Craziest Thing a customer told me

JRV

Grumbler
Joined
May 28, 2004
Posts
31
Loc
Grand Rapids, MI
I had a customer today who was getting a "limited edition" print framed (I quote that because it was printed on really cheap paper). Because of the colors of the piece and the decor I suggested covering up the white even though the number and signature would be covered up. She looked at me like I was crazy, then she asked if i could really do that. I said I could and have many times. She told me that the artist she bought the piece from told she couldn't cover up the signature, it was against some law. Has anyone heard of this before? Needless to say i covered up the white because I'm such an outlaw.

Jeff
 
"No One Ever Went Broke Underestimating the Intelligence of the American People"
-H.L. Mencken

I also lay awake nights worrying about the mattress police ..... (those tags, ya know...)
 
Who knows if it’s a law? It’s possible.

In some states (New York comes to mind) I believe that the artist still has some rights concerning his art post sale. For example, the owner may not slice up art regardless of what he/she paid for it and resell it. (As a response to a scheme to distribute Salvatore Dali’s art a few years ago).

Some artists have “forbidden” their art to be transferred to canvas even after it has been sold. Old Grange Graphics refuses to do some canvas transfers.

Who knows if Michigan forbids covering a signature? It’s possible.
 
<marquee> DOG ANALOGY WARNING!</marquee>

A friend used to have a Bernese Mountain Dog. Quinn (the dog) was intact, meaning he hadn't been neutered. That annoyed quite a few of the other male dogs, including mine, and they were constantly harassing him. Plus he was always getting various urinary tract infections and bouncing from one antibiotic to the next. The vet told his owner that the only way to solve both problems was to have him neutered (the dog, not the vet.)

The owner put this off for a couple of years, though she had no plans to breed Quinn, 'cause her purchase contract prevented her from neutering the dog. I think she paid a couple thousand dollars for the dog.

So, sure, I suppose it's possible you can't cover the artist signature in some parts of the world.

Personally, I think it should be illegal to cut those little notches around the signature, the title, the remarque and all the other crap artists (or publishers) stick in the margin.
 
Well, it seems to me that unless an art buyer signs a document specifically worded to forbid the owner to violate the sanctity and physical fate of said signature and amazingly significant (especially now that we live in the era of "limitless limited editons") numbering sequence, then, as with almost anything else I can think of, .... ya own it ... ya can do whatever ya want with it .... personally, I have never seen a rendition of said document.

My attorney is my brother .... I'll run this by him.
 
Since we are doing Dog Analogies....My wife and I purchased a female long haired mini-daschund. I was told we had to have her spayed (the dog, not my wife), otherwise the cost was about double.

Sometimes the artist wants the art modified!
 
And another thing ...(oh geez ... here he goes again...)...

This wouldn't be an issue if all artists had the common sense to sign and number their prints on the art instead of the margin ... I can't count the number of times frame/mat design of a print with NO WHITE in it has been influenced by that $#(*&% white border.


We cover it routinely, if we can convince the customer to get over the ego thing and think of how it looks.
 
Barry, I do the dog analogies around here.

At least yours makes sense.
thumbsup.gif
 
I personally prefer to cover the white (signature/number and all) and use a brass plate with the name of the piece, artist and ###/###.

I think it looks better than that eye catching white border.

But I've had customers that prefer the white border no matter where (or if) the artist signed the print.
 
If I think it needs to be covered w/mats to enhance the artwork (and it normally does), then I lay the mats over the signature and the number without any conversation about it. If the customer balks and says they want all that garbage to show, I let them know that I aim to please since it's gonna hang in their house and they're the ones paying for it. Usually they'll then say something like, "You'd cover it if it was yours, wouldn't you?" Nine times out of 10, we end up covering it.
 
I used to love seeing the signiture & numbers. Especially in public, where I can deride the framer for being such a dildo-headed woossey for not matting over the white paper..... :D

Embarrassed the heck out of my wife.
thumbsup.gif


We were in Washington DC several years ago, and I started in about this suite, (oh ****, it wasn't a suite, it was a symphaney). There must have been 28 pictures in this little restraunt.

They were all "street scenes" of cities in drizzly fog. The white was 2" all around, the mat was 2" puice grey all around, in a . . . . you guessed it: 2" black frame.

The guy at the next table asked what was wrong about them . . . did I mention that this was a SMALL place. I try to be quiet and discreet . . .

