Digital Signatures on Prints

[clay harmon]

Does this question strike anyone else as humorous/ironic? IOW, digital printers are plenty good for content, but somehow cheap and inauthentic for the signature?

[photographs42]

Historically, edition prints (photographs, etchings, lithographs, etc.) have been hand signed in PENCIL by the artist. The importance of using a pencil rather than a pen and ink is because the ink of a pen can be very closely matched by a printer, but a pencil signature cannot.

As Bruce correctly points out, your signature is your seal of approval. A signature that is part of a mechanically reproduced print is rather meaningless.

Jerome

[Jim Jones]

Mechanically reproduced signatures aren't new. The Hiroshi Yoshida woodblock prints I bought in Japan in 1967 were titled and signed in what seems to be graphite at a casual look. They were posthumously printed, and signed with an additional woodblock printing. Perhaps even the image blocks were freshly cut from original designs. Although esthetically pleasing, these posthumous prints are worth a fraction of the value of prints actually signed by Yoshida. Images bought only for the pleasure of their appearance do not need signatures of any kind. However, an artist who wants maximum value for the buyer will sign each print. Always personally signing each print will also enhance the integrity of the artist. A photographer with no interest in fame or fortune can ignore signatures.

[paulr]

I agree with Tim that signatures on the front of a print are tacky. It was the norm 70 years ago, when photographers were strongly influenced by a world that thought art=painting. But not anymore. At least not outside the art fair and gallery/frameshop world.

There's a lot of precedent for mechanically produced signatures, signature stamps being applied by an authorized agent, etc... but i tend to agree with those who don't like it in this case. If a print is being sold as original art and not a reproduction, i like to think the artist has at least seen it. If nothing else the signature affirms that the print meets your standards.

And if you sign it by hand, you can sign it on the back, where the signature belongs.

[Michael Gordon]

And if you sign it by hand, you can sign it on the back, where the signature belongs.

And this is in which regulation book, Paul?

[paulr]

And this is in which regulation book, Paul?

no regulation book. just a question of taste. and what camp you want to belong to.

[Ben Crane]

I agree with Tim that signatures on the front of a print are tacky. It was the norm 70 years ago, when photographers were strongly influenced by a world that thought art=painting. But not anymore. At least not outside the art fair and gallery/frameshop world.

I disagree with signatures of the front being associated with photographers who want to make their work look like paintings and and sell them at frame shops and art fairs. Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Paul Caponigro, Ruth Bernhard, John Sexton, Arnold Newman, and many others all sign or signed their work on the front. If you prefer to sign on the back then that is your choice, but beware of whose prints you are calling tacky.

[paulr]

... but beware of whose prints you are calling tacky.

it's a question of era. standards change. if i showed up at work dressed the way Rembrandt dressed, i might get a talking to. And yes, I know that people like sexton and caponigro are still alive, but they are not considered contemporary artists. they are famous for bodies of work they created decades ago.

anyway, no one cares what I think is tacky. the question is what does your your market think is tacky. if the question is irrelevent to you, or if you know the people you sell to like things done the way you do it, then you have no worries.

but if you'd like to get taken more seriously than you currently do, one of many things to look at is your presentation. it helps to be aware of the different messages you send with seemingly minor details.

you probably don't want to be the guy strolling through the bronx wearing a red sox hat, because you happen to like the color. you'll get little sympathy from the paramedics.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

LOL...signatures in a front are tacky, huh?........ I guess they might look tacky on an ink jet print, but somehow it does not seem to happen with more traditional work. Could it be because of the pride one takes in making a print?....nahh....

[paulr]

i don't know. i haven't stumbled onto one on an inkjet print. in fact the only times i ever see signatures on the fronts of any photographs, it's either vintage work or decorative work.

and i do happen to think it looks tacky, but that's beside the point.