You're welcome, Steve.

Yes... Robert went through various phases with regard to signing pieces. I don't think that whether a piece is signed or not signed 'says' much, if anything, with regard to 'the significance' of the piece in his mind. It relates mostly, in my view, to what he was thinking/doing/believing about signatures at the time. We may be able to say a bit more about this as the catalogue raisonne grows. We will be able to interrogate the data base & see if there are any conclusions to be drawn from those that he signed & those he did not.

As you know, he liked to see paintings in the context of the project, viewing each as a part of the whole and wanting to see the entire collection forming its relationship with the viewer...  rather than a particular element i.e. one particular painting. This wasn't always what he thought. He didn't start the projects until 1973 & so we must suppose that things made before 1972 aren't seen in that way. Not all pieces made between '72 & his death are project work so we may guess that this idea doesn't apply to those either. We might think that one reason why he didn't sign some was because they are in the project. but that is not consistant.

We might think that another reason pieces are not signed is because they are 'unresolved' [or not completed as some people say] but I don't personally believe this. He described each stage of the making of any piece as a 'statement' & even though he will undoubtedly have thought during the work in any particular statement .... ah, maybe in the next statement I will do this, or that OR ... hmm, I think this may have gone as far as I want it to maybe I won't be doing any more work..... he will always have not been sympathetic to the notion of a piece being "finished". So he will not have thought [generally] that he should sign because it's finished.

He would always sign when people asked him to. He didn't bother much about that mark [his name] but of course he was not naive about the meaning & the importance of that particular mark.

He went through a time of being opposed to signing. I recall him saying that it was an indulgence, even perhaps downright arrogant that he should sign. Early painters did not; why should he? The work was of no interest etc. The expression that he often used, "I'm the best bad painter I know" is part of that sort of approach.  In my opinion, this was not false modesty or disengenuous thinking, it was more like a philosophical position regarding the work. He thought that any significance that his work might have in the future might be with regard to his ideas tied in to the projects. Of course he knew, and knew well, that his paintings had value in the market place but this was not the same. You should look at the 'Paintings designed to make money' material. However, notwithstanding this philosophical position, as I have said earlier, he always signed if people asked him to!

Last but not least, he might just have not got around to it! He may have been a Great Man but even great men forget, can't be bothered and so on! People should not be worried if their beloved paintings are not signed!

Warm regards Annie

p.s. Sorry to ramble on.