Hi--
I know it's a tradition for photographers selling matted prints to sign the mattes lightly in pencil. But what about prints that aren't in mattes? Metal prints, canvas prints, and so on. I wonder about following the tradition of print makers over the years (since that's in essence what we are) and signing the print inside the frame of the image. Right in the file, just as print makers would sign on the plate and early photographers would on their glass plates or negatives. Think Durer. A good logo or mark that would be a part of the printed image. This seems an historically proper solution to the problem of signing un-matted images. Of course, put a certificate of authenticity on the back (how: glue, paste, tape? I'm new at this) and hand sign it there if you like. Personally, my handwriting and signature are so horrid they make people ill. Putting a facsimile of my signature, or even a Photoshop generated one in the print itself is much more satisfying to me.
At the bare minimum, I think the artist's name should be visible from the front if only for name recognition and marketing purposes.
Thoughts?
--David
Replies
Signing digitally on the file prior to printing adds no value to the print compared to a print that is actually hand signed which adds to it's value.
Matted prints traditionally are signed on the mat in pencil. I don't recommend offering loose (non matted) prints though some photographers do it successfully. They can either be signed on the front of the print or en verso, which means signed on the back. The COA should be included with every print and cover what ever way you choose to present them.
Larry Berman
Larry--
Solid reasoning based on experience I'm sure. Got to have a COA and maybe a signature on the back; but having the artist's name or mark on the front of the work, along with its title, wouldn't do any harm, if it were either discreet or somehow unique would it? "Is that an original Berman?' she asked coquettishly as she peeked into his bedroom. 'Why yes, yes it is. I collect them you know.'
And painters have never seemed to worry that their signatures would interfere with the art.
Just my thoughts, ready to be attacked as sexist. Ah, those days so long ago in my youth, reading Playboy for the interviews.
--David
The only thing that makes it an original is the signature. Otherwise it can easily be a reproduction.
Larry Berman
Sure, like you say, the signature is on the matte or on the back when it cant be on the front for practical purposes.
Hi Everyone--
More questions about signatures and Certificates of Authentication.
What info should be on a certificate of authentication? Artist's name, signature, date created, title, etc. What else? How do you attach it to the back of a print - glue, paste, tape, packing tape? If you sign the back of a print, how do you prevent damage to the front, either thru pen pressure or from the chemicals of the ink leaching thru the paper and discoloring it?
Have you seen many instances of people buying prints at a higher prices with an actual signature, or with a COA, than they would without one? That seems like something that would affect investment value, not retail value. Are there many people who buy at art fairs with investment value in mind? Are you or your clients concerned that someone might buy one of your prints, photograph it, and make and sell forgeries?
Thanks for all the help with my questions. The answers may seem clear and obvious to you, but they aren't to me.
David--