Many of you who have been following me will know that I discourage artists from including dates on their artwork. Recently, I received the following email from the curator of a museum: Dear Jason, As a Museum Director, I vehemently disagree with not putting the date created on pieces of work in a portfolio. Why do you suggest that? It appears that the artist is hiding something. Sincerely, D.R. I responded: Dear D, Thank you for the email and the question. I come at the question from a marketing and sales standpoint, and from my perspective on the front lines of helping artists sell their work, I have only seen the dating of work as a negative.I have plenty of empirical evidence to prove the opposite; many different instances, but the bottom line is this: for your 99% of the artists on the planet, it is the artwork, not anything else, that first hooks a potential collector. After that comes the perennial: it better be signed. Seldom does the date make a difference (for most artists' artwork encounter with a potential buyer) for an artist.
But, and this is a giant but, there are collectors that - once they have begun collecting an artist - are profoundly interested in early work, vintage, early work, even art school work. The "whys" are diverse, but they exist... and a date is a key validator in this case.
Case closed... read the piece here.