about photographs that way. Sure, you can't tell if a photograph is "true or false" in his terms without context, but I see photographs in a much more artistic setting. Rather, I observe the beauty of photographs. The lighting, the quality, etc etc. Granted, I am no photographer, but I feel that photographs can hold truth when by themselves. At times, there is the necessity for a photograph to be labeled and explained, but many times, a picture alone is not just a picture, it tells a story. It can be left up to our interpretation, just as art is. Just as writing is. Artists, and in this case, photographers, have their own goal for creating a piece, but for the most part, beyond a simple title, the meaning of a work of art is often left to the viewer's discretion.  
However, I understand Morris's point on the significance of labels and context. There are times where a picture just doesn't make as much sense without a caption. The caption offers a meaning, a description, a clarification. 

Take these photographs for example. What do they mean to you? 
Most likely, they mean nothing. They just look like random pieces of art. 

However, when I see these photographs, it has a very strong significance. To me, this is a compilation of my own art pieces. These are my works that I created in my pottery classes throughout my latter three years of high school. 
The first is a fountain that we made (without water, but it can actually function as a fountain). The second on the middle top is... well it's sort of just a tube. It was an extruder project, it pushes out clay in shapes, in this case a cylinder. The third is a koala. Koalas are my favorite animal. The left bottom picture is of a lion. The bottom middle was for a sphere project. The designs are random, it's glazed. The last is from a project where we had to create a stick-man. These are only my pieces from Pottery 1 and Pottery 2, and they are not all my favorites. They mean a lot more now, don't they? I think you could have figured out most of it, you just saw them differently from me. Now you understand how I see them. 

Now look at this photograph. I think it can stand alone. Sure, it would be nice to know the location of the photograph, but it doesn't really change the beauty of it. It doesn't really change the way we see it. 

I guess it can go both ways. It depends on who is viewing the photograph, whether the photograph is personal or off the web, whether it is a portrait or a landscape... so many things go into a photograph. I think Morris has a very narrow, limited view when saying that an image without context is not true or false.