Why Do Some Art Have a No Picture Sign Written By Boman Reirs1957 Sunday, May 8, 2022 Add Comment Edit Sign In Sign upwardly Forums All Contempo Discussions General Photography Images Exercise & Technique Equipment Site & Forum Help Learn How-To Inspiration Gear Business News Explore Browse by Categories Trending Editors' Picks Seeking Critique Photograph Of The Twenty-four hours Photo Of The Week Photograph Contests Shop I'm sending a group of prints to a dealer who's interested in my work. How and where do I sign them? Is there a protocol for this? In pencil on the forepart border? On the back? All advice is appreciated. Robin What sort of prints are they, on what sort paper? Are they mounted, like in a window mat? If so, are you showing a margin between the edge of the prototype and inside of the window, or does the image fill the window? At that place are a million variations on that theme, then outset by mentioning the medium and the way it will exist presented. Having your contact information on the back of the print is e'er a good idea, regardless. Robin: I strongly urge you to visit a museum or two and see how the masters do it. Then choose ane method and stick with it. Matt, they are boxed prints with a border, no mat, but straight prints, 14x11 on Hahnemuhle photograph rag, 308gsm. I have room on the bottom for signing. I've been told to sign in pencil. Does this sound correct? For that sort of situation, yes - I use pencil. I like a adequately hard pb, to reduce smudging. Understand that take chances if the prints aren't separated as they're handled - pencil can be messy that fashion. If I'm worried about how it'south going to be handled/stacked, I use a Sakura Microperm pen. I like them in a grey, rather than black - but that's a matter of taste! You NEVER sign a photograph on the front, unless it's a photo of you, and yous're autographing information technology. Yous can sign the mat, typically in pencil. This is common for 'craft fair' blazon photos, simply you won't usually see that in SoHo, or any place like that. Typically you lot sign the back print in a corner. You write your name, the date the photograph was taken, and the title. If the print was not made the same year as the photograph was shot, you should write what yr it was printed as well, merely it is not necessary. If information technology is a print made by an individual (other than a lab), then yous should write their proper name along with the engagement. If yous fabricated it yourself, or you lot used a lab like Miller'south, then don't add a printing credit. If it is an edition, y'all need write how large the edition is and what number that is, ie 1/xx. Keep in mind that if it IS an edition, your dealer might become very upset if yous ever make any more copies than promised. You might be okay if those extra copies are postcards, or made to donate to a fundraiser, or some other special affair that is unlike than how you lot would sell a impress normally, or yous might not. If you decide to make an edition, talk to your dealer first. I like to use a soft pencil atomic number 82, as information technology's less likely to press through and show marks on the image side. But information technology'southward really up to you lot. If it is a coated impress, be sure to use something with archival ink, and NEVER utilise a ballpoint, as that will most definitely show on the other side. My opinion: It is airheaded to say that there is a rule well-nigh signing, peculiarly i near never signing the forepart of a impress. It is your fine art, sign information technology. If you sign only the mat, what happens when information technology is rematted? I sell two kinds of prints, one I consider my "art." The other are only photos that I don't merits to be an example of what I'm trying to do equally fine art. Regarding the art--I effort to exit a slightly wider lesser at the lesser of the print. I sign, title, and number the print in that lower border with a paint pen. Y'all should not utilize a regular pen and you should non employ a Sharpie. My experience is that pencil doesn't adhere to every surface on which my photos are printed. So far, the pigment pen has worked on every surface from rag to Kodak Metallic. If I purchase someone'southward photograph, I like it to exist signed. I consider the signature important to that for which I am paying, which is non only the impress, but the artists vision that created the print. I want the artist to be a part of the print. For those I sell that I don't consider my "fine art" my proper name is usually on the print as role of the print, but not equally an original signature. It is printed along with the photograph. If I supervise the matting of a print, or if I mat information technology myself, I also sign that mat in pencil. A note about numbering, I consider trying to number something equally a limited edition to exist silly in these days and times. So far, my numbering arrangement is to number each print with the year printed and then serially within that year. I figure that if something of mind ever assumes collector value, that will lend some value. If I e'er go to the point where I want to offer a limited edition. I will impress them, number them and then take steps to erase forever all copies of the digital file. I uncertainty if that volition happen,. Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. I'g really surprised that this thread is the only evidence of communication on this topic. Tin't give thanks you all plenty. Robin John- While you exercise make some good points, dealers more often than not adopt numbered editions. The number doesn't bear upon the value at all, but it is a promise to your dealer that they are selling something limited, that cannot exist hands obtained. I've referenced this earlier, only google the Eggleston lawsuit. As far as signing the front goes ... the theory is that yous're supposed to know whose work you spent a bunch of money on, and you won't need to exist constantly reminded. While I'm inappreciably an expert, I have been to a lot of expensive galleries selling worth in the tens of thousands, and none of those images are always signed on the front. If you lot buy an Arbus print, it is considering you lot know that it is Arbus, and yous don't need to be told. On a related note, about Arbus prints are made by her daughter, Doon. They're signed 'D. Arbus" on the back. You demand to check the date, and know when Diane Arbus died, to know if she made the impress herself. Sneaky! The world changes because people do things to modify it. If everything had to stay the same, nosotros wouldn't have photography at all. People can sign wherever they want. Zack- Luckily, somehow, I don't come across my long mail service I thought I madeyesterday. And so, this volition be the condensed version. About buying signed work: I like a signature, partly, for the same reason I similar books that are autographed. I remember that a lot of collector worthy photographs are not photographed because photography was not initially recognized as fine art past the "fine art world." I happen to think that artist should sign their original piece of work. The identity, personality, talent, vision, etc. of the artist is an intangible part of the art and, for me, the signature is a tangible expression of some of the intangible aspects of all that. Also, in this digital age means that the truly original re-create of a photo is a series of 1s and 0s in a file. Just, having the digital file, which itself tin exist copied in its entirety makes for better, unlimited production of photographs than does having your hands on the original negative. You mention needing to know the date Arbus died as some indicator of whether you have an original and for some idea of by whom it was printed. An original signature helps a bit in that regard. Limited editions have the same problem. Historically there have always been much less pregnant to a express editions than buyers accept been led to wait. For me information technology is a matter of integrity non to offer something as a express edition when chances are it is not. I might some time offer an edition for a particular reason. For instance, I might sell 50 prints at a special price for some special consequence. But, if I do, that upshot becomes role of what is identified and it is made clear to those that are buying, that the edition is limited only in that it is a purchase fabricated for that event. I would probably reference the event where I number the impress. The Eggleston lawsuit is a fine instance of the consequences of doing information technology the old way. The artist and the dealer that issues a "limited edition" that is not actually a one of a kind edition may be incurring collector wrath and some liability. I call back reading one fourth dimension, decades ago, about a photographer that did limited editions and then he cut the negative into pieces which were so pressed between two sheets of glass as evidence of its devastation. That is the only incidence I recollect where the photographer took steps to assure a limited edition was truly limited. I say, if nosotros claim to be creating fine art, we adopt the historical convention of signing our impress, an artistic tradition that stretches fashion into history before that period when photographs were not considered by most to be art. Claim your position as an artist beside all artists past signing your art work. Oh, well, non so condensed. John, there are a number of differences between photography and traditional fine art that make comparisons fairly hard. For starters, paintings (et al) are traditionally signed somewhere unobtrusive in a color and place that won't describe attention to the signature. This is conspicuously impossible in photography, especially analog photography, equally