Signing Work

if your proud of your work, sign it. but be discreet or they won't buy it and this site won't print it. i make a signature kind of small. and/or i hide my face in it.


---Mike Savad

There are tens of thousands of the best artist in the world with their signature out there on millions and millions of prints. I have never heard of this creating much of a problem. Assuming of course you do not sign it any a way that it interferes with the image.

The signed and numbered, limited edition market is of course a good example of this. Those signatures are "hand signed" after they are printed.

What you are talking about is what is referred to as "plate signed" which goes back to the day when an artist did the original, signed the original and then had a "plate" made for printing. Some of the older s/n l/e stuff had both the plate signed and the hand signed signature. A few are still doing that but no many that I deal with are.

A lot of artist charge more to sign open edition prints. Most charge $5-$10 more, some as much as $25 more. Plate signed signature does not add any value to the print. The hand signed signature is a commodity in itself and "supposedly" adds value to the print.

You are probably 1000 times more likely to have your signature abused by signing you credit card receipt in your local restaurant then you are buy having it on you artwork.

I keep seeing this comment coming up about signing your work, and like I have said before, If I buy a print or painting I want the artists name or identification on it. The identification is part of the history, and is handy if you want a similar kind or style of work, everyone on this planet that has anything of value will have a trade mark on or a brand mark. Watch your local antiques show on tv, and listen to the comments on valuation of a print or painting, it goes something like this "If only it was signed, it would be worth so much more". I believe that if it is done discretely, it should add to the value and interest of your work. Look at it like this, you can go out and buy shoes, a handbag, a t-shirt, golf clubs, you name it and all are classified as better because they have the brand name, logo or label on.

I would go further if I was a photographer, I would also add gps coordinates.

GPS coordinates will not help to sell a piece and would probably steer people away if they were included in a signature. I use a casual script font on all my pieces, opacity down to about 50%. It can still be seen, but it doesn't distract. I have a friend whose signature overpowers her work; one gallery owner felt it was egotistical and took away from the image. She'd sign in skies, in clearings, wherever she felt like it. Horrid!

even if it was signed, the signature is still a part of the print. it's not something you handled, or gave a certificate of authenticity. so it would still not be worth anything. as far as branding goes, thats more like keeping up with the Joneses, and how the brand marketed itself. and you don't want gps coordinates. not only does -12.34545433, 34.4353345 look ugly, it identifies exactly where you were. which could get you in trouble down the line. it's bad enough its in the exif.

keep it subdued, i keep it in the lower right corner.

---Mike Savad

A question to the artists, do you not buy a painting or print if has got a signature on?. We are led to believe that good work does not have a signature on while at the same time the most expensive artworks ever purchased for the biggest part do have a signature or Initials.

Mike I agree about the GPS on the face of the print, but on the back would probably be acceptable. I don't even have a problem with the signature on the back of the print.

Another point, if you sign a print always take a photograph of the signature and keep a book with the signatures recorded.

it wouldn't help it sell. it's like mentioning what shirt you were wearing that day. and again, telling people your exact spot means the competition knows exactly where to stand.

work should be signed, but it's up the the person making the art whether their image would look good or bad with it. in real life, things should have a signature to ID the image. as a print, it would have to be done with a pen of some kind. something we can't do here.


---Mike Savad

I like to see work signed...I always look for a signature when in galleries and shops...and I agree it can't be ugly and obtrusive!

I agree with Floyd..."You are probably 1000 times more likely to have your signature abused by signing you credit card receipt in your local restaurant then you are buy having it on you artwork."

I sign everything ... whether it's straight photography or painterly digital art. But it's not my real signature, the one I use on checks and legal documents, at all. You can pretty much READ the one on my images, lol!! ; ))

. . @ Lois . . . . . ♥ . . :))