And then I really jumped the shark when I said that only a egotistical un-educated artist would insist on framing like this. . .

The Cook/owner came out and to our table.

"I'm the egotistical un-educated artist AND framer. How did you want your dinner prepared?"
Did I mention the french knife in his hand?

"How ever the chief would choose to do it, in such a way that it would make his mother proud."

About an hour later, we were the last in the restraunt. He came back out with a glass of wine, pulled out a chair, sat down and said. "So, how would you frame them?"

My wife was the quickest on the gun with "It won't be cheap. But it will be as nice as that dinner was." :D
 
So Baer, you actually had the cajones to eat what he made for you after he heard your comments?

You are a brave man.

-Mike.
 
Covering the signature with the mat preserves the signature and and protects it from fading.

I've used that one more than once and gotten away with it.

Kit
 
Don't you know......... that extra white border cand "look like another mat" !!!!! Or it can look more like a poster and less like art!!!

Candy
 
If I think it would look better with the white covered, I will ask the customer something along the lines of: "Is the value of this print something you want to show off, or did you buy it because you like looking at it?" Sometimes they "got a really good deal on this valuable print", and showing that off is more important to them than its beauty. (or lack thereof)

But, usually, they prefer to make it look as good as it can.

And, when I tell them I can make a pocket on the back for the "certificate of authenticity", so the information will still be available, the last of the worries are gone, and we can just frame the thing.
 
This is the United States of America, you can bet that no matter what the issue, somewhere in this great land, it will be against the law.

We are a nation of law, founded by and for attorneys. To top that off, in just about every jurisdiction, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Every year, in every state, hundreds of new laws, become the law, yet rarely, if ever, do they remove laws from the books. Personally, I think that for every law enacted, an old, outdated one should be removed, but that's just me, what do I know?

John
 
WE sometimes use a "peek-a-boo" mat - works like this:

Bottom mat is cut to show a white border with numbers and signatures, then a thick spacer, then the top mats which are sized onto the art not showing the white border. From normal viewing distance the white is out of sight but if you really want to see the numbers etc - just move up real close and peak down behind the top mats. The customer now has a secret to show all her friends and you get to charge for another mat and spacer as well as looking like a very cool and skilled framer!
 
John - what a great idea - the peek-a-boo mat! I'll have to try to remember that one!

As an artist who has created "signed and numbered" prints of varying types, it NEVER dawned on my that all you FRAMERS out there hated that white border! I am shocked! Shocked!

I mean, I can see on mass-produced, er, I mean "Limited editions" but when it comes to the ones HAND-MADE by the real artists (as opposed to ink-squirts) isn't it best to "reveal" all???

But I do like John's approach.

The Grumble always gives me so much to ponder.....
 
Hand made prints usually look fine with a border showing, because the color of the paper is also in the image. I do like to show the plate mark and signature on etchings and suchlike. It helps that most printmakers have better sense than to use brilliant white clay coated paper.
 
I prefer to cover the white myself, but when the customer wants the white to show I figure it is just more money in my pocket. The whole framing package gets that much larger. Bigger framing package, more money :D :D :D

Mark
 
I used to love seeing the signature & numbers. Especially in public, where I can deride the framer for being such a dildo-headed woossey for not matting over the white paper.....
I have been a framer for 11 years. Never once have I had a customer to ask that the numbers or signature be covered. I have framed literally thousands of L/E prints for local artist. If you cover the additional 'stuff' at the bottom including the plate marks, L/E prints just look like posters. If the white borders are not really wide and the paper has deckle edges, I will float mount them. My customers love the look.

I would be willing to bet that 95% of your customers want to see those numbers. That is why they paid $500 for signed and numbered instead of $30 for the poster version. Just ask them and let them decide. It is their print after all.

What are we, 'Frame Nazis'? No frame for you today step aside!
 
Originally posted by Jerry Ervin:
Never once have I had a customer to ask that the numbers or signature be covered.
No, they don't ask. That's why I suggest it to them.

Of course, sometimes customers want the world to know that they got number 14,723/15,000 and you have to let them show it.

Kit
 
I don't want to find myself in the position of agreeing with Jerry, but . . .

I usually leave the white border and the signature and all that stuff showing. I figure it's the ONLY thing that distinguishes that print from a $25 New York Graphics print. If my customer is the type of individual who will spend $300 for the print, I believe they probably don't want me to emphasize the fact that it was a foolish purchase.

