Jump to content

Talk:Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Need to add counter examples to balance POV

[edit]

Interesting expansion of the article, but I think we have introduced some significant POV problems.

The critisim of Nordgren, whilst quite possibly justified, should be balanced by some counter explanations. For example the pre-publicity programme before opening, may have been justified on the basis that no one in the art world is likely to know that Gateshead even existed, so it was important to raise the profile in order to be able to put on the initial exhibitions. (or maybe not - that's just an example). -- Solipsist 12:09, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


The bias of this article is questionable, and seems to dwell on the negative aspects of the BALTIC. It would be useful to show that the BALTIC is strongly supported by the local community, and is one of many programs that is designed to heighten and promote culture in and of the North-East of England, a neglected area of Britain in reference to media attention. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.39.20.236 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 14 October 2005.

This article's recent revisions have taken it from being just-about-neutral to almost attacking.

For instance, the paragraph beginning 'BALTIC has attracted frequent controversy and criticism for its management since before its opening' is almost entirely rehashing the next paragraph, except with some extra rumours and uninformed statements coming in. The references to Chris Burden seem to not understand the idea of showing an artists work, and are from a BBC documentary that was agressively against the Baltic gallery. Also, it would help if the events alluded to in recent history were given links, so that a clearer picture can be drawn from non-partisan sources.

Contemporary art in Britain is constantly under attack from conservative forces, despite being a recognised force for improvement and regeneration. This article is turning into another example of the small-minded nature of this conservatism, but failing to mention almost anything ground-braking about the Baltic - largest art gallery outside London? Groundbraking educational program? The collaboration with Northumbria universities courses? The online archieve? Sune Norgren's post-Baltic career as head of his countries National Gallery? It's not always grim oop north.

Mind you, tracing back the IP addresses on this article reveals that some of the critiscm is done by Middlesbrough council employees. Perhaps now that Middlesbrough has its own contempory art gallery, their focus will be diverted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.42.96.196 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 September 2006.

The article changed significantly since Dec. 2007, I've removed the NPOV template, please use {{POV-section}} or better yet {{POV-statement}} for statements and detail issues here. This will help address them quickly. - RoyBoy 04:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Trouble at t'Mill - Meltdown at Newcastle's Baltic?" external link points to domain http://www.state-of-art.org which appears to be no longer available. Dillthedog (talk) 11:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunities for local artists

[edit]

Move from article page;

It has attracted many contemporary, and controversial, artists. Critics of Baltic's programme of art have said that it provides few genuine oppertunities for local artists while in the media shows an image of being benificial to the local art scene. In a token attempt to appease these critics Baltic has participated in one poorly curated show of local art, which still celebrated artist who had allready achived notoritey within the art world and neglected emerging artists who could do with the publicity.

This may be true, but it is the sort of comment that ought to be externally referenced. I also not sure whether it is in the BALTIC's remit to promote local artists. For example the Tate Britain is supposed to collect significant British art, but I don't think it needs to promote local London artists. - Solipsist 20:22 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The Baltic makes the point that 'The BALTIC programme ranges from blockbuster exhibitions to innovative new work and projects created by artists working within the local community.' They have very little local involvement. That reference to the Tate is false. The Baltic is co-funded by the local council rather than the national government. The Baltic does not have a collection, it exists to show exhibitions, the vast majority of these are non-local, the involvement of the local community, either as artists or as a topic is limited, nearly zero. As a person who has seen most of the Baltic's exhibitions local involvement is minimal, for a gallery who takes up the vast majority of local council art funding which could be spent developing local artists it is a lapse. As the Baltic is a premier gallery for contemporary art in the North-east the exclusion of local artists is a serious problem. There is a perceived elitism to the running of the gallery as it is concerns the local community; most of the staff are not local; the facilities (new media, darkroom, library, etc.) are there for the staff and not open to the community. Due to the lack of opportunity for local artists, and facilities open to them this is a shame. Morethanape (talk) 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising?