any you sign the print with will be a different medium than the print itself, and will therefore stand out much more than. I'm not saying you're incorrect mind y'all, and so much every bit I am explaining why there is a difference in preference. Also, photography is much more 'mod'; yous notice fewer signatures in modernist painting likewise. If the signature is large enough to be read without a magnifier, than it is big enough to possibly disrupt the work. But as far every bit limited editions go ... I'm not sure we're talking almost the same affair. Are yous suggesting that letting buyer need control how many prints yous produce makes an edition 'limited'? Because if that is the case, than virtually every product on the market constitutes a express edition. Or are you suggesting that you destroy the unsold prints, and mark them as an edition of all the same many are sold? Considering honestly, that seems like the same thing with a more positive spin. The purpose of an edition, at least in the art market, is to create rarity. Different a painting a photograph is not necessarily unique, and then rarity must be created. In my Arbus case, Doon'southward prints from her mother's negatives are also limited. To 20 per negative, I think. Non 20 per year, or per edition ... just 20. Or 24, or 40, or whatever. Equally far as your referral to the fact that editions don't affair in the digital age ... well, they do, and probably more so. With the advent of film scanners, a negative could exist scanned a single time and printed in infinite numbers, thereby solving the problem that analog prints take, which is that continued exposure to light and estrus - and treatment - will cause the quality of the negative to dethrone over time. You are right that an edition is largely irrelevant. This is because near editions don't sell out (or don't sell out quickly enough), and I doubt at that place are too many people on this board who take a large marketplace for the resale of their prints. Only if you lot're the sort of person whose work might exist resold, so an edition that is minor enough creates rarity. Say that you lot can sell prints for $2,000 all day long John. Now if in that location is no limit to the edition, the price will never become up, unless y'all raise it. Why would information technology, since anyone could buy i from you? Now say that you only made x of those prints. You obviously have no trouble selling them, so there will exist people that really desire one and couldn't get information technology. This volition crusade the price of your prints to go upwards, equally some of those people will want them badly enough that they are willing to may more the original auction price. You lot don't get squat for that, but you DO take people who desire your prints at present, as they're considered an investment that could appreciate in value. Art galleries beloved this. So now your next edition tin can sell for $four,000 per impress, as your work is already much more than valuable than the $2,000 price tag that you put on it previously. Yous even so only need to sell ten prints to get the aforementioned amount of money that you previously got for xx, and yous have the advantage of a dealer pushing you harder than last time, every bit they consider y'all a surefire mode to go paid. Manifestly not anybody will exist able to have this route, and every bit a result editioning doesn't affair to everyone. But it is a very important part of business for a certain market. I agree with John. Signing the mat is lost if the matt is changed. For my prints, I employ my initials, which is also my logo. It'south the same every time, and I use Photoshop to place it IN the photo itself, in the lower right corner, up far enough that information technology won't be covered past the mat. It'southward not overpowering in size or opacity (usually around 30%). If possible, I'll use office of the photo to blend it in. Such as placing it in foliage. It'due south our "art", and artist's always sign their work. My stance. Thanks! Zack- The problem with express editions is that also often they are not limited. They will be redone, if non by the artist, and then past the artists's estate, or some other possessor of rights to the work. The fine art world is full of examples. I don't sell enough to generate involvement in a truly limited edition. If I ever got that way, then I would limit the number of prints bachelor, only probably not to the extent of a truthful limited edition. In a unique state of affairs, I might do a express edition and and then take steps to destroy all files. Even and so, with the ability of a scanner, somebody might rip somebody off some day. I prefer my method. And I runway who buys. If a market for my piece of work ever really adult, at that place would be enough info to decide the rarity of a impress. One reward to me is that, every bit long as I advisedly monitor