Talk:Saatchi Gallery/Archive 1

Archive 1

oh, the coordinates are for the old location. would someone fix this and than delete this note? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.59.198 (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE OTHER USERS' TALK FROM THIS PAGE.

To sign your talk, put four tildes (~) after it. Tyrenius 15:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE PUT NEW TALK UNDER PREVIOUS TALK SO THAT THE CONVERSATION CAN BE FOLLOWED BY OTHERS. Tyrenius 15:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-NPOV removal of valid information

I have reverted the version "10:41, 13 February 2006 Ktm10" to my edit "01:52, 13 February 2006 Tyrenius". This last edit added a considerable amount of accurate information to the article. All of this has been removed in the intervening edits, mostly by user 195.224.156.170, whose contributions are all on Saatchi Gallery topics and related artists. This user writes from a NPOV in this article, as in his initial entry "10:14, 30 November 2005" where the added text included "Our departure from County Hall" (!).

Information removed from my edit, for no reason given, included origins of the YBAs in Hirst's "Freeze" exhibition, Saatchi selling his US art to invest in YBAs, first showing of Hirst's "shark", "New Neurotic Realism" show, "Ant Noises" show, Hirst disassociating himself from his retrospective at County Hall, Stella Vine's Rachel Whitear painting, her involvement with the Stuckists, "New Blood" show and details of County Hall court case against the gallery.

All of this is important to any article on the Saatchi Gallery and should not be removed without discussion first on this page.

Tyrenius 00:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As you can now see I have reverted back to the ktm10 version. I believe the version which it replaced was loo long and out of date. It was not relevant to people who want concise and important details about the gallery and recent developments.

This version is more concise as it includes an accurate picture of the important facts about the gallery. If one wanted to do a 20 year history then some of the points you’ve made would be of interest. Information has been used from the gallery website, in order to maximise information and minimise speculation.

Ktm10

As you are a new user, please study Wiki guidelines on policy before making major changes. You can find these at the bottom of the Community Portal (link from box at top left of this page). Re. your points:

1) This article is not long. See others e.g. Michelangelo

2) It is not out of date, as Wiki is an encyclopaedia, not a "what's on" guide.

3) New developments can be put in a separate section within the overall article.

4) The purpose of Wiki is exactly to do a 20 year history.

5) Wiki operates a NPOV (neutral point of view) policy, and draws from different sources to show a balanced view. The Saatchi Gallery web site is only one source, and may not always be objective (!). Wiki is not an advert for the Saatchi Gallery.

Please do not delete valid information. The article should be added to, not reduced.

Tyrenius 15:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tyrenius

The Saatchi Gallery is not Michelangelo and in the latest version I have made it crisp and informative without padding and fluff that is largely irrelevant to a concise entry. I have added some more about the Stuckists because this may provide a useful link, which I have also added. I have available a 15 page dissertation on the Saatchi Gallery, which of course I could have loaded up, that goes into great detail. But I take the view that a synopsis that sticks to the salient points was more important. For example Stella Vine may have been a Stuckist but that isn’t crucial to this page. Her second painting isn’t worth dwelling on any more than to dwell on the coverage given to Chris Ofili’s Black Madonna Painting in New York or the Myra Hindley painting at the Royal Academy ot indeed Tierney Gearon’s controversial child ‘porn’ photographs or many other controversies over the last twenty years. All the points you make plus about 500 more are contained within my dissertation but I have edited down carefully, not letting my ego get in the way! to produce a concise entry that gives a straight forward portrait of the gallery and its history. Until something else newsworthy occurs this is a quick and useful portriat, and I hope we can agree to leave it as such.

Ktm10

In any event some of your points are innacurate and as it says on the Wiki guidelines,if you dont want your writing to be edited mercilessly,dont submit it. Paulx555

The above sentence was put at the end of the previous comment by Ktm10, but was by Paulx555, so I have taken it out and given it a separate credit, so it's possible to see who said what. Please see top of this page for how to sign your contribution. Tyrenius 23:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To Ktm10:

If you are not happpy with Michelangelo, then please see the article on Douglas Adams which was recently a featured article. It gives an idea of the desired comprehensiveness of an ideal article, which is not just a concise summary. This is generally agreed Wiki policy, and cannot be overturned unilaterally. You may "take the view that a synopsis that sticks to the salient points was more important", but this is not Wiki policy: if you want to change Wiki policy, this should be done elsewhere. In the meantime this article should be written to existing guidelines.

