Why do artists do not sign their work?

[K-Maler]

Сообщение от Allena

some wiseacre, doubted Provenance, suffer such a picture, for example, Grabar. And there it will please: Signature made much later than most paintings. And the conclusion is ...

This story will probably be some original watercolors, for example, M.Time-Block. She wrote a lot of them, at different times of life, hide it - Block. Then, when it "everything was possible," she was asked to sign everything, and when it did not become a signature set others. It was after this, when it became clear that ona_ Block, and it began to forge ...

[Amateur]

Сообщение от K-Maler

but when it did not become a signature put other.

But it is already - barbarism against the need to protest this, although it is not damage, but damage to works of art. Even if you correctly identified the author, then do a paper application, where available and reasonably convincingly explained to all their arguments, and not a substitute for the author. It is understandable why it is done. Although the "Not For Sale inspiration," but signed "manuscript" can be resold noticeably more expensive.

By the way, at some online auction saw: "picture of the artist (forgot name), fitted with a fake signature of N. Sheluto." And laughter, and sin.

[SAH]

Сообщение от Amateur

By the way, at some online auction saw: "picture of the artist (forgot name), fitted with a fake signature of N. Sheluto." And laughter, and sin.

Perhaps you have seen here http://dacha.com.ua/cherdak.php?doit...=ru&page=1 They are here like the sense of text available: Landscape. Watercolor Krihatskogo, one of the brightest representatives of South-Ukrainian group of artists. In any case, since it is signed, although the signature is controversial. But in any case, work quite strong. : rolleyes:

[DSF]

I often do not put the signature, simply because I do not find place for it. Signature - a color stain, which can disrupt the existing system. Theoretically, the signature must be planned in advance, in practice it is not always possible.

[vyadem]

Once we've gone for "signatures", then I have a question:
who belongs to both signatures are not from the front side, and on the back?
I know many people who immediately raises the question of "why it was impossible to leave the autograph on the work itself? ... The back and I can write": cool:

[Тютчев]

Сообщение от DSF

I often do not put a signature, simply because I do not find place for it. Signature - a color stain, which can disrupt the existing system. Theoretically, the signature must be planned in advance, in practice it is not always possible.

        Thank you DSF for the response of the artist! Pictorial harmony, a system of color - is the main signature of the artist. If an artist is present, that is, has a distinct artistic personality, then why did he sign? An artist should not care about casualties collectors, he must do! Although there are examples of reasonable compromise. For example, the artist Krymov Nikolai Petrovich always set a modest signature on his work, somewhere in the corners, a pencil, but so that they could read. Or did not set at all. Of course, it is possible that the artist puts his signature is often unaware of how, why and how he does it. There are also examples and informed (to some extent) the use of a signature as a carrier of some kind of additional information to address the complex behavioral problems of the artist. I mean feature Konstantin Andreevich Somov always indicate the date of creation of each of his works, and it absolutely does not contradict the fact that Somov very meticulously kept a diary, recording the important details. Perhaps the signature could tell a lot about the identity of the master thoughtful researcher. Identify as a kind of dependence of the size, brightness, presence or absence of a signature on the degree of artistic talent is not possible. Also this is not possible to identify patterns and build on this consistent theory of genius. The artist, however like any other man, is a mystery. So any attempt such as those being undertaken by Cesare Lombroso, are doomed to fail (or are scientific hypotheses until, until replaced by new ones). Man is unknowable, because he is the image and likeness of God.

[Вивьен]

If the original signature was affixed after the completion of writing work (out of modesty, apparent nedopisannosti so as not to distort the "landscape", just so), and the work of buying, the buyer could easily arrange a signature on the back, or fresh sign in the picture with an inscription on the back side of the signature is added by me (the author) in a certain year. I do not think that this may be crucial, which is a signatory to, most importantly, what it is.

[dedulya37]

Сообщение от vyadem

who is as true to the signature is not on the front side, and on the back?
I know many people who immediately raises the question of "why it was impossible to leave the autograph on the work itself? ... The back and I can write

These many people need to ask this question to the artist himself, and not to those who now shows or offers. Typically, these people belong to the category "yasamnehuzhenarisuyu.
So where, in fact, offering a picture knows why there are no captions?
Signature become valued relatively recently, when it was the commercialization of art and the market has got a lot of works.
By and large signature requirement came from the west, where the foreign gallery owners to sign the proof of the authenticity of the brand and began to demand to sign the back of the work (in the absence of the author's signature), and even photographed the owner of this work in hand.
Many of our artists, how to properly discussed here, not in the habit of signing their works, without even thinking about their future. But times change, the rules too, but the artist has, alas, no.
For example, I managed to convince IV Sorokina sign all his work, which he later admitted correct. But VI Ivanov, to my opinion not heeded and signs are not all work. Here's ask him, why?
To avoid any misunderstandings gallerist Shishkin, for example, requests heirs to authenticate the work on the back. This is his, and the buyers, too, satisfied.
And sometimes another buyer, despite the fact that he takes work in the family, requires a formal examination. So he has other goals than collecting, or is it because of its "professional" work was not used to trust anyone.
I will not now where to look, but this subject has been discussed at the forum.

[nikola]

Сообщение от dedulya37

By and large signature requirement came from the west, where the foreign gallery owners to sign the proof of the authenticity of the brand and began to demand to sign the back of the work (in the absence of the author's signature), and even photographed the owner of this work in hand.

Thousands of reasons for the lack of signatures on paper. Gymnastics, too, not all the morning doing. Although useful.

And then how about this fact? - (Gift from above, an artist from God, a spark of God, God's work and so on.) Conscientiously must have only myself to attribute authorship.

[ecc4]

Many, what is meaningful artists, artists with the name, the period of socialism did not sign their work because of their commercial nature, was at work order
(Houses of culture, museums, hotels, holiday homes, state. Institutions, etc.)
but it works for the maintenance of tangible wealth, money ... no one has repealed ... and in that period.
Implemented the paintings through various channels, commission store, thin. exhibitions, friends, VSEKOHUDOZHNIK ... but not every artist wanted, what would his name lit up in such jobs (commercial), do not forget that it was another party organizations, unions, artists, and to insert the enema for excessive commercial activities and membership card on the table can be put away ... That's not a lot of signed works, but if you look closely at each work might find a signature, one way or another zakomuflirovanuyu, a significant artist simply could not leave a mark on the job! Search and obryaschite! I have long been studying the creative Romas Ya.D. He was gone!