To Sign Or Not To Sign?

To me personally, a signature is only worth something if it is an actual signature. Digital signatures do nothing for me and kind of defy the whole point of a signature to begin with: something authentic from the artist.

Aaron,

A signature on a check is only legitimately worth the face value of the check.

Digital signature, actually signatures on your images? It does not matter that way.

What matters is your name is the ultimate marketing tool. If your art is that great, your name goes with it.

Once an artist builds name recognition, he/she can sell future art much much faster and with more ease.

Dave

People recognize and respond to brands so I think it is a good idea to brand your work in some way. If there is no recognizable characteristic in your work, a logo or mark can be helpful to flag peoples attention that it is your work. Signatures would probably be my least favorite way to do that. I use my logo as a watermark in a lot of my images, and over time people became accustom to it. If I leave it off of my work they ask why It's not there. Some buyers specifically asked for me to add it.

Sometime it's used as a watermark

.

Other times as a signature:

Thanks for the input. I've just other photographers and painters put their autograph or signature at the bottom of their work even on prints. To me it feels more personal than commercial.
But since I have almost 200 images without it I'll probably just leave it off.

What Dean said. I used to sign by request because people want a personal connection to the artist. Some feel it lends some authenticity and added value. You don't get that with a printed signature. Also it is hard to get them proportional to the print size. They look wierd and fake if they are not. These days you can take a photo of the art with a phone and find the source in about 15 seconds so I am not concerned i can not be found. It is not something that is traditional.

#1 - these are mostly open edition prints - therefore primarily "decorative" value only.
#2 - marketing and branding - think of Ford, Chevrolet - must be some reason that is plastered on every car
#3 - IF you were marketing limited editions - you would then need to hand sign each one and perhaps even number them - and pretty much they have to pass through your hands, you pay the "up front" costs - and then either sell them personally or ship them - perhaps get them in a gallery. I think if you look at limited edition prints by 'famous' artists - you will see that there is a signature in the work - as well as a hand written signature and number in the margin.

I have a digital signature on all of my work - both photographic and digital images. Even on the watercolor images that are on the internet for sale as originals and prints.

If you use them keep them off the edge. Check the preview when you select a matted print to buy and you can see if the signature will be covered. That can be a reason they won't print it. Also never use a plain blocky font. They can reject a print for that. Anything that makes it look more like a watermark than a signature can be reason for rejection. Web addresses and business names are some reasons for rejection during inspection.
For scanned art or photographs of art watch that the signature is not cut off. That happens fairly often.

This topic has been around the block before. My position is simple: signatures--original, digital, or whatever--should not exist on the face of the work. They interfere with the composition, blocking out that portion of the image which sits behind it. I have signed work in earlier times, but abandoned the practice long ago, realizing that the "brand" simply cannot avoid a floating presence that disrupts. If you must sign the work, sign and date the back. Anyone who cares to reference the authorship of the piece is now free do do so without witnessing pompous advertising.

sign it. i know of people who got new orders because of it. i sign it faintly and enough away from the corner so a frame doesn't overlap it. but if you do it too large they won't print it. it should look nice and not dominate the scene.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Yes, sign all of your work. Do not sign the mat, that can be separated from the photo or painting. Some artist I know sign the back of their canvas. This is an option for photographs too. By signing the back your signature does not take away from the image. Be proud of what you do, only humans have the ability to use their imagination to create art. Best regards.

Every piece of art that you create should have a signature on it, even if is only a digital signature. The signature should be done in such a way that it can be read and is put on the piece so it as less obtrusive as possible but remains seen after framing.

It does not matter if it is 99 cent note card or a $9999.00 paper or canvas print.

It gives you the artist name recognition and it says to the buyer or owner that it is your image and you are proud enough to put you signature on it. It also gives a lever of authenticity and bragging rights to the buyer, even if the artist is mostly unknown.

A hand singed piece, again regardless of the size or quality of the printing process, well usually sell for more money.

All most all of the best selling artist with the major publishing houses like Somerset, Greenwich, Mill Pond and the others will have the artist signature on the print, either hand signed or a digital signature.

