Talk:Charles Saatchi/Archives/2013

Margaret Thatcher

There is a line in the "life" division which shows his work for Mrs Thatcher in 1979. Beside it is a completely irrelevant extract about General Pinochet. Delete?

Tracey Emin

I don't think it's accurate to say that "Tracey Emin appear[s] not to understand the significance of [her] own random creations." True, she did a television interview where she appeared to be under the influence of alcohol or drugs and was not coherent. But she is certainly not unaware of the significance of her work. NSpector 23:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the whole bit about "curator as creator". It's unsourced and libelous to Emin. Freshacconci 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(Not to mention hardly new. A curator assigning meaning to a work of art not intended by the artist? That never happens!) Freshacconci 00:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I've just received word from the Saatchi Gallery that Tyrenius has been in contact with them. Thank you very much for your speedy reply T. And for the kind advice from everyone. Best, --Infoart 18:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

New Chinese art

Please wait for the reviews before inclusion, so we have quotes and comment on how notable the exhibition is regarded. Not every Saatchi exhibition is notable, and not every notable Saatchi exhibition has launched a new movement. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nigella Lawson image

It is perfectly suitable in an article about an individual to have a photo of that person's wife. It is someone of considerable relevance to the subject. Ty 01:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say it isn't really needed. Is there a reason for it? Most bios don't usually include on?--Tom 14:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

If most bios don't, then some bios do, presumably when the spouse is prominent in that person's public life, which is the case here. She is well known in her own right and coverage of Saatchi in the media often includes her. This makes it appropriate in this article. Ty 02:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But NIgella Lawaon isn't "prominent" in C Saatchi's public life. ie art other than perhaps attending some private views, whatever "the media" or gossip columns like to write about. She was and is prominent in her own career. What other bios on Wiki have an image of a spouse unless they are known for working together or in the same field ?Rrose Selavy (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

On the top of my head, Chiang Kai-shek's bio includes pictures of his four non-notable spouses, and George W. Bush has a picture of his children and wife. Although I don't have any strong opinion as to whether we should keep or remove the picture of Lawson, I would tend to think it's quite natural to have picture of relatives, especially close ones, in biographies. Laurent (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of bios on Wiki - it's not common practice at all . quite the opposite. I wouldn't think it "quite natural" at all, for the reasons I've already stated. Rrose Selavy (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

An article about a person contains information relevant to that person, including birth place, education, career, private life. That is put in the text and there is no disputing it is all relevant. An image is simply another way of presenting information. If the information is relevant, then it is relevant in an image just as much as it is relevant in text. The two modes of presenting information complement each other, and also bring out certain aspects not possible in the other mode. We are here to present information for the reader. I fail to see why any reader would not think this a useful and informative addition to the article. I don't see why you are so keen to withhold information from the reader. Ty 01:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point , is is not about "withholding information" . it is about consistency compared to other Bio articles within Wiki which no one has demonstrated that the practice of including images of spouses is widespread or consistent,. Anyone who wants to know what Nigella Lawson looks like can click on her name in this article to be taken to her wiki article where exactly the same picture is displayed , so your allegation that such information would be withheld from the reader is unfounded and incorrect. Rrose Selavy (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If you do not include it, you are, by definition, withholding it. There is no policy or guideline that vetoes its inclusion. You have not addressed the point that if information is valid in one form, e.g. text, it is valid in another, e.g. imagery. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is a long-devalued rationale. You have not found agreement here for your proposal. Ty 02:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Again you miss the point, countless images are potentially withheld from articles for very valid reasons. even if referred to in the text - it is included elsewhere and you haven't found agreement for including and duplicating the image in this article in the first place! It is clear from the edit history I am not the only person who has queried its use and I was not the first. You are obviously very attached to the image. The link you provide refers to articles and their deletion or inclusion and is irrelevant to the issue of what to include in an article . No one has disputed that this article should not exist . I have made my point and now have other things to do with my time. Rrose Selavy (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic

A box about Hirst has appeared at the bottom of an article about Charles. I do not know what it is doing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Saatchi "discovered" Hirst. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)