[edit]

I have added the point of view warning, because some parts of the article appear to have been written in the style of promotional material and some of it sounds like a CV. Also, what's happened to the wikilinks that were present in this revision? Bob talk 10:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following Bob's comments. I apologise if the current text (30 May 07) reads like promotional material. It was placed on the site by BALTIC in an attempt to have factually correct information on the site. This was in reaction to incorrect versions of BALTIC history being uploaded. BALTIC wish to be honest about the origins of this text as it is not our intention to mislead any readers. BALTIC Media Office.

The current entry is now a puff piece and does not stand up well as an article. The stories linked with the poor management at the centre are well recorded in the external links but the Baltic's press office recent entry is not sourced.212.85.13.113 13:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing recent events

[edit]

The article has a long section on the 2002 opening of the centre, paragraphs on three exhibits up to 2007, and not much on its recent history. How about mentioning:

  • Its covid-related closure from November 2020 to May 2021? [1]
  • The first major retrospective of Judy Chicago in Britain, 2019 [2]
  • Its international award for emerging artists [3] [4]

—David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Unexpectedlydian: this isn't formally a part of the GA review, but I would have similar comments in the GA review, so feel free to add this kind of material. I know expansions during a GA review are sometimes frowned upon, but don't worry about that! Ganesha811 (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 12:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
  • As is my usual practice, I'll go through and fix any nitpicks / prose issues I see myself - if there are any changes you object to, just let me know here and we can discuss.
  • One organizational issue - it's a little odd to read about the design competition and architectural conversion and then read about the inception, finishing up with the Gateshead Council again. I would suggest incorporating the 'Inception' section into the 'History and architecture' section. Since it focuses on the structure's pre-art history and conversion, but not Baltic's history, I might break the section into several smaller ones, titled say 'Baltic Flour Mills', 'Arts centre inception', 'Architecture' or similar.
    • I've split these into two sections: 'History' and 'Architecture', as 'History and architecture' was getting a bit long. Hope this works better.
  • attribute the quote of "simple, honest, industrial" design as it is opinion.
    •  Done
  • in 'Management,' "resolve the financial situation" - what financial situation?
    • Have clarified it was described as "chaotic".
  • Also in 'Management' - "there were claims" - claims from who?
    • Not specified in the source, but I have clarified who said that there was reports, if that makes sense.
  • Shorten quote from Nordgren at start of 'Community and cultural impact'
    •  Done
  • in 'Thanksgiving', "the remaining photographs" implies that the suspect photo was removed from display, but this is not actually stated, so please rephrase to clarify. Also, is "the owner" Goldin or Sir Elton John or someone else?
    •  Done
  • Organizationally, the mention of the covid-19 closure should be moved elsewhere - further comments under breadth/focus below.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  • Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
  • Seeing some ref-name errors on #34 (Lognonne) and #27 (Whetstone)
    •  Done Should be fixed now.
      • Pass.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
  • Two coats of paint is a fairly new source and I don't know anything about their reputation. Especially since it's being used to say something broadly about "critics and the public", do you have any information backing up its reliability as a source?
    •  Done Thanks for pointing this out - I don't have anything to back up the reliability after a more thorough review of the source. Instead, I've removed the line and added some further contextual information about the exhibition from reliable sources.
  • The Pedro Alonzo source, Spank the Monkey - is that an exhibition guidebook, a retrospective of the exhibit, or something else? Why does it have the same title as the exhibit?
  • The Right Vision Media sources (European Union News) are promotional press releases. They're not used egregiously, but is there a more independent source available talking about this partnership?
    •  Done I've found an article in The Guardian about Baltic 39 so have used that instead. Have also edited the text to reflect this new info.
  • mandh-online.com now appears to be owned by a different organization, it's now a Thai website. The original URL is a 404 and should be removed. Also, is M&H magazine a museum-trade specific publication? Does it have a new online presence somewhere?