Go look at the best sellers list and you will see most of the art sold there has a digital signature or are what we used to call plate signed. Meaning the original work was signed and the signature showed up in the finished "printers plate" or in today's world, the digital file.

I have been asked by buyers several times over the years how do I know this is really the artist's work, there is no signature? This happens more times then you think. A lot of times when a painting is done with the intent of going strait to press, the digital file is created before the signature in put on the piece and then sent our to the dealer network.

I recommend you sign everything. I would say that nearly 85 to 90% of the signed and numbered limited edition prints I sell or have sold, have both the digital and the hand signed signature.

Somerset Fine Art introduced a new line about 5 years ago with their best selling artists, some of the best in the game. The offer them signed or unsigned. The signed ones sell for $10 more on average, but nearly all of them have the digital or plate signature on them.

My POD work is unsigned and priced accordingly. My 'limited' work is created by me and signed and priced accordingly. This is how I distinguish between the two to customers. As others have stated, never sign the matt or on the printed area itself. I'd also be very careful about signing the back, unless you're absolutely certain there isn't going to be any bleed through to the front over time.

My POD work is unsigned and priced accordingly. My 'limited' work is created by me and signed and priced accordingly. This is how I distinguish between the two to customers. As others have stated, never sign the matt or on the printed area itself. I'd also be very careful about signing the back, unless you're absolutely certain there isn't going to be any bleed through to the front over time.

Patricia Ritter is right.

However I would caution you about: "By signing the back your signature does not take away from the image. "

Nothing wrong with that but keep in mind, some serious collectors think this devaluations that piece or is meaningless. It does not authenticate the piece to the causal viewer when hanging in the buyers home or office and takes away the bragging rights to some degree. Do not underestimate those bragging rights.

All of my friends and even casual associates know I am in the art business. When ever I go to a private home for dinner, fundraiser or what ever the case, they can't wait to haul me all over the house and show me every single piece of art they have bought. And with ever piece there is a story and a "brag" of some sort, even with the unknown artists. Of course every unknown artist they are bragging about is a about to become the next Picasso according to the owner. You do not want to deprive these people from the opportunity of bragging about your art with you name staring them in the face.

Fine art I always sign on the front.
Not so fine art, like photographs, I always sign on the back.
My sculpture I always sign on the bottom.

I sign all original paintings.
I sign all reproductions that I have personally overseen for color quality.
For ink jet copies, nah......

Are you insinuating that photographs can't be fine art Tony?

Lets stay on topic.

I knew there was a reason I steer clear of these forums.

You are reading in a bias that probably does not exist. It was his option to do as he pleases.

He never said a word about whether or not photography was fine art.

Besides other people are often wrong. Steering away from the forum or trying to educate
them both will not work. I am here for the crumbs of good info that matter to me as I learn
to market my art. That has been rewarding.

Dave

I asked a simply question based on a comment and not to you David. You're also making some wild assumptions. Perhaps you should follow your earlier advice.

Kenneth, it depends where you sign it!
I've been around the block as well, and half of my clients wouldn't pay my prices without my signature.
EDIT after closing.....
Go take a look at my paintings and see if you can find my signature...it is there...it is always there....it's like a game of "where's Waldo"

:)

With all due respect everbody, who signs the face of their image, I have actually wrestled with signatures over the years. Invariably, I found myself wiping out a signature, because it interfered with that portion of the image and composition. The turth is, in my younger years I signed paintings with thick knife-applied texture--so I too once sensed its significance. I soon learned that a signature appeared more as a "stamp-on," irrevelant to the overall visual effect. Hence, I sign and date boldly the back of canvases (and often drawings)--this allows for clear identification for those interested to reference, while the date fixes a time table so that I know when it is due to be varnished (typically 6 to 9 months upon completion). To expose my name to the world as a written adverstisement or testament has become less meaningful.

David Bowman4 Hours Ago
"Are you insinuating that photographs can't be fine art Tony?"

Don't kill the messenger. I play with words all the time David. Why insinuate when I can be direct?

Do you think a urinal on the wall is fine art?

Everyone knows that photographers are a lower life form but not near as low as gallery owners! lol

This is getting a bit heated. Of course photographers can be considered fine art. I create many photography pieces that are fine art. ART is always subjective anyway.