In lieu of the nature of the work and the abdication of personal responsibility in regard to what is designated my art work, I also wish to extend this into a opening up of the projects articulation; thus, if you, dear reader, have additional articulations beyond that set down here, please do forward it on  and it will be loaded up here, granted equal validity.

Articulation.

The art of the readymade, invented by Duchamp, is an aversion of identity.  There is no assertation of genius, no claim of authorship...' 
 -Joanathan Jones.  The Guardian.  23/10/96.

The key point today is to establish the universal validity of individual mythology.'
-Piero Manzoni.

The main question I set out to explore through this work is: how far can I remove myself from a piece of work, the decisions taken, and it still be regarded as my work?  A S. Cousin?  Where will it stand, say, between Manzonis' embracement of individuality and Duchamps' evasion of it?

To this end I had 600 prints of my signature made up. These were in two sizes and two colours; black and white.  These were sent by post to address' gleaned from friends address books or given out by hand to  strangers and friends alike enclosing a simple brief about the project and a number printed of signatures. The brief was kept intentionally short to facilitate its understanding across a wide spectrum.

• The Brief.

• Duchamps' bottle-rack, which he bought in 1914 from a hardware store is a piece of art.  A 'readymade'.  An object chosen because he neither liked nor disliked it.

• Adam Chodsko invited the public, via an advertisement in LOOT, to send him pictures of themselves if they though they looked like God.

• Sherrie Levine photographed the photographs of, amongst others, Edward Weston.

• Taking such work as my premise, what would happen   if I, as the artist, remove myself from even directing/deciding whether X or Y will be 'my art'. but leave the decision entirely to the discretion of others?

• By you, (as conspirator or conduit) affixing my signature to anything you wish, you are, in my name, by my name, proclaiming X or Y as, my art'.

• To use the printed signature, carefully peel the thin paper from the card.  The signature should still be stuck to the thin paper.  Next, signature face down, stick this over the 'anything', then carefully peel back this paper from the signature, thus leaving the signature only stuck to 'my art'.

• Please send back documentary proof (e.g. a photo) confirming what has become/is my art work to..

Additional.

1.  Viewing these images may give rise to the thought that no signatures were actually produced, rather that the images were 'photo shopped': the signature grafted onto images devoid of it.  This, dear reader, is not the case.
   

2. It is interesting to note that all the 'proof' supplied took the form of photographs.  While this method was mentioned in the brief as an example, there are, of course, a multitude of mediums that could have been utilised.
   

3. This project engages a number of issues beyond that mentioned in the brief.  It opens up dialogue with issues pertaining to originality and authenticity: is a manufactured signature anymore valid than one written?  Why not a thumb print? If the signature is the supreme sign then what value can be ascribed to a forgery? Indeed, the beauty of the project, for me at least, is the near-constant surprise of how individuals have interpreted the brief, and the resulting theoretical ramifications.
   

4. It must be remembered that the art work is that which is depicted in the image, not the image itself (something I myself easily forget) - and yet it is the only documentary evidence that is displayed. There is of course an inherent contradiction at play here. Furthermore, due to the nature of the work, its extension for exhibition purposes are manifold. Does the hard copy I have at my disposal warrant the privilege of the sole means of exhibition - or would print-outs (directly from the files contained on this site or via larger files contained on the hard drive of my personal computer) fulfill the same function? I am inclined to view any method of display as equal. Analog and digital photography is, after all, inherently reproducible.
   

5.    In some cases the possibility of what 'my' art actually is, is opened out. For instance, in regard to the  image of the  post in a field: is it the post itself, the field, the view or the sign/text above the signature that is my art work? Or, indeed, should the signature itself be regarded as the work? Of course, I am not in a position to dictate here - for I also inhabit the space as viewer. 
   

6. Additional work, of which I have no hard copy, can be viewed via:
   http://baudandbui.free.fr/pb_works/

References.

There is a great deal of material engaged  within the parameters of this discourse.  On the theoretical aspects the books listed below are a good, if not essential start (one may, of course, investigate the work of artists mentioned in the brief):

Barthes, Roland.  Image/music/text.  Fontana Press.  1997 - This contains the essay 'The death Of The Author.'

Preziosi, Donald (ed).  The Art Of Art History: A  Critical Anthology. Oxford University Press.  1998 - This contains a wealth of information including Foucault's 'What Is An Author?'

Home, Stewart.  The Assault On Culture: Utopian Currents From Lettrrisme To Class War.  A.K. Press.  1991

Love, Harold. Attributing Authorship: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press. 2002.