Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Mjean on March 21, 2010, 04:01:45 pm
-
Should you sign your work and if so where? On the photograph itself or on the matt?
-
Should you sign your work and if so where? On the photograph itself or on the matt?
I've cut some nice mats, but have never been so proud of one that I would ever consider signing the thing. Some folks, especially those who flush mount to a backing board and never sell unmatted or unmounted prints, prefer to sign the mat, a la Ansel Adams.
I sell unmatted work, and when I do mat use a T-hinge, so signing the print is the best method to ensure that the signature stays with the print
-
Glow, Chuck's right. If you have any doubt, ask a gallery owner.
-
This topic has sprouted a number of threads. The general consensus is that if you intend to sell to “collectors” whoever those are, then you goals are best served signing the work.
After a bunch of deliberation, I decided to use Photoshop to put a sig on the front (mine is illegible), and add my own hand written initials to the front. On the back I use a little card that says something about the work itself, the materials, the production number and another hand signed signature.
While signing is an act of vanity that for some, myself included, is hard to swallow, it is simply an accepted standard that the buying public values.
Last but not least one of the great gurus of this site suggested using the following pen: Pentel Sunburst Metallic MED Gel. It is acid free, silver in color so it will show up over any color. I bought 2 and that was good because one didn’t work.
-
While signing is an act of vanity that for some, myself included, is hard to swallow, it is simply an accepted standard that the buying public values.
Could not disagree more. Signing a piece of artwork shows that the artist has, at the very least, personally approved the quality of the piece. In many, if not most cases, it means the artist has personally created it.
Signatures don't signal "vanity", they're a sign that artist is taking responsibility for they're own work.
-
Could not disagree more. Signing a piece of artwork shows that the artist has, at the very least, personally approved the quality of the piece. In many, if not most cases, it means the artist has personally created it.
Signatures don't signal "vanity", they're a sign that artist is taking responsibility for they're own work.
That's how I see it as well. And a print without a signature is IMHO a sign that the creator don't care. But this is for signing outside the image area. I personally don't much care for signing on the image area, I find that distracting.
Ronny
-
I have read about the vanity comment but decided not to post right away - I was somehow offended, I thought I should post with a clear mind and see where he's coming from.
A few hours has passed and I still can't see it. The only thing that I have for vanity is pride - a work is signed because the maker is proud of what he made - pride. But then again, I believe it's different.
Back to topic:
You can sign it basically wherever you want - it is yours. But signing on the paper of the print (bottom, back or on) will let you keep the signature even if you change the mat or frame.
I personally use a Chinese chop at the bottom part of the paper of my prints.
You can ask yourself, if you're going to get a print from a friend, would you want it to be signed? and where would you want to see his/her signature?
The answer will be your answer
-
On the paper, hallmarks are great.
Fred.
-
Feel free to disagree. It could be a cultural thing. If you bother to look up the word “vanity” you will find a vast number of meanings. The one I'm relating it to is as a form of conceit, as in a display of pride.
While there’s nothing wrong with pride, people sign art out of a vain tradition and of course also pandering to the customers' demands.
By comparison:
Does a Farmer sign his produce?
-- a Baker sign her cakes?
-- a Dentist sign her crowns?
-- a Professor sign his lectures?
-- a Scientist sign her research?
The list goes on and on and on. Most – in fact, the vast majority of professional products and services don’t include a signature. But they usually do include a name.
My background is in academia and technical services where the product is all important and while a name is important, a signature is not part of the product. As a result of that I wrestled with the idea of signing my fotos, but do so only because a signature it is a vain tradition of the craft.
Customers require a signature as part of the justification they use for ascribing the product’s value. That too is all about vanity.
If you feel offended, that would be a reflection your feelings, rather than about my comment. That’s why I wrote, fell free to disagree…………………
-
That's how I see it as well. And a print without a signature is IMHO a sign that the creator don't care. But this is for signing outside the image area. I personally don't much care for signing on the image area, I find that distracting.
Ronny
I agree. I would not sell one of my photographs without a signature. I sign on the bottom border. I consider my signature to be a quarantee that I actually produced the piece, and that I am proud enough to put my name on it. But, hey, if you want to let your work go out without signing because you're afraid people will think you are vain, then have at it.
-
Feel free to disagree. It could be a cultural thing. If you bother to look up the word “vanity” you will find a vast number of meanings. The one I'm relating it to is as a form of conceit, as in a display of pride.
While there’s nothing wrong with pride, people sign art out of a vain tradition and of course also pandering to the customers' demands.
By comparison:
Does a Farmer sign his produce?
-- a Baker sign her cakes?
-- a Dentist sign her crowns?
-- a Professor sign his lectures?
-- a Scientist sign her research?
The list goes on and on and on. Most – in fact, the vast majority of professional products and services don’t include a signature. But they usually do include a name.
My background is in academia and technical services where the product is all important and while a name is important, a signature is not part of the product. As a result of that I wrestled with the idea of signing my fotos, but do so only because a signature it is a vain tradition of the craft.
Customers require a signature as part of the justification they use for ascribing the product’s value. That too is all about vanity.
If you feel offended, that would be a reflection your feelings, rather than about my comment. That’s why I wrote, fell free to disagree…………………
I don't think your examples are relevant to works of art. Do painters sign their works would be a relevant question, and the answer is of course "yes".
-
-- a Scientist sign her research?
You betcha a scientist signs her research. For an MD there's nothing more bracing than having a disease named after you.
-
Does a Farmer sign his produce?
-- a Baker sign her cakes?
-- a Dentist sign her crowns?
-- a Professor sign his lectures?
-- a Scientist sign her research?