each print within certain parameters I set for each, I impress on demand. Trust me, if I could sell a express edition of a hundred prints for a toll that averaged out to gross a half 1000000 or so to me, I'd offer those limited editions and destroy the underlying file. Till that 24-hour interval, I'll do it in a way that has meaning to me and my customers. We'll just have to agree to disagree nigh signing. You say I shouldn't compare photos to other forms of fine art such as painting and then you say more recent fine art is more and more not signed. I wasn't saying sign considering it makes a photo somehow more legitimate every bit art. It is simply my stance that fine art of whatever kind has greater value to me if somehow signed. I strongly disagree with your statement that photos should "NEVER" exist signed. Yous disagree with me. No problem. How tiresome it would be if every body agreed with me. Peaceful and correct, but boring. To the spelling guru who professed that "matte" is the only correct utilise, I refer him to either dictionary.com or Merriam-Webster online: He'll discover that "Matte" is also correctly spelled "Matt" or "Mat." If you get to various art supply stores online, you lot will run across that is is spelled all three ways. And then it'southward non only confirmed past dictionaries; it qualifies every bit "mutual utilize." To the poster who said NEVER sign prints on the front, give me a break! Near ALL artwork, photos or otherwise, is signed on the front. You can sign yours on the dorsum, simply anyone who sees it will wonder what the hell you were thinking. Virtually ALL artwork, photos or otherwise, is signed on the front You've seen "virtually ALL" artwork? That's a adequately unusual claim. In that location'south a few people that missed that: http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/photographs-n09405/lot.104.html http://world wide web.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/photographs-n09405/lot.143.html http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/photographs-n09405/lot.145.html http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/photographs-n09405/lot.164.html http://world wide web.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/photographs-n09405/lot.181.html There'southward more, only what they would know. Their photos must be worthless if they signed them on the contrary. Love the links to Sotheby's. Great images and interesting with the signature, edition, and stamps on the verso. I am preparing for a major solo show and establish this very informative. I also LOVE the image. Thanks for taking the time to find all the links, and share! Bravo! I concur with John. Signing the mat is lost if the matt is changed. For my prints, I use my initials, which is also my logo. Information technology's the aforementioned every time, and I use Photoshop to place information technology IN the photo itself, in the lower correct corner, up far enough that it won't exist covered by the mat. Information technology'southward not overpowering in size or opacity (usually around 30%). If possible, I'll use role of the photo to blend it in. Such as placing it in leaf. It's our "fine art", and artist'due south always sign their work. My stance. Cheers! Nobody's ever offered to buy my work. Where should I sign them? Hmm... I sign my photos at my desk-bound... Share This Page Forums Forums Members Members Menu mckoysocidered.blogspot.com Source: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/how-to-sign-an-art-photography-print.471721/ Share this post
I'm sending a group of prints to a dealer who's interested in my work. How and where do I sign them? Is there a protocol for this? In pencil on the forepart border? On the back? All advice is appreciated. Robin
What sort of prints are they, on what sort paper? Are they mounted, like in a window mat? If so, are you showing a margin between the edge of the prototype and inside of the window, or does the image fill the window? At that place are a million variations on that theme, then outset by mentioning the medium and the way it will exist presented. Having your contact information on the back of the print is e'er a good idea, regardless.
Robin: I strongly urge you to visit a museum or two and see how the masters do it. Then choose ane method and stick with it.
Matt, they are boxed prints with a border, no mat, but straight prints, 14x11 on Hahnemuhle photograph rag, 308gsm. I have room on the bottom for signing. I've been told to sign in pencil. Does this sound correct?
For that sort of situation, yes - I use pencil. I like a adequately hard pb, to reduce smudging. Understand that take chances if the prints aren't separated as they're handled - pencil can be messy that fashion. If I'm worried about how it'south going to be handled/stacked, I use a Sakura Microperm pen. I like them in a grey, rather than black - but that's a matter of taste!
