Where do you sign your prints?

[Gabriel M.A.]

I sign mine at home.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'm constantly amazed that on reading that some folks here do some thing or other, someone is willing to disparage their actions in rude and dismissive ways.
Disagreeing is one thing, but painting the action as born of ego, insecurity or other character defect is another.


"Oi," indeed.

Indeed. Gevalt.

 

[dazedgonebye]

yeah, don't project thoughts and feelings from other posts in this thread onto mine. i was only making fun of the giddy, childish pride some people have when they get a little attention. if your ego can't handle that, maybe someone should burst your bubble.

any artwork that's given or sold should be signed...on the back. whoever gets it will remember who made it, and there is no reason to sign on the front, since galleries do put cards under the print. the front should contain only the photograph.

No projection is necessary. I took your statement as "making fun of the giddy, childish pride...." Apparently just as you intended.

Now you make further assumptions as to the role of my ego. I have no bubble to burst. I've signed my prints only when specifically requested...as if that had any bearing at all.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I wish you were correct. That would reduce the price of the 50-60 Ansel Adams original prints I saw about a month ago.

Even prints as impressive as Adams', I don't like seeing the signature. It's like when you're reading a book and the author's name is at the top of every other page...it keeps reminding you that you're looking at something somebody made. As a viewer, I like just being lost in the work, the signature's just kinda distracting to me. I like the idea that the work is just itself...that it isn't subservient to its maker, that it just exists. If that makes any sense.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Even prints as impressive as Adams', I don't like seeing the signature. It's like when you're reading a book and the author's name is at the top of every other page...it keeps reminding you that you're looking at something somebody made. As a viewer, I like just being lost in the work, the signature's just kinda distracting to me. I like the idea that the work is just itself...that it isn't subservient to its maker, that it just exists. If that makes any sense.

I tend to agree, at least in the case of a print.
In the case of known and great artists though, surely the signature still increases the market value.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I tend to agree, at least in the case of a print.
In the case of known and great artists though, surely the signature still increases the market value.

Oh sure, without a doubt. Obviously, though, you can sign it on the back, and it won't affect the image, and it'll still retain its value. In my case, it's zero dollars whether I sign it or not

 

[aizan]

No projection is necessary. I took your statement as "making fun of the giddy, childish pride...." Apparently just as you intended.

let's go over your other suggestions. i'll admit to disparaging the signing of the front of a print, but not rudely or dismissively (the latter because it's redundant). i also agree with it being born of ego, since the discreet thing to do is to sign on the back (it's also better archival practice), but not with it being a mark of insecurity or a character defect. it's normal to be proud of your work, even to get a little carried away, but that's what humility is for.

 

[bmattock]

Ah, he teaches humility. Interesting concept.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Ah, he teaches humility. Interesting concept.

Um yea...I think I'm better off out of this conversation.
Life has already taught me about all the humility I can stand...and I'm sure more lessons are just around the corner. I better save myself for them.

 

[Tom A]

I am not that concerned about signed/unsigned prints. If a customer insists on it - I will sign, back or front as requested. In shows I usually sign as there are usually other people there and it identifies who took what.
I do use the copyright stamp though - dont want to see stuff being used without my say so! It is a grey area legally, but it is better than nothing.
The back always holds the number of the negative file, mainly for my own record keeping.
The whole thing is a bit redundant in my case as I rarely sell prints - trade or give away yes, but not selling.

 

[Pherdinand]

painters all sign on the front. It's not considered to be childish or ego boosting or anything- it is normal.
I don't see the difference. why should photographers sign on the back, or not sign at all???
By the way- there are plenty of books that have,on every even page, the author name.

 

[John Robertson]

I only sign silver prints!

 

[aizan]

photographs are not paintings. for one thing, the border is an integral part of the print. it protects the image area from physical and chemical damage. what's to keep an owner from having the photograph re-matted? fashions in framing come and go, and there's the possibility that the border will be cut down, or the photograph improperly matted, such as trading museum board for acid free mat board. that's why you don't want to sign on the front right under the image. cindy sherman, who needs no introduction, has got it right. i've heard of laurie simmons, though.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I just got a photo in the mail from a friend (not RFF), and she'd signed and dated it on the back.