If you have considerable extra research, then it would be of great help to include this to make it a top grade, and well researched article. Myra Hindley at the RA, Ofili's Black Madonna in NY, Tierney Gearon, Stella Vine's Stuckists background and Rachel Whitear painting etc are all things that any person wishing to be informed about the gallery should know and should be part of the article. They are the facts and that is what people use encyclopaedias for. It is no good referring to the gallery's own website, as they are not mentioned on it. Nor can I see the validity of adding more about the Stuckists and deleting information about the gallery's own shows!

Wiki is not current affairs or new newsworthy material: it is a reference and history of facts.

Tyrenius 00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

To Paulx555:

I would be very grateful for correction to any inaccuracies. Perhaps you could let me know what these are, as I have researched the points. I have no problem with my writing being edited - in fact I welcome it - provided it improves the article. I have a strong objection to valid information being removed which depletes the usefulness of the article for anyone coming to it for comprehensive information.

Tyrenius 00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tyrenius

I spent one year researching the Saatchi Gallery for my dissertation and feel I know as much about the subject as anyone. I much prefer my entry which I find is much clearer and to the point whereas I feel yours picks up little details which I feel suit your personal perspective. As to the inaccuracies:

‘Freeze’ may have been important to Hirst and has grown in myth but it wasn’t of great interest to Saatchi. As he wrote in a recent book introduction:

‘It’s not that ‘Freeze’, the 1998 exhibition that Damien Hirst organised with this fellow Goldsmiths College students, was particularly good. Much of the art was fairly so-so and Hirst himself hadn’t made anything much just a cluster of small colourful cardboard boxes placed high on a wall. What really stood out was the hopeful swagger of it all’

In fact Saatchi brought nothing from ‘Freeze’ and none of the artists who played a key role in the Gallery’s take on the YBA’s or in Sensation where included; not Ofili, not the Chapman Brothers, not Jenny Saville, not Rachael Whiteread not Sarah Lucas, not Tracey Emin, not Gavin Turk etc etc

Unless you have a Stella Vine obsession, a mention of the Diana portrait is all that the entire episode warrants.

As to Hirst disassociating himself from the gallery show you have it the wrong way round. Saatchi had wanted Hirst to help mount a large scale exhibition of his work at Boundary road which Hirst refused to do. Saatchi was irritated by Hirst’s lack of help and chose not to involve him when he opened County Hall with a Hirst show. I have never seen any evidence otherwise, so it is quite wrong to claim Hirst ‘dissociated himself from the show’ when there disagreement had preceded that by some years.

The gallery had already announced that is was moving from County Hall to the Duke of York Building in Chelsea prior to the Court Hearing so the points you include are largely irrelevant and not worth highlighting.

There were any number of influential shows at the Saatchi Gallery so why have you focused Ant Noises and Neurotic Realism? These two were no more disliked by the critics as a number of other shows at the gallery, so unless you think its worth including a history of all the gallery shows that were poorly received, why stop at these two.

One final point: if Wikipedia simply wanted to load up as many pages as possible about a subject they could simply include ‘Super Collector’ a book about Saatchi, in its entirity, or indeed my fifteen page dissertation, which I can assure you is more accurate.

There is no point trying to bully your way forward as I feel strongly that mine is the right way to go and I will be happy to go on updating it.

ktm10

This discussion is best held without personal attacks (or background or claimed expertise), conjectured motives and emotive language. Let's stick to the subject please. I have put more headings so that individual subjects can be discussed in more detail. It makes things clearer if comments on a subject are put under that heading in date order, i.e. a new comment goes under a previous comment.

Tyrenius 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Freeze

Actually ktm10 introduces some interesting points. Did Saatchi really buy nothing from the Freeze show? Our current article at Freeze (exhibition) says he bought a piece by Mat Collishaw from the exhibition. That is presumably Bullet Hole which has is part of the Saatchi Collection. On the other hand this article on meeting Saatchi by Collishaw doesn't mention it, although he does describe the Freeze show as "I thought it seemed like local work of little interest". -- Solipsist 20:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be pleased for accurate material to be added. I did include Ktm10's Saatchi quote about Freeze (even though the reference was not supplied). I didn't feel happy about the Collishaw statement, as it is contradicted by the existing Freeze article (as you pointed out), there was no reference, and Ktm10 came from POV stating Freeze wasn't significant for providing Saatchi artists, when in fact 9 out of 16 Freeze exhibitors were in Sensation.