You NEVER sign a photograph on the front, unless it's a photo of you, and yous're autographing information technology. Yous can sign the mat, typically in pencil. This is common for 'craft fair' blazon photos, simply you won't usually see that in SoHo, or any place like that. Typically you lot sign the back print in a corner. You write your name, the date the photograph was taken, and the title. If the print was not made the same year as the photograph was shot, you should write what yr it was printed as well, merely it is not necessary. If information technology is a print made by an individual (other than a lab), then yous should write their proper name along with the engagement. If yous fabricated it yourself, or you lot used a lab like Miller'south, then don't add a printing credit. If it is an edition, y'all need write how large the edition is and what number that is, ie 1/xx. Keep in mind that if it IS an edition, your dealer might become very upset if yous ever make any more copies than promised. You might be okay if those extra copies are postcards, or made to donate to a fundraiser, or some other special affair that is unlike than how you lot would sell a impress normally, or yous might not. If you decide to make an edition, talk to your dealer first. I like to use a soft pencil atomic number 82, as information technology's less likely to press through and show marks on the image side. But information technology'southward really up to you lot. If it is a coated impress, be sure to use something with archival ink, and NEVER utilise a ballpoint, as that will most definitely show on the other side.
My opinion: It is airheaded to say that there is a rule well-nigh signing, peculiarly i near never signing the forepart of a impress. It is your fine art, sign information technology. If you sign only the mat, what happens when information technology is rematted? I sell two kinds of prints, one I consider my "art." The other are only photos that I don't merits to be an example of what I'm trying to do equally fine art. Regarding the art--I effort to exit a slightly wider lesser at the lesser of the print. I sign, title, and number the print in that lower border with a paint pen. Y'all should not utilize a regular pen and you should non employ a Sharpie. My experience is that pencil doesn't adhere to every surface on which my photos are printed. So far, the pigment pen has worked on every surface from rag to Kodak Metallic. If I purchase someone'southward photograph, I like it to exist signed. I consider the signature important to that for which I am paying, which is non only the impress, but the artists vision that created the print. I want the artist to be a part of the print. For those I sell that I don't consider my "fine art" my proper name is usually on the print as role of the print, but not equally an original signature. It is printed along with the photograph. If I supervise the matting of a print, or if I mat information technology myself, I also sign that mat in pencil. A note about numbering, I consider trying to number something equally a limited edition to exist silly in these days and times. So far, my numbering arrangement is to number each print with the year printed and then serially within that year. I figure that if something of mind ever assumes collector value, that will lend some value. If I e'er go to the point where I want to offer a limited edition. I will impress them, number them and then take steps to erase forever all copies of the digital file. I uncertainty if that volition happen,.
Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. I'g really surprised that this thread is the only evidence of communication on this topic. Tin't give thanks you all plenty. Robin
John- While you exercise make some good points, dealers more often than not adopt numbered editions. The number doesn't bear upon the value at all, but it is a promise to your dealer that they are selling something limited, that cannot exist hands obtained. I've referenced this earlier, only google the Eggleston lawsuit. As far as signing the front goes ... the theory is that yous're supposed to know whose work you spent a bunch of money on, and you won't need to exist constantly reminded. While I'm inappreciably an expert, I have been to a lot of expensive galleries selling worth in the tens of thousands, and none of those images are always signed on the front. If you lot buy an Arbus print, it is considering you lot know that it is Arbus, and yous don't need to be told. On a related note, about Arbus prints are made by her daughter, Doon. They're signed 'D. Arbus" on the back. You demand to check the date, and know when Diane Arbus died, to know if she made the impress herself. Sneaky!
The world changes because people do things to modify it. If everything had to stay the same, nosotros wouldn't have photography at all. People can sign wherever they want.
