[kahboom]

I've noticed that many of you are not signing your works... I'm curious why digital artists often don't and "traditional" artists almost always do...

Is it because the low res of web-ready art means that for the sig to be read you have to make it too large vis-a-vis the rest of the painting? Is it because you know your image will be surrounded by other things like your handle and a link to your site?

Is it because you don't print your art? Because you don't plan to sell it?

Talk to me here.
_________________
Visionbin

[ceenda]

To be honest, I've always found something slightly arrogant about the concept of signing digital work as I think it's unecessary for several reasons:

1 - It's not 'physical' in the sense that you might have it stolen or try or sell it. If someone was to sign prints of their work, then that's all very well. But signing digital work just seems silly.

2 - What is the intention? To secure a work as yours? A little Photoshop manipulation will usually take care of that and render a sig useless.

3 - An artist's work is likely to appear on their website, so if your at the website of, say, Mullins or Roundeye or Mike May etc. etc. then the very fact that you're at their website means that there's no need to sign the digital work.

Anyhoo, I don't even sign my traditional stuff, so I'm not the one to talk to.

[scabuX]

It is how ceenda said, if somebody take your work , it isn't a problem to manipulate the sign. There are some other programm which i would use for this way.(to protect)

The last thing i had seen, there was a guy who had stolen the complete website - artworks - from a great artist and had said that he had made this.

But he controlls his log-dateien....

He wrote this guy...do it away or i sue you...finish..

I don't think it looks arrogant to sign his work..i wouldn't do it...anyway...who want to do it...it is okay.
_________________
The way is the goal - Not the goal the way

There are always one, who is better...

[Pinchi]

I always sign my drawings with my proper name, if I'm going to put them in the net etc. Well, usually I don't sign crappy sketches.
_________________
...

[balistic]

I'm pretty random about signing things. If it's a major work that I'm proud of, it usually gets autographed, but otherwise it just depends on whether I feel like writing my name or not.

It's so easy for people to crop a signature out of a digital work, that it doesn't really serve as an authenticator unless you bury it in the image somewhere it won't be noticed.
_________________
brian.prince|light.comp.paint

[antx]

I think it just makes it easy to find out who did a certain piece of art.

I for my part sign only major work, no speed paintings and doodles and such. Major reason for me is to see when I did them, so I can see how I improve over time.

[Socar MYLES]

It's a mistake not to sign work, even digital work. I learned this the hard way when a company printed my work without proper credit. If I had bothered to SIGN IT, it might not have mattered so much.

I don't bother to sign small web versions, though--just any large PSD's I send out to clients for print.
_________________
Dignity isn't important. It's everything.

www.gorblimey.com - art

[kahboom]

I can definitely see how signing your work with a year can help you (or anyone else for that matter) track your progress... I think I will sign my works from now on for more finished pieces, leaving speedpaints and sketches blank.

I also find that signing work is a way for me to sort of declare to myself - "I am done with this so stop monkeying around with it".
_________________
Visionbin

[Lunatique]

Signing your artwork digitally is really just tradition carried over--all the romanticism, history, habit, culture..etc that it conveys. I do it because I always sign my traditional work, and to me, it becomes part of the composition. I always wondered why some people don't do it--it's as if they don't take pride in their work and don't value their personal growth/accomplishments. (That's the feeling I get--and it's totally subjective.)

[PhatTexta]

if u were serious about protecting ur artwork use massive transparent water marks over the whole pic and save it as low resolution only keep the high res ones for u and printing

[cheney]

I used to watermark everything with my site URL back when I was doing work only intended for distribution online. It made sense then, because the images were easy to transmit, store, and host. It was just so easy for somebody to grab my art and take full credit for it, and such piracy still is extremely common. So, I watermarked my images. Anybody capable of removing my url from the image would be a skilled enough artist to entirely avoid piracy.

I have since moved away from desktop wallpapers and the like to working on media intended for print. It is far less practical to continue watermarking a 6000x9000px image, because few people can realisticly take credit for such without drawing atleast some attention. Even if they really wanted to take credit for such an image what would they do with such a thing?

But, I still put my url on my large print images. I do it a bit from habit, but I mostly do it to publish my website as my portfolio.

I do all work, at the moment, for personal projects. It does not matter that I sign my name, because the art is intended to be nothing more than art. Further more, nobody buys my posters, so it clearly matters very little what other people think.

Commercial art is an entirely different situation. If the art is a commisioned project then its best to not sign the art. If the commercial art is to be published as art with the artist as the sole creator then its probably alright. If the commercial art is to be published as work for a publication or commercial project or product then do not sign it. A matte painting, for instance, would be worthless if the artist slapped their scribble all over the corner. Image a software package cover with a large signature over the art.

A detailed example is to look at the brilliant character paintings from Blizzard for Warcraft3. The art is released as art on the website, and this art does allow the artists signature. The same or similar art located on the product packaging or on other publications does not contain a signature. The reasoning is that the packaging, box, cover, and similar art is created solely for the purpose of selling a product. This art is not created for the benefit of the artist. The art as posted online exists for the purpose of art. This online art does not really matter to the selling of the packaged game, but exists to show off the artistic talent that was poured into the game.

I rambled alot, so I hope some of this explains my point of view.
_________________
http://prettydiff.com/

[balistic]

[Anthony]

I don't sign my work because I personally find it distracting. With a background in motion graphics, I view paintings as "frames," and so don't feel my name fits in.
_________________
-Anthony
Carpe Carpem
http://www.anthonyfransella.com

[Matthew]

But still Comic book artists sign their work, don�t they? and that is commercial.
I usually sign the most of my stuff and not because I wanna showcase my name and all but simply because I need to get a better signature cause most of my writing sucks, and yeah I am getting used to my chinese characters in the signature aswell.

Later or not later that is the answer what was the question? ...hmmmm
see you
Matthew

[Harmony Steel]

I didn't used to sign my work until I sold some prints at a gallery sale one day and I had a number of buyers asking me where the signature was.. they were pretty disappointed not to find one. After that I made a point of signing any piece I release for private print sales.

I also try and include my website address somewhere small on the images for display on my website (not the printed images) so that if someone likes the pic they'll know where they can find more.
_________________
-------------------------
www.harmonysteel.com
-------------------------

[Frost]

I sign my crap all the time, unless of course it's absolute crap. I'm not too sure why I sign really, maybe it is a little arrogant and annoying, but it's become a sort of "stamp" that lets me mark it as done and move on... part of a process of evolving. I include a small year mark in my signature so that later on I can look back and self-crit and analyse my progress yearly.

You can be sure that if I were to sell my images, do freelancing, etc, I would DEFINITELY sign... and then some. It's good to show your name if you're making money off of it, as nothing better can advertise your work and talent than the work itself as reference in front of your eyes. Good marketing strategy I think, as long as it's done subtely without disrupting the image too much. As with Lunatique, it sometimes comes in handy to balance the image.

BIG *in your face* signatures which take up 25% of the canvas however... =]

[Max]

[amichaels]

Comic book artists do sign their work. Not only are the names of the writer and artist on the cover almost 100% of the time, but the artist usually signs the cover as well. It would be impractical for them to sign the sequential pages, although I have seen them sign splash pages before.

[SpiralEye]

I have a friend (traditional artist) who only signs the back of her works. She thinks it's arrogant to do otherwise. I think it needs to be there for protection. If you want to make a living at art, you need your name to protect your rights to the artwork and to drum up new business. If no one is sure who painted a picture, they darn sure can't comission a new one, eh?