Do you sign your photographs or mats?
MJBROWN
Hi,
I was curious if most photographers exhibiting their work sign their actual
prints or sign the mat board.
Mike
DKrigsman
Neither. I was taught, and believe, that as fine a print as you can make- if
it is not in an edition which would preclude you from making more copies- you
should not sign anything. Printers who work (litho, engraving...) in other
forms almost never sign anything that is not in an edition. Once an edition is
completed, they destroy the plates, an equivalent to our negatives.
If anything you should put your name on the back of the print.
John G. Walter
This is really a matter of personal style. I don't think it would really
have anything to do with it being an edition. Besides, I am not sure what
an edition actually is and means. (that should open up a lot of
debate...<g>..)
Many artists (painters) sell their work in editions. I am not sure if this
was the initial intent, but it is commonly thought to increase the value of
the work. The problem with this is that if you see an edition of say 150
prints of a subject, how is it possible then to see the same subject
reproduced in a book or a magazine?
I am not opposed to editioning photographic prints (or paintings), but
there must be some understanding of what this means. A recent article in
Darkroom Techniques magazine (Vestal I think) addressed this issue quite
well.
As for simply signing either the print or matte, I see no reason whatsoever
to sign the matte and all work should be identified on the reverse
regardless of what is on the front.
My preference would be to sign a white border in a subtle manner including
the date.
DKrigsman <dkri...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199803311239...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
DKrigsman
Just to address some issues:
An edition is a set number of prints made from the original matrix (negative,
printing plate etc..) .
If the image is later reproduced in a magazine or a book, it is not in the
same medium really, almost certainly a copy of a copy, and then of course, the
quality would be lessened.
Painters can't sell there work in editions because there is only one
original of a painting. I have seen at art fairs painters that have had their
art copied and offset color lithographs produced commercially. Im not too
impressed with this.
John G. Walter
To elaborate on this, I would have to say that in photography there is no
"original" work as there is in say, a watercolor. You have a negative or a
transparency and now perhaps a digital file. The art is, in fact, realized
in the method of reproduction.
With this in mind, there can be editioned works in photography in simple
photographic prints as well as high quality lithographic printing. The
concept of destroying the negative to validate the edition doesn't really
make any sense. As an example, let's take a typical landscape on a B&W
negative. The photographer may have, over a period of time, produced a
variety of prints for display, or as mechanicals for reproduction in books
or magazines. Additionally, he/she could produce an "edition" of a set
(say 75) number of high quality platinum prints for sale as works of art.
Destroying the negative would make no sense at all and would not add or
subtract from the supposed value of these prints. They would stand on
their own as a realization of the original work.
Further "editions" could theoretically be produced later and, in fact, be
very similar to the previous edition. There is substantial validity to the
separate editions as each having their own merit. Obviously, the
reproductive process must have some standard of art or craftsmanship of its
own to merit this consideration. Simply running off machine Type C prints
as you need them would not justify this.
As for the painter that is producing copies of their work, this is common
practice. As an economic requirement, an artist must do this to generate
adequate income from his work. Not everybody is in the market for an
"original" work, and copies are priced accordingly. Personally, I have
purchase many original watercolors, and have never been much interested in
"prints". This is not really because copies are generally inferior,
because I have seen some good ones. Recently I was planning on purchasing
an original watercolor from a favorite artist. I didn't really like what
he was showing at the time, but a print of a particularly nice subject was
appealing. The original was no longer available. An editioned print was
made digitally on an IRIS printer. It was absolutely beautiful. It hangs
on my living room wall.
DKrigsman <dkri...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199804012307...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
DKrigsman
JG Walter makes some very interesting points, but I guess Im not really done
with this topic yet.
An edition of prints is worth more once collectors are assured that no more
images can be made from the same negative or plate.
Personally I cant imagine that Id ever destroy any of my negatives, even though
it would free up a lot of room in my apartment, but I certainly wouldn't want
anyone prinying from them after I'm gone.
As for IRIS prints and the ease they and other forms of digitial output now
present , I have a feeling that they will certainly change the way we look at
prints. Lts just not froget that nothing is truly ricjer then a platinum print.
Now if I could only afford the platinim.....
John G. Walter
DKrigsman <dkri...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199804031156...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> An edition of prints is worth more once collectors are assured that no
more
> images can be made from the same negative or plate.
I think this is a popular misconception amongst the art buying public.
An edition is simply that. An edition (or a group of prints) made in a
specific manner and preferably at the same time, although many artists
produce prints as they need them. There can be all sorts of other prints
produced from the same image such as "artist's proofs", litho
reproductions, samples, etc. In fact, artist's proofs can have an even
higher perceived value than the edition that follows since these were
generated prior to the edition.
Generally the later the particularly print is in the edition, the higher
the selling price will be as the artist knows that he has only limited
future income from the edition. This doesn't mean that the "value" of the
print will be higher. It is a risky proposition to expect the value of a
particular work to rise above cost of purchase from the artist. This is
true even among "famous" artists. A good practice would be to buy a
particular work "because you like it", but NOT because you think it is a
good investment. It probably is not.
Additionally, editions are being produced today from negatives of famous,
but dead photographers. Which is more valuable? One of 500 prints from an
Ansel Adams negative, printed by someone else (unsigned of course) or an
also unsigned print of the same negative (non-editioned) printed by Adams
himself. Who knows????
DCJPhtgrfy
mjb...@aol.com (MJBROWN) wrote:
>I was curious if most photographers exhibiting their work sign their >actual
>prints or sign the mat board.
That's entirely up to you. Which is more representative of you? Which is the
item for which you take credit? Which would you prefer to have you signature
should the two become separated?
DCJ
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SPAMMERS, send SPAM to:
tos...@aol.com
pres...@whitehouse.gov
abuse@localhost
root@localhost
ro...@127.0.0.1
ab...@127.0.0.1
rhu...@fcc.gov
jqu...@fcc.gov
sn...@fcc.gov
rch...@fcc.gov
sync@localhost
DAVIDP111
I find the signed photographs more valuable and my customers find the personal
signature a 'guarantee' the photographer is satisfied with the print enough to
put his name to it.
Recently I purchased an 11x14 photo signed by the photographer, George Hurrell
which he took of actress, Joan Crawford, who had autographed the photograph,
also.
I find both signatures on the photograph make it an exceptional addition to my
collection and I treasure Hurrell's personal touch.
Bryan Remer
FWIW, Ansel Adams signed on the matte. The Carmel, CA, gallery I supply
requires I sign on the matte. Check out some professional fine art
photo exhibits or art galleries and see where the folks sign. And
certainly ask the curator for a recommendation.