I'm sure it's because I've been framing in a vacuum for too long and whatever taste I was born with is long gone.

I make an exception when the image is very dark, like a Terry Redlin print, and the white border jumps out at you from across the room. Then my preference would be to cover the white border AND the image with the mat.
 
This is all starting to sound like politics!

Could it be part of a "vast white(margin)-wing conspiracy"
shutup.gif
shutup.gif


Just like in politics, I take both sides and do what works best for the art.
 
I leave the white border showing if that's what the customer wants and it usually is...who am I to tell them that Thomas K****** print that they are so proud of is just a glorified poster?
 
I'm somewhat aghast and embarrassed that in a public forum members of our craft would even whisper, confess or be proud of the fact that they regularly cover the number of the print and the edition size, let alone the artist's signature. As a print collector I find it somewhat outrageous that a custom framer, who should have an appreciation of the fine art print processes would go against what I believe to be one of the primary responsibilities of the framer...to properly display and preserve not only the article being framed, but help to secure and properly display information authenticizing the print and its providence. Any artist bios should also be attached to the back and I often supply them when a customer brings work in.

When a customer brings in an oil painting do you stretch the oil such that the signature will not show?

If a customer requested that I cover the L/E and signature information on a truly fine art print I would try to talk them out of it, but insist on a liability disclaimer being signed if I agreed to proceed and wouldn't put my sticker on the back dust cover.

Original limited edition prints are just that...ORIGINALS...approved and signed by the artist, often printed by the artist and the artist is supposed to be literally there as the first prints are pulled. Now granted, this whole process has been abused with outrageous (in my book, over 500, under 250 is much better) editions and a breakdown in the artist approval process. But original prints properly printed with the artist's full involvment should be treated with the respect they deserve. If the artist did not want the information to show, he would have put it on the back. Don't play God with the artist's creation and treat the piece like a home decorator's buy-it-today-throw-it-away-tomorrow-mentality. An original fine art print is much more than a decorator's piece.

This discussion is the very reason artists attempt to take legal measures to protect their creations and how they are presented.

Dave Makielski
 
Limited edition reproductions of oil, watercolor or acrylic paintings on paper are not original prints. Making LE's of paintings is a marketing concept meant to make money and share the image with those who cannot afford originals. If publishers and artists really wanted to "share" the image with others they would make them open editions (the same exact "original print" without the added signature) and reduce the cost, however they really want to make money.

Granted there are beautiful prints being made and who can blame them for wanting to make more money on a single painting by making multiple reproductions of it, but they are not fine art. I agree that they should be treated with respect if for no other reason than the ridiculous cost of the print. No artist ever painted a painting with a white border to make it look better or even considered the way it would interact with a white border.

Yes, I have 3 LE's and the border is covered. I don't care about the sig, I care about the picture. I also have a print from NYG and one from Winn Devon and I like them just as much as the LE's.
 
Everything the last two posts said ... and more.

Once again, if the artist would submerge just a little of his/her egotism, and think about the presentation of their masterpiece, then signing and numbering on the art would make everyone happier.
 
Plus... as the LE is a COPY of the original, the artists signature is already on the art. Thus, covering up the annoying white border doesn't actually cover the original signature leaving it visable just like the oil on canvas where the signature always shows. The rant by Dave is alot of stuff and nonsense as he is basing his arguement on losing the signature to our crass treatment of the work.

Personally, when I see the original art, I notice right away that there is no white border around it. When a LE is either matted or framed right up to the art, it actually LOOKS like the original art. I've found most people agree with me on this point. I show the customer how it looks both ways and then follow their decision in this matter.

One of a kinds and special pieces where the paper is a part of the art are a different matter.
Here it is important to show the whole piece as the signature isn't in the art but below.

Oh, and by the way... Limited Edition prints aren't originals. They are COPIES from the original!! Even a block print is a copy of the original which is the block from which it was made.
 
but help to secure and properly display information authenticizing the print
Secure?
thumbsup.gif
absolutely. Display?
shrug.gif
maybe, and it is the customer/collector's decision. Also, many fine art photographs are signed on the back. (which by your statement implies that the photographer doesn't care) Are you saying that we are obligated to put glass on the back so you can authenticate it? Shouldn't the process of authentication include removing and inspecting the art outside of the frame? Unless it is somehow important to allow the casual viewer do it.

