Talk:Tracey Emin

Duplication ?

On 24 May, 2004, a fire in a storage warehouse destroyed many works from the Saatchi collection, including Everyone I have ever slept with 1963-95, The Last Thing I Said Is Don't Leave Me Here and The Hut.

I wonder if the last two here named are the same thing. See for example [1] (which claims to be The Hut) and [2] (which claims to be "The last thing I said to you is don't leave me here" - note there's "to you" in there, by the way). Does anybody know for sure? --Camembert

The Hut is the beach hut. The Last Thing I Said Is Don't Leave Me Here is a photograph of Tracey Emin, naked, curled up on the floor inside a wooden room -- Daisy

The matter–of–fact statement regarding the spontaneous fire does not convey the enormity of the tragedy. Future humanity has been deprived of the fruit and flower of Royal Academic art. This is a catastrophic loss for people everywhere, not only in Britain. The understatement in the article does not fully express the horror of the cultural loss.Lestrade 18:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

It doesn't seem like anyone really cared that much, not even the artists. 76.105.157.77 (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Just to comment that I removed the Category:Painters, because I doubt that Emin would describe herself as a painter. She seems to have made strenuous efforts to exorcise her training as a painter, although I seem to recall at least one of her early landscape paintings was exhibited at a show in London in 2003.

Wikipedia is about what people (and things) are, or have been, not how they describe themseves. Andy Mabbett 19:33, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your revert on this one. And I quite agree, people should be in the appropriate category for 'what they are' which doesn't always correspond with their own view of themselves. However, in this case I doubt there is a single art critic who would say that Tracy Emin is a painter, in fact she is more likely to be highlighted as the antithesis of a painter. I'm sure I don't need to remind you that her earliest claim to fame is a rather drunken appearance on Channel 4's 'End of Painting' debate in 1997 - she wasn't in the pro-painting camp.

Now what makes you say that Tracey Emin is a painter? -- Solipsist 18:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Her paintings. HTH. Andy Mabbett 21:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Show me -- Solipsist 21:28, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

FFS! Tracey Emin. Andy Mabbett 21:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lets try a little harder. Find me a reference outside of Wikipedia that shows one of her paintings, or refers to Emin as a painter (clue: there is one). Now do a Google search on say "Tracy Emin contemporary artist" and you will find some 8000 hits, or "installation artist", some 3000 hits. The guidance in Wikipedia:Categorization says;

Categories (along with other features, like cross-references) should help users find the information they are looking for as quickly as possible

Putting people into inaccurate categories, when it is not representative of their character doesn't help here. -- Solipsist 21:54, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree it wouldn't ("character" not withstanding - the category is not "people who have the character of painters", whatever that might be). This is not inacurate. Andy Mabbett 21:57, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So I take it you will also put Emin in Category:Stuckism because that is was she learnt at college, whilst also putting her in Category:Anti-stuckism because Chai and Xi used My Bed to make a statement. -- Solipsist 22:08, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Interesting discussion above. I find it hard to put most contemporary artist in a subcategory such as painting or sculpture becuase many contemporary artists are quite repelled to be categorised. I added Tracey Emin to the Category:Contemporary artist because I think she should belong to the top category rather than only in installation art or painting. I think it is quite unsuful to put her in a subcategory because she could end up in painting, sculpture, installation art, collage, video art etc... Would'nt that dilute the very idea of categorisation? - Brunberg 17:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Amongst the artistic categories, there are separate, orthogonal hierarchies for time period, artistic movement, and medium. There is also a floating sub-classification of nationality which often gets attached to the principle medium category such as Category:British sculptors, but if a medium category hasn't grown large enough to sub-class by nationality the artist is grouped in Category:Nationality artists or Category:Nationality people.

So Emin is certainly in Category:Contemporary artists for time period, and is legitimately in Category:Conceptual artists, Category:Installation artists, Category:Video artists and even Category:Textile artists for medium. But she's hard to pin down for a specific artistic movement (perhaps Category:Anti-stuckism, but that's not such a strong movement). -- Solipsist 20:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is there a category "YBA" or "Young British Artist" or "Britart"? Tyrenius 17:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it. Although there is an article on Young British Artists which lists the principle players. It would be a tricky category to handle, since some might interpret it as any British artist who isn't particularly old. The list in the article is probably the best way to handle it. -- Solipsist 18:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about categories. What's the use of any category, because they could all be covered by a page with a list? Tyrenius 19:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's true. There is not cut and dried decision. Categories are one of the tools for finding articles. You can get a sense for what works as a cateogry and what doesn't by reviewing some of the discussions at Categories for Deletion. Things may have changed, but the last time I watched those deletion discussions, there was a general tendancy for somewhat indistinct, wooly, categories to be turned into a list instead. The reason being that a list can incorporate discussion on the borderline cases. Categories work best when you can easily say whether one article is in or out (even a category such as Category:British artists gets tricky when you consider expats - should Gilbert and George be included, given that Gilbert Proesch was originally Italian).