    • The URL is marked as dead now and there is an archive link - is that ok? Also, I think M&H may be Museums + Heritage magazine. Appreciate this isn't very robust research, so happy to find an alternative source if that's better!
  • Source #58 gives the author's name (presumably, Ben Hoyle) as the publisher and the original link 404s. Clean up needed.
    •  Done Archive link is available and have tidied up the citation.
  • Please recheck the citations to make sure everything is in its proper place - author's name, publisher, publication date, title, etc.
    • I think everything looks ok. I've used some short citations where sources are in the bibliography. Are there any particular examples you were thinking of?
  • Also worth noting that Guest (2008) is not an independent source, as it was published in association with Baltic, but it is not used to cite anything controversial or opinionated that I can see, so not an issue for GA.
      • Pass. Looks good.
2c. it contains no original research.
  • Pass.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  • Earwig finds a clear instance of similarity. However, the article was published in May 2012, and the material was already in the article before that date. I'm inclined to think this is an example of a journalist copying from Wiki, and not a copyvio on our part. However, it might be worth rephrasing the sentences anyway for simplicity's sake.
    •  Done No problem - I've reworded the part in question.
  • Nothing else found by Earwig or manual spot-check.
      • Pass - no remaining issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
  • I agree with these comments from David Eppstein and mentions of some or all of the following should be added while avoiding recentism:
    • Its covid-related closure from November 2020 to May 2021? [5]
      •  Done
    • The first major retrospective of Judy Chicago in Britain, 2019 [6]
      •  Done
    • Its international award for emerging artists [7] [8]
      •  Done
  • Pass. Issues addressed. No other major areas found that require expansion.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  • The article gives rather a lot of space to the 'Opening' compared to what has happened at Baltic since then. Management is covered well and I think the cultural impact section is good. However, vague financial issues are mentioned twice without ever being detailed, and the covid-19 mention is in the wrong place. I would suggest moving 'Management' above 'Opening' and renaming 'Opening' to 'History as arts centre' or similar. The 'Notable exhibitions' section can then be incorporated into the new 'History as arts centre' section.
    • I've rearranged the sections and additional clarification about the centre's finances was added into 'Management'. I believe the other instance of financial issues is mentioned in 'Beryl Cook' - I can also add the detail about the "chaotic" financial situation in here if that works.
      • Yes, the more detail you can add on the financial situation the better, it's important and shouldn't be mentioned without appropriate detail/context. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added more details on the financial and management difficulties, let me know what you think!
          • Issues addressed - pass.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  • No issues, pass.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
  • File:012298-Baltic Flour Mill Gateshead unknown 1950 (4075866463).jpg has a 2009 date (presumably the date of upload), which should be changed to the date/year of original creation. It also needs a US PD tag in addition to the UK one. The UK tag also says it was created by the UK government, which doesn't seem to be correct - it was created by J. Rank and *shared* by the UK government.
    • I've changed the date. I may need some assistance in identifying which tags to use. Possibly {{PD-1996}}? But if Joseph Rank died in 1943, lifetime + 70 years whould have expired in 2013.
      • I'm not sure - copyright issues aren't my specialty. I'll dig into it a bit, and in the meantime, it might be worth asking on the Commons help page (link). —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was not able to determine what copyright tag would be appropriate. The source (Newcastle Libraries) say they believe it's Public Domain, but I'm unable to figure out why they think so. Have you had any luck, Unexpectedlydian? —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for digging - I haven't contacted the helpdesk yet but will do so. For now, I've removed the image from the article. If it later transpires that it is PD, I can add it back in.
            • Thanks - that takes care of it for now. Feel free to add back later if the copyright situation can be clarified. Pass in the meantime.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
  • Pass.
7. Overall assessment.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Baltic_Centre_for_Contemporary_Art&oldid=1205677785"