To sign or not to sign ?
At our recent exhibition in Limoges I noticed that certain photographers had signed their work discretely, some had not. I raised the question with a few other members and opinions differed as you might expect.
Several said absolutely not - exhibition prints should not be signed, one even said he would not consider buying a signed (ie defaced in his view) print. Others said painters normally sign their work, why not photographers.
What do you think ?
Several said absolutely not - exhibition prints should not be signed, one even said he would not consider buying a signed (ie defaced in his view) print. Others said painters normally sign their work, why not photographers.
What do you think ?
As an amateur I would not do so because I would not then be able to enter the photograph in a competition. I have occasionally sold pictures at an Exhibition but again these are identified by a label on the back. I do not think there needs to be hard and fast rules other than competitions where the judge should not know the identity of the photographer. If a professional is regularly displaying photographs and selling in a gallery, I cannot see why a signature could not be included as artists do. Of course, it would be necessary to ensure that this was done discreetly and not detract from the overall picture.
Dave
Dave
