Digital BW, The Print

Peter Gorwin <pshelleyg@c...> wrote:

> Sounds to me like you don't go to enough galleries.  Get 
educated.

Sounds to me like Arlene does and is. 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. 

In the same way a painter signs their painting, the photograph is 
the work of art, not the matt that showcases it.

If a master had signed a matt, his or her action does not set 
precendence for proper credit attribution. Moreover, who's to 
know whether or not the actual print itself had been signed. In 
any event, if a matt IS signed, it then becomes a part of the 
finished piece, no matter what future ruin the matt may fall into.

Arlene is also correct in advising that prints be signed in pencil. 
And it is preferred by curators. No, not so it can be erased, rather 
because graphite is safe, and when used properly on the back 
side of the print, will not show or leach through.

For every person creating a print, there will be an equal number 
of opinions about what is the correct way to sign and impart 
information. But there are certain methodologies that should be 
adhered to, matt signing NOT being one of them.

John Lewis