How To Sign Giclee Prints

Giclee' prints…how do you signsignature?

This topic has 14 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by TheBlueBetween.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

Author

Posts
March 23, 2007 at 5:55 pm #986329

Hi,

I offer giclee's and have often wondered if there is a preferred or certain way to sign a print. I'm wondering if signing it is necessary because my signature is already in the art. Do you number them? And how do you? What is customary for giclee's?

Thanks in advance!

March 24, 2007 at 4:40 pm #1083175

I do scanning and proofing of my own art and art for others, and also print their giclees. I generally remove the signature during this process and have the artist sign where they would normally sign. I think the double signature, (the printed, and then the wet signature), makes it seem too much like a lithograph.

Generally I sign on the right, then number (eg: 12/250) on the left.

(this is also what I was told to do when I first stared having my giclees printed by another printing company).

March 24, 2007 at 10:44 pm #1083172

Thanks for the info on signatures. Sometimes, I have seen the title of the piece written too. In this case, where would that go in relation to the print # and signature?

March 25, 2007 at 7:01 pm #1083177

I usually see the title underneath the image in the middle

March 27, 2007 at 4:54 am #1083173

The suggestions you received regarding the double signature and placement are good ones. That said, there are no real conventions that an artist must follow when it comes to signing art or limited editions. Aesthetics can drive the decision as much as anything else.

The following is an offshoot of your question. It is my belief unless an edition is truly limited by 100 or less, it ought not to be limited at all. By not limiting, you no longer have to worry about having a Certificate of Authenticity that is proper in the fourteen states with reguations or laws concerning them. You can print in any size you want to the collectors needs. You don't limit the potential of a piece that might potentially sell well beyond the limits of an edition.

You can still sign and number a giclee without limiting the size of the print run. It could be 1/oe (open edition); or 1/unl (unlimited). Use your imagination to concoct your own scheme. I contend in the long run you will make more money with open editions than limited editions. You only need a few pieces to sell well for lengthy periods to bear this out.

Visual artists are the only artists that artificially limit the number of reprodcutions of their work. You don't see Spielberg saying only the first 1,000 viewers can see his films. You don't see a symphony limit the number of CDs it will sell of a performance. A Broadway theatre will run for years and years and then go on tour for more years.

Why should visual artists be forced to limit the amount of money they might potentially earn from the reproduction of their original art? Makes no sense to me in the light of digital reproductions where ostensibly the 1,000th piece should be better than the first. That would be due to improving printing techniques, software and substrates, et cetera.

March 27, 2007 at 4:02 pm #1083176

Also, from a framers point of view, dont sign in the white border of the print. It makes it difficult to custom frame it because you HAVE to leave a square of white around the print. Without it, it looks much more like an original piece of artwork when framed.

I sign mine on the left with the title and number and on the right with my signature. I use winkflash and they send the giclees with a rather larger white border so it's a bit easier to frame. I personally like the white border and the written name showing but it's just my personal preference.

http://ardithsart.blogspot.com
www.ardithgoodwin.com
Life's journey is not to arrive safely at the grave in a well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting, "Holy Cow, What a ride!"
[/COLOR][/SIZE]

My husband prints on canvas and signs them on the back.

Jill

September 16, 2007 at 5:03 pm #1083178

Barney Davey, Thanks, Great Info

HOLLIS WILSON

May 14, 2012 at 12:50 pm #1083181

I was also wondering about what you do when you only make one giclee at a time? I have all my originals scanned in high res tif files. I use a reliable place that prints my 11"x14"s as needed when someone wants only one of a particular piece. If only one is printed, then each time it's only a "run" of one? Doesn't seem to make sense sigining each one as 1/1, 1/2?

Jeff Rodriguez

Numbering reproduction inkjet type prints at all doesn't seem to make sense to me. There are an unlimited number of copies you can make, so numbering them as though they are handpulled prints or lithographs with a run that is guaranteed seems wrong to me.

And erasing a signature from a copy of an original to re-sign the copy in the space where the original was signed seems wrong as well. And misleading. Altering the original to make the copy seem more…original.

If I were to make copies of my work, I'd sign it on the white border and date it.

Robin
My Oil Painting Pet Portraits: https://robinzebley.com

Hi Robin, I agree. Kinda useless to number the giclees. I like the idea of just signing and dating, but what do you do to show that it's not an original? When printed on textured watercolor paper, my painterly watercolors look original.

Jeff

Numbering reproduction inkjet type prints at all doesn't seem to make sense to me. There are an unlimited number of copies you can make, so numbering them as though they are handpulled prints or lithographs with a run that is guaranteed seems wrong to me.

And erasing a signature from a copy of an original to re-sign the copy in the space where the original was signed seems wrong as well. And misleading. Altering the original to make the copy seem more…original.

If I were to make copies of my work, I'd sign it on the white border and date it.

I own a couple of signed giclees. They were signed by the artist on the white border and up over the image. I find the idea of l"limited edition" photo-reproductions somewhat baffling. Especially if printed from an electronic file. There will be no image degradation ever. If 5000 copies are printed and randomly sampled all should be equally crisp, they don't even have to be printed on the same machine. This is very different to printing from a plate. Over time the master plates or blocks will suffer wear and the image quality will degrade. this is unavoidable. The application of the ink may also vary from impression to impression. With these there is some sense in numbering the prints as each will be an individual work, different to each other print in the series.

I am currently selling on several POD sites and will be happy to sign any print that a customer wants me to any where and any how they like. It will still be a reproduction, not an original.

I would sign and use the word giclee or print or reproduction below your name( on the back or below the print)

I think it is very important to make it perfectly clear to your customers that this is not the original. We attach labels to the back of all prints with information from name and artist and the website.

I sell Giclees of my old digital work. My name is in the giclee, so I do not add another signature. I do not number them, as they are digital prints, and in theory I could print as many as I feel like. It's not like I will scratch a line through my hard drive! FWIW: I don't make digital works anymore, so as soon as these prints are gone that will be it, as it is not a really money making business for me. I'd rather make one sale of 3000 than 30 sales of 100, the time and effort is not worth it. I won't make digital prints of any of my new work, again because it is not worth the time involved for the price return.
Author

Posts