Talk:Matthew Marks Gallery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion per "Blatant Advertising"[edit]

Matthew Marks Gallery is seen, next to Gagosian Gallery, as among New York's most influential contemporary-art spaces -- see journalist Eric Konigsberg's New York Magazine profile of Marks from 5/2/05 (http://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/art/11892/), in which he calls Marks "the new Leo Castelli." Per the New York Times of 11/3/06, by locating a space in New York City's "Chelsea" neighborhood, the Marks gallery actually changed the location of the US art market. Check especially the last clause: "Twelve years after the first major commercial gallery, Matthew Marks, ventured into what was then a ghostly neighborhood of truck fumes, oil stains and Soviet-size warehouses, Chelsea seems to show no signs of losing its momentum as a capital of art commerce the likes of which the city, and maybe the world, has never seen." (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/03/arts/design/03chel.html).

I understand, respect, and support a little mollusk's concern; no one wants wiki to be ad copy. But neither of the above publications is in the habit of running ad copy as editorial, and the Marks gallery is already appearing ten times in various wiki pages. The artists listed, Jasper Johns, Nan Goldin, Darren Almond, Ellsworth Kelly, Andreas Gursky, are internationally known. The Marks roster of contemporary art is pretty unparalleled, the way Random House is with writers, Comedy Central is with comedians and comedy shows, and Warner Brothers, Mirimax, Disney are with movie directors and actors; as Wiki includes entires for all the above organizations (as well as for Gagosian), it's hard for me to see the Marks gallery inclusion as advertorial. Fenbaud (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The language in the article -- "most influential" -- appears to be the author's opinion and is not given in quotes or with attribution -- "according to Joe Writer in the New York Times ... " This is the reason that the article as it is now is seen as biased and ad copy. Change the wording, add more substance about the gallery's history, and I think that would resolve the concerns. A little mollusk (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Got it, and done. Thanks, a little mollusk. Fenbaud (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


You are welcome. It still could use more substance, but slow and steady ... right? A little mollusk (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Artists Represented[edit]

MindsEye, your argument is self defeating. Because you have deleted artists without pages, you have diminished the quality and accuracy of the page on Matthew Marks. If someone came to Wikipedia to know more about Matthew Marks, they would be misinformed about which artists the gallery represents--not exhibited--i.e. artists that have a contractual relationship with the gallery. I take your point about red links. If the reason you continue to compulsively delete names is because of listcruft, this is not a long list. A gallery's identity and livelihood is based on the artists it represents. If Jackson Pollock or Picasso didn't have wikis, would you delete their names as well? Hadams6 (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Hadams6, thanks for finally discussing this (note: this discussion starts on talk). You miss the point - Wiki is not an endless list of lists and is not a White Pages listing of every artist of every gallery. If these artists are notable, write articles about them. Our standard is to include names of notable people, and this is established by having Wiki articles. This article already includes a direct link to the gallery's master list of artists exhibited. That should be sufficient documentation of who they represent. The 'livelihood' of the gallery is a commercial concern, not an encyclopedic interest. TheMindsEye (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The point of Wikipedia is to have Wikipedia articles on notable subjects and persons that provide an accurate, concise, informative and accessible reflection of what is out there in the world. According to your logic, if I wrote that Jeffrey Peabody was the Vice President of the gallery, would you delete it because Jeffrey did not have a wiki because "our standard is to include names of notable people...by having wiki articles"? Or if a music band listed its albums, would you delete the list because there wasn't a wiki on each album? Your criteria for deletion are dangerously arbitrary. It is tautological to claim that "these artists are not recognized as notable until they have articles." So when Wikipedia began with zero articles, any one wishing to contribute to Wikipedia would be stopped from doing so because it wasn't on Wikipedia? It is not Wikipedia's job to determine what is notable. This is the task of the world. Contributors consolidate what they consider to be important, organize it, and make it available. I do not believe this is a carte-blanche to post whatever someone desires. Providing a list of artists on a page about a gallery is not arbitrary. Deleting them because they don't have pages is. It's not my responsibility whether or not an artist has a page. The hierarchy of information on the page goes gallery first and then everything else...Hadams6 (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadams6 (talkcontribs) 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)