34 ms·
This particular fact just sounds like good logistical sense. If I'm going to sign 2000 prints I might as well do it in one batch. Also might as well sign all t
by dguest 3y ago
This particular fact just sounds like good logistical sense. If I'm going to sign 2000 prints I might as well do it in one batch.
Also might as well sign all them together, before mass production, rather than waiting for them to be differentiated into different prints: that way they are printed on demand from a central source rather than signed on demand from many different sources.
I suspect it might be misleading to say he signed them "before he knew what would be printed on them". They were authorized with a specific set of prints (his work), it wasn't like they could just draw anything and sell it.
Not to say he wasn't greedy. I would say the more direct point was
> "(Dalí) was completely money obsessed, to the point of a mania,” said Noah Charney, an art historian and author of The Art of Forgery.
but I'm not really sure being good at logistics makes you greedy.
- dml2135 3y agoI used to work in fine art printmaking. The weird thing about signing blank paper before the prints are done is that usually not every print in a run will make it into the final edition. If you are doing say an edition of 100 prints, you will maybe print 130-150 of them, and then choose the 100 best ones to actually publish. This gives leeway for misprints and imperfections. Prints are ususally numbered by the artist when signed, so presumably Dali would either have not been numbering these and having the printmaker number them once the final prints in the edition are determined. That, or he was numbering them and they just didn't have the same quality-control that a typical edition would have.