Talk:Freeze (art exhibition)

message: Stephen Park and Steven Adamson need to be verified as having been inlcuded in the show. Tyrenius 21:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Park is mentioned in a Tate essay as part of the YBA crowd. Tyrenius 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately first hand experience by a Wiki editor does not count as a valid source on Wiki.--Kbob (talk) 02:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Verification

message: "Furthermore, some of the artists in Freeze did not make it into the pantheon of the YBAs." this is a bit problematic. Surely anyone who is Young, and british, and an artist is by definition a Young British Artist. (though I know it also means something more specific, though what is quite hard to characterize). To say that any artist, who by default is young and british, didn't make it as one, is awkward. I think what you meant was "didn't make it into the commercial artworld".   The problem with this is that it might be taken to imply that "making it" was a primary ambition. In my experience this presumption becomes irrititating to artists of all kinds even when accurate, though it is often isn't. Thepeopleschum 16:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed wording re pantheon. Young British Arists was the title Saatchi used for shows, as you may know, so it has a specific meaning for a group of artists, and others who became associated with them, so we're talking about the Young British Artists, not young British artists, as there were plenty of the latter not counted as the former. Please add to the article anything you think will improve it. Tyrenius 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A quibble, or is it just me? 

message: Thanks for removing "make it". I wonder if "pantheon" is not somewhat overblown. It may be that its just not a word I am quick to use. I take its loosest definintion to mean "hall of fame". I recognise the impact of the show and the personal success stories that sprang from it, but I don't really see many names that can be said to have entered any kind of pantheon; Damien Hirst notwithstanding. Would you object if I changed the sentence to read, "Furthermore, some of the artists in Freeze are yet to appear on the international art scene"  ?.  RegardsThepeopleschum 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you plough into the article and do with it what you will, adding any info you think suitable. It can always be re-edited if anyone disagrees. See WP:BRD. I'd like to see some of the unique insights that I think you can include. If they're not challenged, then they remain. However, as you asked re "Furthermore, some of the artists in Freeze are yet to appear on the international art scene", the wording implies that they will do one day, whereas this is not necessarily the case at all, so maybe something like: "Furthermore, some of the artists in Freeze did not receive the same attention as others on the international art scene". Tyrenius 01:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pantheon?" 

message: At the present time this entire article is founded on a few sentences from an obituary.  Those sentences, taken from an article in The Independent read as follows:
*"Born in Kent, Fairhurst graduated from art school in 1989, the same year as Hirst. He had organised a student show in February 1988 which was seen as a precursor to the Freeze exhibition Hirst orchestrated in July 1988. Fairhurst, along with 16 other Goldsmith students, was instrumental in Freeze. It was there that the work of the Young British Artists caught the attention of the collector Charles Saatchi, and also put British art at the forefront of the international contemporary arts scene." 
It says Hirst orchestrated Freeze and Fairhurst was instrumental in the exhibition. That is how I have represented it in the article and given the above as a citation. Any copy that contradicts the above source is opinion and point of view unless a reliable source is cited. As you know, opinion and point of view are not permitted in Wiki articles. WP:NPOV.  I hope you can find some sources so we can clean up the article and remove the banners. Peace! --Kbob (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct. I was referring above to an edit[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freeze_(exhibition)&diff=prev&
oldid=301107072] which you have now changed. Ty 03:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good I'm glad I got it right, thanks. --Kbob (talk) 16:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairhurst and Hirst 

message: The photo of Damien Hirst has been removed from the article. It is entirely appropriate to have an image of the figure who was the main organiser of the show and whose name is recurrently identified with it in sources (see references in previous section). Ty 02:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that Hirst is a central figure in the organizing of the exhibition but the article is not about Hirst it is about Freeze. I would welcome photos of the exhibition but I object to a photo of Hirst. As a compromise I would accept a photo of Hirst with Freeze in the background.  What do other editors think?--Kbob (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As organizer of the exhibition, the picture is apt. Hirst's photo is positively appropriate...Modernist (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hirst has his own article and this article is not about him. The picture is jarring and should be removed. Abductive (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Johnbod and Abductive that the picture  of Hirst is not appropriate for these reasons: 1) there are no other photos ie. of the subject of the article 2) It is a small article and the photo looks out of place. 3) Hirst is barely mentioned in the article. 4)The photo is not pleasing or professional 5) Hirst has his own article.  I have already removed the photo once and feel it should be removed again.--Kbob (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I read Johnbod as wanting to retain the image. I've asked him to clarify. 1) Having a lack of photos is not a reason to remove photos; it's a reason to find more. 3) Having a small article is not a reason to make it smaller and even less informative: it's a reason to expand it and add content, a substantial amount of which needs to be added. 3) If Hirst is barely mentioned, then that is a deficiency of the article: I have given plenty of refs above to show his key role and importance for this show. 4) Disagree. It is a good photo. 5) Read WP:SUMMARY.  This article should have sufficient material on Hirst for the reader to understand how his background and character informed the show.  For a complete biog, the main article on him is available. 6) WP:BRD. You removed. An uninvolved editor reverted. We are now discussing. When consensus is arrived at, it is the appropriate time to take further editing action. To act before then is edit warring. Ty 01:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As now clarified above, I'm for keeping the pic! Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  Just to throw in one more opinion, I also think the photo should stay. A photo of the exhibition for the intro would be nice also, but the current photo coincides with the text effectively. Vicarious (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the picture is appropriate...Modernist (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Surely the ideal is a greatly expanded article to do justice to the subject with several relevant images, including Hirst. Ty 11:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see I also misread Johnbod's but now it is clear. It seems the consensus is for the photo but I have requested additional opinions just to be sure. thanks everyone.--Kbob (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hirst photo