I was in a meeting the other day concerning an upcoming exhibition. The artist had signed his work, but not dated it. This left all involved in the dark as to an evolution of this artist. The discussion led to asking the "artists" present if they dated their work. At one time, I did date frames and art, and also kept comprehensive records. But, for a variety of reasons, I am now not as meticulous. I sign work, but with a monogram, usually, and occasionally a full signature, but no dates. Nor do I keep records, as I once did. When asked about not dating art, I flippantly remarked that laziness was the reason, though in retrospect, that is a very valid reason. The time involved in records, in adding a date, as opposed to a simple monogram, or even a signature, seems wasted. Also, some times a piece will sit, untouched, for a significant length, before being finished, although the final "finish" may be very minor. Which date? The art historians, curators, may feel this is important, though, for myself, I would rather think about, and spend my time working, or navel gazing, than being a bookkeeper.
I am going to think about putting dates on my work, again.
Addendum: Dates are OK, but I think what I'm really voicing is the realization that doing the art is important, but after that, its historical or aesthetic significance, is beyond my control.
I was just looking through a book on Native American Art, and some cultures achieved an economic point where there was an enormous amount of time that could be devoted to "art", decorating clothing, one self, and flamboyance. I think we've lost that in the new millenium. Native cultures did not date their art.