Category:Young British Artists could just about work. It would be more or less unequivocal for the students who exhibited in Freeze, although some of them have since dropped off the radar. The extended list becomes more difficult, I doubt it is equivalent to those British artists collected by Charles Saatchi, or British artists represented by Jay Jopling. In this instance, my guess is that the list in the article would work better than the cat. -- Solipsist 20:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Painters category re-added, as this has become more prominent (e.g. at Venice Biennale) in her work since the above discussion. Tyrenius (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Last Thing I Said Is Don't Leave Me Here

The Last Thing I Said Is Don't Leave Me Here was not destroted in a fire it is currentlyy on show at the National Portrait Gallery in london unless of course this is a reprint -- User:195.92.67.65 14:49, 26 October 2005   (Comment moved from article page. -- Solipsist 19:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC))

Plagarism

This entire text appears very very simlar if not exactly that same as this page on Tracy Emin's web site: http://www.tracey-emin.co.uk/tracey-emin-biography.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.23.22.167 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 3 February 2006

Surprisingly, it rather looks like the opposite is the case. Emin's web site is probably using the content from here without crediting Wikipedia or honouring GFDL. If you look at the original article written in 2003, there is no mention of the warehouse fire, because it hadn't occured. That sentence was add by User:Pigsonthewing on 26 May 2004, but appears word for word on the Emin site although copied from a later version that mentions the The Last Thing I Said.

There are other clues, such as the opening sentence being in Wikipedia house style for biographies. The date on the warehouse fire being written as '24 May 2004' which isn't typical UK formatting. And most particularly the external reference links as in the sentence

Two years later, in 1999, Emin was shortlisted for the Turner Prize and exhibited My Bed [1] at the Tate Gallery.

The [1] after 'My Bed' makes no sense on Emin's web site, but here it is an external link reference that I added.

That suggests the original version probably wasn't a copyvio, and whoever maintains Emin's site would appear to have copied a version of the Wikipedia article sometime after May 2004. -- Solipsist 11:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• I have removed the copyvio notice that I added in light of Solipsist's evidence. Capitalistroadster 23:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Official site

The official site for Emin is http://www.whitecube.com/html/artists/tre/tre_frset.html which is Jay Joplin's gallery site for the White Cube which represents Emin and many other YBAs. The site at http://www.tracey-emin.co.uk is not official and is one of a set owned by a third party, the links at the bottom show the rest of the collection. I've added the white cube link to the top of the links, hopefully no-one will have a problem with that. PhilipPage 22:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As she is represented by the White Cube gallery, that seems entirely correct. Tyrenius 23:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like tracey-emin.co.uk is run by Simon Phillips, as discussed in this BBC news story. It is also still including the Wikipedia biography without acknowledgement and failing to comply with GFDL. Perhaps we should just delete the link. -- Solipsist 11:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What is necessary for compliance? Tyrenius 23:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content and Wikipedia:GFDL_Compliance for examples of sites that are getting it right and wrong. But at its simplest level they need to acknowledge the original authors. -- Solipsist 10:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Tracey Emin's Official site is now Emininternational.com --90.196.144.130 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Emin-Strangeland.jpg

Image:Emin-Strangeland.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Literary Critic of English?

Could someone explain why Emin is classed as this, and could she be removed? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.116.162 (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a mystery. Removed. Ty 23:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tattoo Show and her negative feelings toward Tattoos

I'd never heard of Tracey Emin before 10 minutes ago when reading this article about tattoos from liz jones. [3] in the article jones says:

As the multi-tattooed artist Tracey Emin summed up in an exhibition called the Tattoo Show - in which she displayed photographs of her own tattoos accompanied by handwritten text telling of her regret that the mutilation on her body constantly reminds her of her old self and past mistakes - it is all a load of self-indulgent b******s.

This seems to be confirmed by this article [4] which says

For their owners, tattoos are invariably markers of pivotal moments -- that wild night, or the decision to join the army. Who better to meditate on these instants than Tracey Emin, queen of self-obsession? Her piece, Tattoo, is made up of photographs of her own tattoos and a hand-written text telling of her regret at their imposing reminders.

