Is it considered ok to sell a print with a small watermark in the corner.
Or should you just sign the back of the print ?
Or should you just sign the mate in the right hand corner.?
Thanks
Joe Parisi Marco Island Fl.
Much as a painter signs his artwork, photos creatively taken are also artwork. I have sold with a small signature on the print in the lower right. Then I stamp my information n the back. I guess the choice to sign or watermark is individual preference.?
vet4scuba wrote:
Is it considered ok to sell a print with a small watermark in the corner.
Or should you just sign the back of the print ?
Or should you just sign the mate in the right hand corner.?
Thanks
Joe Parisi Marco Island Fl.
It varies depending on the type of print. If you're selling a matted art print, it's de rigueur to sign the mat at the lower right corner of the image. If you're selling a framed print without mat it's more common to sign on the image itself. Those methods are both based on fine art traditions.
In this digital age, I personally use a Photoshop brush to put my logo (a stylized signature) in the lower right corner. I also put a sticker of my logo and contact information in the center back of the backing.
RDKirk wrote:
If you're selling a matted art print, it's de rigueur to sign the mat at the lower right corner of the image.
WRONG.!
One never signs the mat. The mat can be removed for various reasons. Where would that leave the buyer? With an unsigned print...which would have less or no value. Ever notice the artists sign the canvas....and not the frame? I've been selling images, drawings, paintings, watercolors and photographs for almost 5 decades. I have never, nor any of my colleagues ever signed a mat or frame.
One never signs the mat. The mat can be removed for various reasons. Where would that leave the buyer? With an unsigned print...which would have less or no value. Ever notice the artists sign the canvas....and not the frame? I've been selling images, drawings, paintings, watercolors and photographs for almost 5 decades. I have never, nor any of my colleagues ever signed a mat or frame.
That is my understanding to and is how I sell my prints. The photograph is my work, not the matte...why would I want to sign the matte?
All my prints (except for Holiday cards) have a small watermark in the lower right. If it is matted, then the matt is also signed with a copyright symbol and year.
Holiday cards have the copyright info on the back.
One never signs the mat. The mat can be removed for various reasons. Where would that leave the buyer? With an unsigned print...which would have less or no value. Ever notice the artists sign the canvas....and not the frame? I've been selling images, drawings, paintings, watercolors and photographs for almost 5 decades. I have never, nor any of my colleagues ever signed a mat or frame.
Well, that just shows that there is differing experience! I've only been doing it for four decades, but my observation and experience is different. In my experience, the signature goes on the mat because signing the artwork itself has not been considered archival by the Library of Congress (unless done lightly in pencil).
As for it being so emphatically "WRONG!" I'll only quote GB Shaw, "Forgive him. He is a bararbian. He thinks the customs and traditions of his tribe are the laws of nature."
I have also seen photos where the mat is signed. The photographers probably did this because they want the mat to convey with the photograph. If you remove the mat then you might risk removing an important element of the photograph that the photographer intended to keep in place. Also, some people like the mat to be signed.
If you are selling a small volume of prints, you could give the customer the option of where you should sign.
RDKirk wrote:
Well, that just shows that there is differing experience! I've only been doing it for four decades, but my observation and experience is different. In my experience, the signature goes on the mat because signing the artwork itself has not been considered archival by the Library of Congress (unless done lightly in pencil).
As for it being so emphatically "WRONG!" I'll only quote GB Shaw, "Forgive him. He is a bararbian. He thinks the customs and traditions of his tribe are the laws of nature."
I guess you've been doing it WRONG for 40 years. I guess that's the difference between you and Rhyder. I'll just use the same quote for your efforts "Forgive him. He is a bararbian. He thinks the customs and traditions of his tribe are the laws of nature."
I've been dealing with artists of all kinds on both coasts for many years and I've yet to see one that signed a mat. But I HAVE seen it done at "Art Fairs" where the amateurs have their tents. I have quite a collection of signed prints, not one of them were signed anywhere but the print. Some sign on the back, some on the front, but never on the mat. If I were to come across a print signed on the mat I would immediately suspect a fraud. If you made your assertions at a museum or a reputable gallery, they would "be kind to you and give you a little salt". It an very old european quote that means someone's elevator isn't stopping on all the floors.
BTW. Lithographs and etchings are "signed lightly in pencil" many photos are signed with an acid free ink.
I guess you've been doing it WRONG for 40 years. I guess that's the difference between you and Rhyder. I'll just use the same quote for your efforts "Forgive him. He is a bararbian. He thinks the customs and traditions of his tribe are the laws of nature."
The difference is that I don't and wouldn't have declared either him or you "WRONG!"--you've just had different experiences.
Osai wrote:
I've been dealing with artists of all kinds on both coasts for many years and I've yet to see one that signed a mat. But I HAVE seen it done at "Art Fairs" where the amateurs have their tents.
