 |
|
|
|
|
Signing art is not a new thing; in fact it's been around as long as art itself. Creators sign their work for many reasons: to identify themselves as the creator, to get recognition or to declare the work finished. The Greeks signed their pots, Picasso's signature has become as famous as his art and then you have the likes of Marcel Duchamp who famously signed his editions in order to 'devalue' them.
Protect & survive
But does it really matter whether you sign your work at all? Essentially yes, if you are concerned about protecting your copyright. For this reason alone, it's good practice to keep records and evidence of your artistic creations. Not only will this prove helpful if your copyright is infringed but also act as a warning to deter others from exploiting your work.
Keeping it real
When signing your name, the convention is to use the same
|
|
medium that you are working in. But then take Australian artist Pro Hart, who became so concerned about forgeries of his work that he developed a method of tagging each of his pictures with a trace of his own DNA signature... taken with a swab from the inside of his cheek! If saliva isn’t your bag then you will be happy to know that you can simply mark your work with the international © symbol followed by your full name and date of creation. This will make anyone who wishes to copy your work clearly aware that copyright protection is claimed.
In the picture
So, there's no real right or wrong to how you sign your name, just as long as it's legible. Keep the artistic scrawl for the front of your work but then write your full name on the back or somewhere where it doesn't detract from the composition, for instance this could be on the original or a frame or mount to which the work is attached.
|
|
|
