Signing/autographing pieces; yay or nay? No doubt this is an old debate stretching back as far as who knows and by no means intend to offend anyone who does practice this convention. I for the most part, do not, in the traditional sense, sign anything I create. At the very least, I may sport a monogram or somewhere obscurely, write in very minute lettering my last name and date (I do however add the necessary artist information on the back of a piece for archival purposes).
Perhaps it's an artistic decision to preserve the true aesthetic nature of a piece and not mar it with the conceit of a signature. Or perhaps an act of humility, separating the art from the artist to allow the art to speak for itself? Or conversely, an act of arrogance, to note that only those worthy enough will get the blessing of an autograph?
Of course wilh all artistic decisions, it always comes down to the artist and at no point do I have the authority to take that choice away from any fellow artists. But at some point do signatures stop being a simple acknowledgement of pride to one's work, and become a paranoid, self-indulgent scramble to preserve ownership of everything created from little napkin sketches to ambitious finished pieces?
I digress here slightly, and while this somewhat differs from a signature, I present the habit I see used in a lot of contemporary photography as my point of criticism; the vehement practice of branding photographs with everything from an artist's logo, name, to email addresses. I can understand this use with the intention for portfolio or clientele purposes, but my gut reaction remains the same. I may be alone on this, but everytime I see a photographer's name or logo on a piece, I immediately stop looking at the object, person, or scene depicted and lock my attention to the branding. Instead of enjoying the craft and artistry of the composition, or imagining the context in which it took the photographer to get the shot, and more importantly "do I hire this photographer for their skills?", here I am thinking about the logo, the placement, the font used; everything but the photo itself...
For better-or-worse, I particularly lean on the side of not signing my pieces. By-no-means am I vigilant in this practice and sure I've been a hypocrite to my very opinion. In my criticism to the opposite, it is completely and merely that; my opinion. I bode no personal insult, harm, or condemn anyone for their artistic decisions.
In all fairness, I am curious to what motivates other artists to sign their pieces and to what degree? Do you do a full signature or employ a monogram of sorts? Do you cleverly hide it or present it proudly as much a part of the piece as the piece itself? I call to even non-artists; as participants in the audience, do you prefer seeing one practice over the other or does it even cross your mind?
Weigh in if you may, or not; you can just as well chalk up my rant as the meanderings of a pretentious artist with too many thoughts floating in their head :P Either way I would love to hear thoughts from either side . Enjoy!!
**END RANT**