When a customer brings in an oil painting do you stretch the oil such that the signature will not show?
There is no comparison. Yet how many times have we seen the signature BOTH in the art and in the margin? :confused: Yes, even on fine art prints, serigraphs and such. What purpose does that serve?

Ultimately, I have to imagine that the whole signing/numbering tradition has a much shorter history than printmaking itself has. How many fabulous etchings that are without question masterpieces have no signature? I am not familiar with the history of this and that information would help me form an opinion. Anyone know more?
 
Dave: We used to do some stretching for a digital printer in New York. He would send us anywhere from 10-50 canvas' at a time.

One time we started stretching a new batch. Oh...oh, the artists signature was actually bending around the bottom of the bar.

Call the publisher...don't worry stretch away.

30 days later, here they all come back with a note from the artist rejecting them because by the time you would frame the piece his signature was almost gone. Restretch, bill again (the publisher)...guess what the publisher didn't want to pay the first bill even though I had their ok in writting.

Needless to say, we don't do stretching for that customer any more and I did drop a note to the artist along with the ok in writting to do this. I'm not sure if the artist still uses this publisher but I know we lost a lot of dough.
 
Originally posted by ERIC:

Ultimately, I have to imagine that the whole signing/numbering tradition has a much shorter history than printmaking itself has. How many fabulous etchings that are without question masterpieces have no signature? I am not familiar with the history of this and that information would help me form an opinion. Anyone know more?
I have no idea about what is and what isn't. My mother never thought to "number" her runs. She printed about 100 and then took the ones that looked "correct" and pitched the rest in the fireplace. She signed them in pencil and in the lower right corner wrote the number of exsisting prints.

I have a Nicholi Fetchen "Book Edition" which is a series of 12 pictures that come in thier own hard bound folder to hold them secure and protected. The letter of auth. states that the printing consisted of 125. The prints were signed in the plate, and have no numbers.

I Sothersby dealer/appraiser saw it a few years ago and said that in NY it could go as high as $25K....
 
Everything I said in my post refers to original fine art prints not reproductions. I agree that the L/E thing has gotten totally out of hand and abused and is just a marketing ploy to sell reproductions to an ignorant public.

I surely am not out to offend anyone with conflicting views and I think most of us would agree that truly limited edition fine art print (not reproductions of other media) should be handled differently.

When there are two signatures, one on the picture and one signed below, it is definately a lithographic or digital reproduction of the original and not what I would define as a "fine art" print.

Another type of print is the hand colored print. This should be considered an original even though it's stretching the definition a bit. This is where an artist may do a black and white lithographic print of an original ink drawing and then go back and hand color a limited number of them. This is a valid technique and the artist definately hand his hand in creating each one uniquely, but...I quess I'd still call it "original" but wouldn't put exceptional value on it.

Good discussion, folks. Appreciate ya' all not jumping me for stating things so strongly, but we are not comparing apples to apples when we talk reproductions vs. fine art prints.

icon21.gif


Dave Makielski

"Sometimes I get an urge to wash the windows, but then everyone would see me running around naked"

Thanks, Baer.
 
Thanks for clarifying your post for us, Dave. It looks like we are all pretty much on the wave length with this subject.
 
We have a popular artist we work with regularly... no names to protect the innocent... who's artwork is almost always very dark and has a bright yellow paper it is printed on. Sometimes it is ok.. but often there are situations where we know that matting over that yellow will look so much richer to the art.
So our solution is to get this artist to re-sign the print in the image with a nice gold pen. It looks great and its truely a one of a kind thing.
So I guess what I am trying to say is the artist isn't always the enemy... try working with them!
 
This is SO interesting and I have interest on both sides of the white border.

Dave - original LE's are totally different. We agree.

I don't always think the artist is correct either. I think it boils down to taste. What one thinks looks good or better may not be the same as the next. Some believe the way an artist frames a piece is part of his artistic creation - that may be correct - but what if you love his/her painting but hate the choice of colors, mats, style of moulding, etc?

I want to make a piece look the best it can look for the customer who will be enjoying it (and paying for it!) I prefer sans white border and signature in most cases (not orignal le's) and will try to guide the customer to that end... doesn't always work!

No amount of money can buy good taste!!

Roz
 
Back
Top