72.222.193.42 (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Personal Life" section

This section in the article seems rather odd. Usually, this section in a Wikipedia article is about family / relationships / children... this is the first time I've seen the fact that somebody has had an abortion mentioned in this section. Why is it mentioned? Emin may have discussed these abortions in the past, but that is not a reason to mention them here. Millions of people in the world have had abortions... they are very private and often physiologically painful experiences. Thousands of people who have articles about them in Wikipedia have had abortions, but their articles invariably do not mention these abortions... If it is felt that the article needs a mention of works that Emin did on pregnancy, it certainly should not be included in the "personal" section. If the works are considered minor works, don't mention them. It's just strangely insensitive and also unnecessary (it gives no insight into Emin) to mention these abortions here. 86.177.179.172 (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you except that abortion comes up at other places in the article. I think it would be a tough argument to make that it is too irrelevant. But let's see if others weigh in with an opinion. Bus stop (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Cheers - I don't think (and didn't say) they were irrelevant.. I was inferring / saying that this sort of thing is unusual in the "Personal life" section. The article has already mentioned the abortion subject (and possible subtext) in some of Emin's work. so mentioning it again in the "Personal life" section is A. repetition, and B. in a sense, the wrong place. Just because Emin has been honest and open about this subject, it does not mean therefore that anyone discussing her can also do the same. If other articles on notable people do not mention their abortions in the "Personal life" sections, then it follows that whoever compiled / wrote the article changed the usual Wikipedia article style and form because the article was about Emin. Thanks again for considering my point - however, I don't think that Emin's experiences with abortion are irrelevant: I'm just surprised to find them in the "Personal life" section. For some reason, it just seems insensitive. Her past notable relationships, for example (Mat Collishaw, Billy Childish, Carl Freedman - according to the article) would (one would imagine) go in that section. And then if there is not really any other relevant information (as perhaps these relationships are already mentioned elsewhere in the article) then perhaps there is no need at all for a "Personal life" section... 86.177.179.172 (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it for the simple reason that it is already covered in the article, so this is just an unnecessary duplication. However, if there were to be a full "personal life" section, then there is no obvious reason whey this would not be part of it, as it has been covered extensively and on numerous occasions in the media (and it was also, as it happens, her choice to give it that publicity). There is no change to "the usual Wikipedia article style and form": the usual form is to follow sources. For most people who have abortions the subject is kept private by the person themselves. Ty 20:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You seem to be suggesting that once this information is public, it is fair game to repeat it in an article. Respectfully, you say "there is no obvious reason" why this kind of thing should not be included in the "personal life" section. I assume that means that you're now going to rush off and add the personal surgical / pregnancy history details of the women in the lists in the following links onto their Wikipedia pages? Because I after looking in Google for a list of famous women that have had abortions (it took about 2 minutes), e.g. http://www.prolifeamerica.com/fusetalk/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=3417&highlight_key=y I then briefly looked at their Wikipedia pages and found that sometimes their abortions had not been mentioned in their "personal life" sections... funny, but some of the writers of these articles had disgracefully omitted this fact from the woman's page! Information that you obviously feel to be of importance to the public. Here: http://www.amiannoying.com/(S(4uoyqmupu511rfnstquj1nvl))/collection.aspx?collection=239 is another list of women who have had abortions, some of whom have this fact omitted from their Wikipedia page. I'm sure you'll go off and fix that, in the public's interest. Perhaps you might want to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_343 ...you mention that: "For most people who have abortions the subject is kept private by the person themselves". May I respectfully suggest that you consider for a minute why this is, before you say that there is "no reason" why not to mention this in an article about someone. Another article here : http://www.msmagazine.com/fall2006/abortionmag.asp may also enlighten you as to how sensitive a subject this is: imagine you are a female singer, for example. Your ex-boyfriend sells a "kiss-and-tell" story about your relationship with him to a newspaper. One of the events mentioned in the article is a painful abortion you had. This causes you great disquiet. Now imagine that somebody like you comes along and writes the Wikipedia article about that female singer. You feel that there is "no reason" not to include the abortion story. The fact that you can not think of a reason is one of the differences between you and me. Respectfully, think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.179.172 (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Oops, forgot to sign above... 86.177.179.172 (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The content for each article is assessed on its own merits in relation to the subject per WP:NPOV. This page is to discuss content for this article: see WP:TPG. If you have a general point to make, take it to a general forum, such as WP:VP. If you have a point to make about the content of other articles, then take it to the talk pages of those articles. Ty 01:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I used other Wikipedia articles as examples merely to strengthen and underpin my point about this article. 86.177.179.172 (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)