Digital BW, The Print

Sorry to have gotten off on the wrong foot.  Personally, I hate 
obsessive little threads on these groups, and now I find myself as the 
initiator of one.
So, speaking of signing I will resign from this thread after this last 
post. For your satisfaction I will also refrain from anything that 
might remotely be interpreted as
nastiness, but neither will I melt away on this issue; I think it's 
important that photographers not get the impression that there is a 
hard and fast rule that states that
one MUST sign a print a certain way.

It was gratifying to hear back from an individual who I highly respect 
in this field.  Because I have become " the heavy," in this discussion, 
I will not quote him out of context as my "ally." You'll simply have to 
trust me. In his collection he says, " we have in our museum 
collection, images with signatures on the verso, on the recto, on the 
mat, and on the over mat. We have some with signatures on the image 
itself.  Some are inscribed to others on the image itself . . . . some 
in crayon, pen and ink, ball point, paint, pastel, charcoal, and 
pencil." He begins by writing, " First let me say that the real issue 
of professionalism comes not in the signature but in the image."

Again, without my being "nasty" or condescending, let me just say that 
if you as a consumer REFUSE to collect anything signed on the matt, I 
fear that you may end up passing up some rather beautiful and valuable 
photos.

Regards, Peter G.



On Feb 24, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Jonathon Schuster wrote:

>
> This is an opinion from one on the consumer end of things.  In my
> personal collection I REFUSE to buy anything signed on the matt.  I
> also generally do not buy pieces already matted if possible, however
> that is not always the case.  All pieces should be signed prefferably
> on the front of the piece, but if not, on the reverse, never on
> anything exterior.
>
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:34:17 -0800, Peter Gorwin <pshelleyg@...> 
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Feb 24, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Stephen Petegorsky wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> According to several highly respected curators of photographs at a
>>>> major world-class
>>>> museum, "It is customary that a print either be signed front or
>>>> verso, or both if chosen. Never on the matt. Reason being is that
>>>> a matt can be transferred along with it's signature to another
>>>> work which could consequently attribute that piece to the signor".
>>>> The intellectual community is concerned with such practices.
>>>
>>> Peter - I specialize in photographing artworks, and have been 
>>> shooting
>>> in
>>> museums, collections, and galleries for 30 years.  Many of my friends
>>> and
>>> colleagues are Directors, Curators, Collections Managers, and
>>> Registrars.
>>> Not only is the above comment correct, but in having seen and shot
>>> literally
>>> thousands of photographs in various collections, I can tell you that
>>> the
>>> vast majority of them, when mounted/matted are signed on the front or
>>> back
>>> of the print.  The mat is not generally not considered to be a part 
>>> of
>>> the
>>> piece itself.
>>>
>>> I, for one, would appreciate it if you could remove some of the
>>> nastiness
>>> out of the tone of your postings.
>>
>> I will return with some definitive responses from other curators who
>> will defend my position
>> regarding my position.  Thanks for your feedback!  Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>