Zack- Luckily, somehow, I don't come across my long mail service I thought I madeyesterday. And so, this volition be the condensed version. About buying signed work: I like a signature, partly, for the same reason I similar books that are autographed. I remember that a lot of collector worthy photographs are not photographed because photography was not initially recognized as fine art past the "fine art world." I happen to think that artist should sign their original piece of work. The identity, personality, talent, vision, etc. of the artist is an intangible part of the art and, for me, the signature is a tangible expression of some of the intangible aspects of all that. Also, in this digital age means that the truly original re-create of a photo is a series of 1s and 0s in a file. Just, having the digital file, which itself tin exist copied in its entirety makes for better, unlimited production of photographs than does having your hands on the original negative. You mention needing to know the date Arbus died as some indicator of whether you have an original and for some idea of by whom it was printed. An original signature helps a bit in that regard. Limited editions have the same problem. Historically there have always been much less pregnant to a express editions than buyers accept been led to wait. For me information technology is a matter of integrity non to offer something as a express edition when chances are it is not. I might some time offer an edition for a particular reason. For instance, I might sell 50 prints at a special price for some special consequence. But, if I do, that upshot becomes role of what is identified and it is made clear to those that are buying, that the edition is limited only in that it is a purchase fabricated for that event. I would probably reference the event where I number the impress. The Eggleston lawsuit is a fine instance of the consequences of doing information technology the old way. The artist and the dealer that issues a "limited edition" that is not actually a one of a kind edition may be incurring collector wrath and some liability. I call back reading one fourth dimension, decades ago, about a photographer that did limited editions and then he cut the negative into pieces which were so pressed between two sheets of glass as evidence of its devastation. That is the only incidence I recollect where the photographer took steps to assure a limited edition was truly limited. I say, if nosotros claim to be creating fine art, we adopt the historical convention of signing our impress, an artistic tradition that stretches fashion into history before that period when photographs were not considered by most to be art. Claim your position as an artist beside all artists past signing your art work. Oh, well, non so condensed.
John, there are a number of differences between photography and traditional fine art that make comparisons fairly hard. For starters, paintings (et al) are traditionally signed somewhere unobtrusive in a color and place that won't describe attention to the signature. This is conspicuously impossible in photography, especially analog photography, equally any you sign the print with will be a different medium than the print itself, and will therefore stand out much more than. I'm not saying you're incorrect mind y'all, and so much every bit I am explaining why there is a difference in preference. Also, photography is much more 'mod'; yous notice fewer signatures in modernist painting likewise. If the signature is large enough to be read without a magnifier, than it is big enough to possibly disrupt the work. But as far every bit limited editions go ... I'm not sure we're talking almost the same affair. Are yous suggesting that letting buyer need control how many prints yous produce makes an edition 'limited'? Because if that is the case, than virtually every product on the market constitutes a express edition. Or are you suggesting that you destroy the unsold prints, and mark them as an edition of all the same many are sold? Considering honestly, that seems like the same thing with a more positive spin. The purpose of an edition, at least in the art market, is to create rarity. Different a painting a photograph is not necessarily unique, and then rarity must be created. In my Arbus case, Doon'southward prints from her mother's negatives are also limited. To 20 per negative, I think. Non 20 per year, or per edition ... just 20. Or 24, or 40, or whatever. Equally far as your referral to the fact that editions don't affair in the digital age ... well, they do, and probably more so. With the advent of film scanners, a negative could exist scanned a single time and printed in infinite numbers, thereby solving the problem that analog prints take, which is that continued exposure to light and estrus - and treatment - will cause the quality of the negative to dethrone over time. You are right that an edition is largely irrelevant. This is because near editions don't sell out (or don't sell out quickly enough), and I doubt at that place are too many people on this board who take a large marketplace for the resale of their prints. Only if you lot're the sort of person whose work might exist resold, so an edition that is minor enough creates rarity. Say that you lot can sell prints for $2,000 all day long John. Now if in that location is no limit to the edition, the price will never become up, unless y'all raise it. Why would information technology, since anyone could buy i from you? Now say that you only made x of those prints. You obviously have no trouble selling them, so there will exist people that really desire one and couldn't get information technology. This volition crusade the price of your prints to go upwards, equally some of those people will want them badly enough that they are willing to may more the original auction price. You lot don't get squat for that, but you DO take people who desire your prints at present, as they're considered an investment that could appreciate in value. Art galleries beloved this. So now your next edition tin can sell for $four,000 per impress, as your work is already much more than valuable than the $2,000 price tag that you put on it previously. Yous even so only need to sell ten prints to get the aforementioned amount of money that you previously got for xx, and yous have the advantage of a dealer pushing you harder than last time, every bit they consider y'all a surefire mode to go paid. Manifestly not anybody will exist able to have this route, and every bit a result editioning doesn't affair to everyone. But it is a very important part of business for a certain market.
