Muldwych said:
I'm with you on that one Alex, for the main reason that they stand out like dogs balls and detract from the image.
-
Time to vote for April Image of the Month (IotM). All MobiTog members are eligible to vote. Voting ends May 7.
To sign or not to sign, that is the question
- Thread starter AlyZen Moonshadow
- Start date
I'm with you on that one Alex, for the main reason that they stand out like dogs balls and detract from the image.
Personally, I think my iPhone Art is heading more towards Art than Photography. I've been to numerous Art galleries and seen both professional and amateur artworks on display. In most cases, if the artwork is framed behind glass, the artist signs on the matboard or mountboard in the bottom right corner; if it is a limited edition print, the number will also be listed. If the artwork is displayed on canvas, it will be signed on the canvas itself. Sometimes the signature is on the bottom right corner, as per tradition, however it can also be anywhere on the artwork itself.
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about whether to sign an iPhoneograph image or not. I think it's up to the artist. The gallery in question in my original query probably wanted some uniformity, but it should have foreseen that some artists might sign their works and others not, and stipulated that all work submitted must NOT be signed, at the very start of the submission process. Certainly NOT after the exhibition had already started and was 3 days in?! IMHO it was not a professional move on the gallery's part; imagine if I were a famous iPhone Artist and had invited a hundred guests to the exhibition, what would the impact have been then?!
I think I'll continue to make my own rules and continue to sign my work digitally. Not so much for copyright issues, but as an identifying mark, and to deter others from using my work without giving due credit.
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about whether to sign an iPhoneograph image or not. I think it's up to the artist. The gallery in question in my original query probably wanted some uniformity, but it should have foreseen that some artists might sign their works and others not, and stipulated that all work submitted must NOT be signed, at the very start of the submission process. Certainly NOT after the exhibition had already started and was 3 days in?! IMHO it was not a professional move on the gallery's part; imagine if I were a famous iPhone Artist and had invited a hundred guests to the exhibition, what would the impact have been then?!
I think I'll continue to make my own rules and continue to sign my work digitally. Not so much for copyright issues, but as an identifying mark, and to deter others from using my work without giving due credit.
Just remembered a famous event that should serve to drive my point home. I was involved in Ireland's first Flat Lake Festival for the Arts back in 2007. Back then, you could get in for free if you volunteered for duties (I was an Events Guide and Grounds Sweeper :-P!), and also if you donated an original artwork, signed ONLY ON THE BACK. The premise was that the artist Damien Hirst, a personal friend of the Allens of Hilton House who were the organisers of the event, had donated one of his artworks to the event, to be auctioned off to raise funds for the next Flat Lake Festival. He had signed the work on the back, or somewhere very discreet. Over 100 artworks were submitted for the auction, some were canvasses, some were sculptures. No one knew which was the Hirst, except the Allens.
It was surprising to see people bidding for the obvious Hirst lookalikes, with the hopes of scoring an original famous piece of art. A pipe, for example, all interestingly dented and encrusted, went for over €1000 (it was subsequently withdrawn when it turned out to contain asbestos!) A large, very convincing Hirst lookalike fetched over €4000. Pieces were going from anywhere between €50-€5000. Even my own hastily put together splash of acrylic on canvas fetched a modest €150. So, imagine everyone's surprise when at the end of the auction, a medium-sized canvas was brought out, with the famous Hirst signature scrawled on the back, and slowly turned round so the front could face the audience. It bore hardly any resemblance to Hirst's famous works, it could have been done by any of the Allens's young children. It fetched €450 at auction.
The real fireworks came when the Hirst was put up for auction again, with the consent of the winning bidder. Now that the work had been identified as a Hirst, a bidding war ensued. After about 15 minutes, the bids were between two art gallery owners from Dublin. The final, winning bid for the signed-at-the-back Damien Hirst?
€90,000.
It was surprising to see people bidding for the obvious Hirst lookalikes, with the hopes of scoring an original famous piece of art. A pipe, for example, all interestingly dented and encrusted, went for over €1000 (it was subsequently withdrawn when it turned out to contain asbestos!) A large, very convincing Hirst lookalike fetched over €4000. Pieces were going from anywhere between €50-€5000. Even my own hastily put together splash of acrylic on canvas fetched a modest €150. So, imagine everyone's surprise when at the end of the auction, a medium-sized canvas was brought out, with the famous Hirst signature scrawled on the back, and slowly turned round so the front could face the audience. It bore hardly any resemblance to Hirst's famous works, it could have been done by any of the Allens's young children. It fetched €450 at auction.
The real fireworks came when the Hirst was put up for auction again, with the consent of the winning bidder. Now that the work had been identified as a Hirst, a bidding war ensued. After about 15 minutes, the bids were between two art gallery owners from Dublin. The final, winning bid for the signed-at-the-back Damien Hirst?
€90,000.