Talk:Mary Boone

Current Boone Gallery - Promotional?
There seems to be question whether this passage is too promotional:
 * "Mary Boone currently represents several of her established artists as well as a younger group of successful artists. Many of these newer artists are drawn to her earlier reputation, noting that much of the work she had previously represented is once again commanding high prices."

It is sourced to the New York Times article, but the article is from 2000. I think it is important to convey that Boone and her gallery continued to have influence on the art market after the crash and there was a legacy her gallery still maintained. Perhaps if the language read as less promotional? How's this?
 * "As of 2000, Mary Boone continued to represent many of the artists she had previously shown as well as younger group of successful artists. Many of these newer artists are drawn to her earlier reputation."

Knulclunk (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As any longtime editor would, I appreciate your discussing the issue and offering an alternative suggestion. The language and tone are indeed less promotional. I'm not sure I would say that the content is less promotional. It's non-notable, for example, that a gallery owner represents artists. An article about a CEO, for example, would not say, "As of 2000, John Smith continued to be a CEO of a company manufacturing widgets. Many of his engineers are drawn to his reputation." Can you see the analogy? Also, "successful" is non-quantifiable POV. All this is aside from the fact that this is 17 years old, and the fact that she continues to have two galleries speaks for her standing in 2017. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, even in the 2014 Interview article, notable artists like Will Cotton and Marc Quinn are name dropped. These are serious artists, as are the artists she still represents. To take your analogy one step further- "John Smith was the greatest widget manufacturer on the East Coast before the revolution. During the uprising, his warehouses sacked, workers killed and factories burned to the ground. Many blamed him for the conditions leading to the revolution. Once peace was restored, he continued to make widgets. Smith's widgets were in demand as much as before the war."

I think that last sentence is important, don't you?

To you other point, I think "successful" is totally quantifiable, as in, if the artist has a Wikipedia page and sells work for $50k+, that is pretty freaking successful. But if you have better adjective (notable?), I'd encourage it.

Knulclunk (talk) 05:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Here is language that dates the article and removes the word successful. What do you think?

"As of 2000, Mary Boone continued to represent several of her established artists as well as younger artists drawn to her earlier reputation. Some of these newer artists noted that much of the work she had previously represented was again commanding high prices."

Knulclunk (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Knulclunk. I see you've been on Wikipedia for a very long time, albeit sporadically. I'm afraid I'm unsure of your understanding of POV. You say, "I think 'successful' is totally quantifiable, as in, if the artist has a Wikipedia page and sells work for $50k+" ... in which $50k+ is a completely subjective, arbitrary figure you devised yourself. And having a Wikipedia page is evidence only of notability, not success.


 * I don't believe your analogy fits either: "John Smith was the greatest widget manufacturer on the East Coast before the revolution." What's the analogy? "Mary Boone was the greatest art-gallery owner in New York City before an art=market downturn"?


 * I have to ask if you're in any way affiliated with the gallery or are a friend of Mary's, or are a paid Wikipedia editor, any of which needs to be disclosed. Because there is nothing encyclopedically significant about an art-gallery owner representing artists. That's simply the definition of the job. The article documents specific artists she represents, and there's obviously nothing wrong with saying, "As of 2017, she represents artists including [artist A with a Wikipedia page],[cite] [artist B with a Wikipedia page],[cite] and [artist C with a Wikipedia page],[cite]." But what you've got, even rewritten, is a promotional blurb, not an encyclopedia passage. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I am not affiliated with the gallery in any way. The article is simply one many art-related entries I rescued from deletion several years ago and keep on my watch list. I think it is important to include some post 1990s history of her and the gallery, but, I'll take your point and rewrite it in a way that is more specific and sourced.-- Knulclunk (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Added the section about the younger artists, tied to the 2000 opening of the second gallery. Since the source is from the same period, that seemed to fit. No promotional sounding language about the new artists or their decision to be represented by Boone. All sourced to the same NYTimes 2000 article that seems balanced in its representation. Also note below that I added the Baldwin suit as well.--Knulclunk (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Alleged "Sea and Mirror" fraud
How much of this can we give weight? Ibadibam (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think it's notable by any definition. Boone didn't respond to The New Yorker but conceded the settlement here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Done.Knulclunk (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mary Boone. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.interviewmagazine.com/art/mary-boone/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060625193815/http://www.signandsight.com/features/773.html to http://www.signandsight.com/features/773.html/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)