Hey, This is an art discussion I think... anyways: I have been wondering what other artist feel on the subject of signing your work.
Generally, I find that unless its a print (where you kind of have a moral obligation to at least edition it) a multisession painting or very occasionally a drawing that took for-f***ing-ever to do, and really stands out, signing a piece comes off as slightly pompus.
This is clearly an opinion, and one I am willing to abandon. But I would genuinely like to see what people have to say on the matter.
The reason it strikes me as a bit bold has something to do with peoples thought process that lead up to the actual signature. All art is, in a way, a record of old thought processes (this is a stolen quote... I think?)... why after experiencing said process would you sign your name on it?
is it because those were your thoughts, are you taking possession of them? Like making sure your lazy roomate doesn't steal your grahm crackers by taping your name on the box?
Are you really that proud of the work, that you want it to be associated with you? Your art is fine the way it is right? In four years... or even four months, when you look back on it, will you still be so proud?
Are you marking the work as those of a fictional madman? Is your signature an alternate persona? (this one I do respect on some level, mainly because in concept it is slightly egotistical..yes, but its funny at least)
There are some people who deserve to sign thier work. When others do it, all I see is a bunch of cats barking.