Talk:Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject North East England, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to North East England on Wikipedia. For further information or to participate, you can visit the Project page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale | |
| High | This article has been rated as high-Importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Need to add counter examples to balance POV
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.
[edit] Opportunities for local artists
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)
[edit] Advertising?
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)
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)