All I can find re. Collishaw purchase is: "he studied art at Goldsmiths, and showed in Freeze, the warehouse show curated by Damien Hirst when he was still a student. He has a Turner Prize nomination under his belt, and a version of his work, Bullet Hole - a close up of a bullet wound to the head displayed over 15 lightboxes - was bought by Charles Saatchi." (The Scotsman, 15 Jan 05). Bullet Hole certainly was in Freeze and was where Saatchi first saw it (as well as Hume's door paintings). I suspect he did not buy it on the spot, but maybe bought a version of it later.

Tyrenius 23:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Third party feedback

In order to break what is now a deadlock, I have requested feedback from Solipsist, a Wikipedia administrator who works on art articles. You can find his comments under "Saatchi Gallery" on User_talk:Solipsist (currently at the bottom of that page). I trust you will find it an acceptable solution to follow the guidelines he suggests. These are:

• Article should not be reduced to a concise version
• Length is not a problem
• My additions are reasonable and referenced
• The lead section should be expanded to provide the concise history. The expanded history (which should be kept) follows in the main section, as it is now.
• "County Hall" section doesn't read as well as "St John's Wood" section. Last para should be halfway between Tyrenius and Paulx555 version. Outcome of court case should be stated.
• The "controversies" break up the flow of the history of the gallery and should be put in a separate section.

I will be editing according to these in order to create an article which meets desirable Wiki standards. Tyrenius 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all - Tyrenius, ktm10, Solipsist, Paulx555 - for your article contributions.

In the case of controversies, all facets should covered (and I think they are). Just want to emphasize the point.

ktm10: Your knowledge of the topic is a wonderful contribution. Perhaps your dissertation would be appropriate for upload to Wikibooks? >>sparkit|TALK<< 17:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Freeze

This article is not here to put things from Saatchi's point of view. It is here to represent a balanced point of view. I will include his view in the article, as this is relevant and interesting. However, Freeze is important generally and not just to Hirst and it is seen as the beginning of the YBAs.

According to the Wiki article on Young British Artists, the following were in Freeze and subsequently Sensation: Mat Collishaw, Damien Hirst, Gary Hume, Michael Landy, Abigail Lane, Sarah Lucas, Richard Patterson and Fiona Rae (this list might not be complete). This is a solid core. It is made clear in my write-up that other artists were found independently by Saatchi.

Tyrenius 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Stella Vine

The Rachel Whitear portrait was national news and even involved the police. It should be recorded in the expanded main section. The fact that she was a Stuckist was reported in the national press, and is interesting as this is a group that has been very opposed to Saatchi.

Tyrenius 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Damien Hirst

It was reported in the press that Hirst had disassociated himself from the show. This doesn't mean there wasn't any previous falling-out. It just means he didn't endorse it. However, I will change this to "not involved". If you have any other material on the rift, then include it.

Tyrenius 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

County Hall court hearing

A previous version of this article had the date of the leaving announcement as 27 September 2005, when the hearing was known about, as it began on 7 October 2005. Regardless of that, it is still a significant event which needs to be accurately recorded.

Tyrenius 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

History of the gallery shows

I only added New Neurotic Realism and Ant Noises as they came up when I was searching Google, and have some significance. It is not a question of mentioning shows that were poorly received (which actually most shows seem to have been for some time). The ideal thing would be a general survey of all the shows. However, I have found it difficult to get more information about the early shows from the web, presumably because they predate its growth. A section with a list of shows and dates would be very desirable. Certainly more information on the YBA shows is needed. If you feel there is an imbalance because poorly-received shows are mentioned, the solution is not to delete them, but to contrast them with other well-received shows, so a full picture is given.

Tyrenius 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Small Facts

The Boundary Road show that made most impression on the Freeze contributors was NY Art Now in 1987 that included work by Jeff Koons. Simon Patterson went to the artist panel discussion and both him and Hirst in early interviews mention that show.

Saatchi's abrubt move away from American Minimalism and Neo-Expressionism in 88 was coincident to his divorce from Doris Saatchi. Some interpret this as Saatchi dumping his holdings to depress the value of any works Doris got in the settlement.

A mention should be added that Richard Wilson's 20:50 was installed at Boundary Road in two versions from 1991 and again at County Hall.

All though not a publically funded the space the Gallery usually commissioned a substantial catalogue for each exhibition with essays by leading critics.

In 1993 the Gallery presented part of the Royal Academy exhibition American Art in the 20th Cemtury.

Through most of the 1990s the Champagne fuelled private views were one of the places to be seen but Saatchi himself never attended.Piersmasterson 10:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)