That was a nice gift.

 

[Pherdinand]

photographs are not paintings.

yea so what?they are very similar, in the idea: they are a flat piece of art which works on the soul through the eyes.
I see nothing wrong with a signature on a painting, and i see nothing wrong with a signature on the photograph. Not on the frame, and not even IN the image.
It does not have to be red and oversized and ugly, it can be discrete in a corner...just like in a painting, yes.

I think the whole discussion is silly, because ALL pieces of art are often signed somewhere, be it music, book, statue, building (yes even buildings have some signature, some of them nicer fancier ones) and anyway, the artist has the right to do whatever he prefers in this respect so what exactly is the point to discuss it? won't change anything, anyway!

 

[Freakscene]

I'm no maven.

But I have a Jim Marshall print that is signed in scrawl "Signature?! Go f*ck yourself". I have an Ansel Adams pair of small prints on a single large sheet where one print is covered in dodge/burn diagrams in chinagraph/wax pencil and the back is covered in his handwriting but there is no singature. It is a completely unknown photo but has unusual authenticity because of external documentation and the amount of handwriting. I have a completely unsigned Winogrand. I don't have any signed prints.

But it doesn't really matter. I don't sign photos on the front. You should do whatever you want to do.

I do write my name, legibly, along with a brief description of the date and location of exposure and the date and method of printing on the back in pencil. If the print is a limited edition it also gets an edition number. This avoids confusion.

I do sometimes, when requested, write very brief notes on prints to explain where and when a photo was taken.

Sharpies and other solvent pens with a component of dye in the ink are not only not archival, but they accelerate photo fading, particularly on RC paper where organic solvents react with the polyethylene coating. For my anotated prints I wrote on the front in water based carbon ink using a 0.25 or 0.35mm Rotring technical pen. My handwriting is small. A crow quill would work just as well. Be careful to choose the right ink.

Whatever's cool with me.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I use a CD pen on the back, or the front, depends.

And if it's to a friend I add a short message.

 

[sepiareverb]

I believe it has become most common these days to sign photographs on the back in pencil. Both of my dealers consider this standard. I sign along the lower edge, with title, edition info, date. I add a line along the top to make note of how the print was toned or any other after-treatments which might be of concern should the print need conservation sometime. My last exhibit I had to sign several of the prints at the gallery, after they had been framed as they were larger than I could print here. A window was cut in the back of the framing to allow me to sign & notate the back of the print- this was near the center.

As to the distraction of a signature on the front of a print I'm with mabelsound. I'd find it less distracting if it was within the image itself like a painting, but signatures on the matte or in the border do detract for this viewer.

 

[Spider67]

Hmmmmm.......

Hmmmmm.......

I
The whole thing is a bit redundant in my case as I rarely sell prints - trade or give away yes, but not selling.

In this case I wouldlike to buy one of your release buttons crafted by yourself with your tiny signature engraved! That would give me pride! (It's not an Abrahamson button i's made by himself which every connoiseur will see at one look if he sees the little scratches in the finish)

Actually a good question.....Was wondering how to do it,or rather how it is handled when necessary.
Oh yes I once pompously signed a print I gave away (Ildford RC) and got the answer I richly deserved . On the other side the answer had the aftertaste that she found it generally ridicolous to consider photos as possible works of art.
I live in Austria where humility serves sometimes a very faded veil forpompousness it concerns such trifle things like businesscards, phone answering machines.....and photos as long as you are alive.
A friend of mine used a sticky ettiquette on the backside, a man whose mother would be of the barking species violated her copyright but the court only acknowledgedt that this guy had torn of the ettiquett which was not a proof for ill willed C-right violation.
Sign o' the times
Des

 

[Tom A]

In this case I wouldlike to buy one of your release buttons crafted by yourself with your tiny signature engraved! That would give me pride! (It's not an Abrahamson button i's made by himself which every connoiseur will see at one look if he sees the little scratches in the finish)

I dont have the ego to sign any of our products usually, but we are planning a Softrelease with Mr B's portrait on it. Mr B (short for Barnack) as all cats - has an ego big enough to handle it! well he is the inspector of products as he will jump on the table and steal the plastic bag with the Softie in it and carry it away and shred the plastic bag!