Galamndr@aol.com
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:02:36 -0500 (EST)
As a master printer working in the "printmaking world" for the last 10 years,
I know of no printers who sign the work they have printed for another artist.
This may have been a common practice at one time, but it is not in the
contemporary print world. The printer is usually given credit in the
documentation, and sometimes (but certainly not always) the printer's personal
blindstamp, or "chop", is added next to the chop of the publisher or workshop
where the piece was printed. There are no hard and fast rules, however. In
fact, some artists I have worked with don't want a chop on their prints, let
alone a signature on the front, since this can be visually annoying,
particularly on a small print. What I usually do in that case is to have the
artist sign on the back and I use a rubber stamp of my chop which I stamp in
archival ink on the back of the print.
I do collaborative print projects and editioning for artists in my studio
(including photogravure!) and I have found that the public is generally
clueless about the division of labor in printmaking and that there is
suspicion about the authenticity of an artwork when the fact that an artist
did not do the entire thing themselves is revealed. I think this is baggage
left over from the Abstract Expressionist notion that truth and authenticity
in art comes only from a mark made directly by the artist's hand. I do my part
to educate people to the fact that through history, artists like DaVinci and
Michaelangelo had workshops full of assistants who would help make the
"master's" work. This is certainly true today, from the painter who employs
assistants to a sculpture foundry producing various artist's work in multiples
to photographers who use a printer's services. (on related tangent, I have
found that there is also widespread confusion among the public about the
numbering of prints in an edition. i.e. that number one of an edition was the
first print pulled and that it is therefore somehow better than number 10 or
20.)
I disagree with the modest proposal. I certainly like to get credit as the
printer where credit is due, but in general I think the fewer signatures on an
artwork the better. We may be awesome printers whithout whom the artist is
nothing, but let's not let our egos get in the way. I like the idea of a chop
mark, but I think chops should be small and visually unobtrusive. I know chops
are common among printmakers, but do photographers use 'em?
There is a company in NYC that makes blindstamps: Samuel H. Moss
(212)239-6677.
Jonathan Higgins
Galamander Press
In a message dated 99-02-22 12:09:02 EST, you write:
<< nition for the work of the printer as well as the artist making the plate.
This is recognized by having the printer sign the print with the abbreviation
of "imp." following the signature. Thus a George Bellows lithograph might be
signed George Bellows on the left and Bolton Brown imp. on the right. The
imp.
stands for "impress."
In the formal sense in the printmaking world if the print is not signed with
an
imp. one assumes that the print was pulled by the artist. Since this is not
the
case in photography, I think that if the print were made by the artist it
should be signed on the left >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:53