First of all, from more than a decade of working on a college campus can say, with all certainly, that a scientist most definitely "signs" his research. Publish or perish. Fill the vitae. There is nothing in either academia or research, nothing, that is not claimed. I'll go so far as to say the same thing for professors and lectures. It may not be an actual "signature", but make no mistake, it's stamped, copyrighted, trademarked with the names of the creators. They all want their credit. There's no difference.
As for dentists and bakers, there's a world of difference between those two professions and artists. First and foremost, a dentist is a craftsman, not an artist. He/she is not creating art, but filling (pardon the pun) a dire need.
A baker, while some, in the extreme, may create something very close to art (extreme cake maker or confectioner), makes a product that is consumable. Disposable. It's not meant to be kept nor displayed, but eaten. Therefore, a signature, which one could argue may be deserved, isn't really relevant.
The bottom line, as I see it is that you seem to confuse art with commerce. Creativity with necessity. Meaning with retail. In your view, there is no difference between an impressionistic watercolorist and house painter, or a university lecturer and performance artists.
Art is not a commodity, it is a creation from the heart and mind of an individual. In it's best form, it has meaning beyond it's mere physical manifestation. If you cannot see the difference, then there's nothing more left to say.
-
You sign the art work because it's a part of you. It's a piece of your soul.
You sign it not because of the perceived value, but the actual value of it to you.
Vincent signed hundreds of his works and died poor. His signature on his works did not mean anything to anyone but to himself.
Though it might bring additional monetary value to your works, it's not the reason to sign it.
-
You should always sign your work if its numbered. As a collector, you should always sign with non migratory black ink. Get this from (Light Impressions). Sign the print on the back within the print area. This is required by AIPAD galleries, but the general public likes it signed at the bottom of the image. Signature on the right, number in the middle, and title on the left of the image. But make sure its framed with archival materials, mounting is crutial. I have taken a workshop on this, but hope he makes a complete video on this. Because it would help everyone, to know how to do it fast and inexpensive. I will take the final workshop soon I hope. JP
-
Vincent signed hundreds of his works and died poor. His signature on his works did not mean anything to anyone but to himself.
'ear! 'ear!
Sorry.
Rob C
-
First of all, from more than a decade of working on a college campus can say, with all certainly, that a scientist most definitely "signs" his research. Publish or perish. Fill the vitae. There is nothing in either academia or research, nothing, that is not claimed. I'll go so far as to say the same thing for professors and lectures. It may not be an actual "signature", but make no mistake, it's stamped, copyrighted, trademarked with the names of the creators. They all want their credit. There's no difference.
As for dentists and bakers, there's a world of difference between those two professions and artists. First and foremost, a dentist is a craftsman, not an artist. He/she is not creating art, but filling (pardon the pun) a dire need.
A baker, while some, in the extreme, may create something very close to art (extreme cake maker or confectioner), makes a product that is consumable. Disposable. It's not meant to be kept nor displayed, but eaten. Therefore, a signature, which one could argue may be deserved, isn't really relevant.
The bottom line, as I see it is that you seem to confuse art with commerce. Creativity with necessity. Meaning with retail. In your view, there is no difference between an impressionistic watercolorist and house painter, or a university lecturer and performance artists.
Art is not a commodity, it is a creation from the heart and mind of an individual. In it's best form, it has meaning beyond it's mere physical manifestation. If you cannot see the difference, then there's nothing more left to say.
Chuck,
To change the subject completely: The March-April Lenswork just arrived. Congratulations!! Bravo!!! Not only is your "Unapologetic Landscape" a very fine piece of work, it brings back all sorts of memories from the fifties, when I was stationed in Great Falls and regularly flew a Beaver all over the country you've photographed. After Great Falls I went to Beausejour, Manitoba for nearly three years and flew regularly out of Grand Forks AFB. I've always loved that country, as I love the prairies east of Colorado Springs. Your statement about "random driving" caught my eye. I do the same thing, but I'm always looking for abandoned ranches and dying towns. Plowden, of course, does the same thing with exceptional results. I'm afraid mine aren't all that exceptional.
-
Chuck,
To change the subject completely: The March-April Lenswork just arrived. Congratulations!! Bravo!!! Not only is your "Unapologetic Landscape" a very fine piece of work, it brings back all sorts of memories from the fifties, when I was stationed in Great Falls and regularly flew a Beaver all over the country you've photographed. After Great Falls I went to Beausejour, Manitoba for nearly three years and flew regularly out of Grand Forks AFB. I've always loved that country, as I love the prairies east of Colorado Springs. Your statement about "random driving" caught my eye. I do the same thing, but I'm always looking for abandoned ranches and dying towns. Plowden, of course, does the same thing with exceptional results. I'm afraid mine aren't all that exceptional.
Yes, Chuck,
I love your "Unapologetic Landscape" in Lenswork. Congratulations! Very fine seeing of the beauty that is there.
Eric
-
Russ, Eric;
Thank you, guys. It's been a fun ride, so far. My wife is making sure my head only swells so far. She's good at keeping me grounded
If nothing else, I hope it gives people the incentive to explore their own surroundings, no matter how mundane they may seem on the surface.
Chuck
-
Russ, Eric;
Thank you, guys. It's been a fun ride, so far. My wife is making sure my head only swells so far. She's good at keeping me grounded
If nothing else, I hope it gives people the incentive to explore their own surroundings, no matter how mundane they may seem on the surface.
Chuck
Chuck,
Tell your wife that critics on LuLu have given permission for your head to swell quite a bit -- within limits of course.
Yes -- mundane surroundings often yield unexpected treasures. You caught a bunch of them.
-
Chuck,
Tell your wife that critics on LuLu have given permission for your head to swell quite a bit --
-- one hat size maximum.
Eric