I agree with John. Signing the mat is lost if the matt is changed. For my prints, I employ my initials, which is also my logo. It'south the same every time, and I use Photoshop to place it IN the photo itself, in the lower right corner, up far enough that information technology won't be covered past the mat. It'southward not overpowering in size or opacity (usually around 30%). If possible, I'll use office of the photo to blend it in. Such as placing it in foliage. It'due south our "art", and artist's always sign their work. My stance. Thanks!
Zack- The problem with express editions is that also often they are not limited. They will be redone, if non by the artist, and then past the artists's estate, or some other possessor of rights to the work. The fine art world is full of examples. I don't sell enough to generate involvement in a truly limited edition. If I ever got that way, then I would limit the number of prints bachelor, only probably not to the extent of a truthful limited edition. In a unique state of affairs, I might do a express edition and and then take steps to destroy all files. Even and so, with the ability of a scanner, somebody might rip somebody off some day. I prefer my method. And I runway who buys. If a market for my piece of work ever really adult, at that place would be enough info to decide the rarity of a impress. One reward to me is that, every bit long as I advisedly monitor each print within certain parameters I set for each, I impress on demand. Trust me, if I could sell a express edition of a hundred prints for a toll that averaged out to gross a half 1000000 or so to me, I'd offer those limited editions and destroy the underlying file. Till that 24-hour interval, I'll do it in a way that has meaning to me and my customers. We'll just have to agree to disagree nigh signing. You say I shouldn't compare photos to other forms of fine art such as painting and then you say more recent fine art is more and more not signed. I wasn't saying sign considering it makes a photo somehow more legitimate every bit art. It is simply my stance that fine art of whatever kind has greater value to me if somehow signed. I strongly disagree with your statement that photos should "NEVER" exist signed. Yous disagree with me. No problem. How tiresome it would be if every body agreed with me. Peaceful and correct, but boring.
To the spelling guru who professed that "matte" is the only correct utilise, I refer him to either dictionary.com or Merriam-Webster online: He'll discover that "Matte" is also correctly spelled "Matt" or "Mat." If you get to various art supply stores online, you lot will run across that is is spelled all three ways. And then it'southward non only confirmed past dictionaries; it qualifies every bit "mutual utilize." To the poster who said NEVER sign prints on the front, give me a break! Near ALL artwork, photos or otherwise, is signed on the front. You can sign yours on the dorsum, simply anyone who sees it will wonder what the hell you were thinking.
Virtually ALL artwork, photos or otherwise, is signed on the front You've seen "virtually ALL" artwork? That's a adequately unusual claim. In that location'south a few people that missed that: http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/photographs-n09405/lot.104.html http://world wide web.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/photographs-n09405/lot.143.html http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/photographs-n09405/lot.145.html http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/photographs-n09405/lot.164.html http://world wide web.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/photographs-n09405/lot.181.html There'southward more, only what they would know. Their photos must be worthless if they signed them on the contrary.
Love the links to Sotheby's. Great images and interesting with the signature, edition, and stamps on the verso. I am preparing for a major solo show and establish this very informative. I also LOVE the image. Thanks for taking the time to find all the links, and share! Bravo!
I concur with John. Signing the mat is lost if the matt is changed. For my prints, I use my initials, which is also my logo. Information technology's the aforementioned every time, and I use Photoshop to place information technology IN the photo itself, in the lower correct corner, up far enough that it won't exist covered by the mat. Information technology'southward not overpowering in size or opacity (usually around 30%). If possible, I'll use role of the photo to blend it in. Such as placing it in leaf. It's our "fine art", and artist'due south always sign their work. My stance. Cheers!
0 Response to "Why Do Some Art Have a No Picture Sign"
Post a Comment