Talk:Maureen Paley

Interim Art
Currently Interim Art is a section on this page but its role in british Art of 80s and 90s suggests the creation of specific page. Anyone got time?--Artiquities (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
See the edit summary here. -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done some quick copyediting and removed the most glaring promotional copy.  freshacconci  talk talk  11:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

letter
We're told:


 * she was one of 35 art world signatories to a letter in the Evening Standard attacking its art critic, Brian Sewell for "homophobia", "misogyny", "demagogy" and "hypocrisy"

How is this at all remarkable? (Even if she'd been the only (world) signatory, such a letter would seem humdrum to me.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NNC, it doesn't have to be remarkable or even notable. It has to be relevant and verifiable. It is revealing of her view of art and in particular her view of the stance of Sewell (the opponent of the kind of art she shows). It is a very well known letter.  Ty  14:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If you say so. To me, it seems an obvious kind of letter, Anyway, where did you retrieve it from? (When I googled the title I couldn't find it.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sourced from News UK, pay site, but free with membership of a lot of UK libraries. It was covered in major media sources. I've got about a dozen articles. If you want a copy, email me: my user name@gmail.com or through the wiki system. I've changed the text to bring out the important issues at stake. The position of the gallery in UK art world politics is a relevant factor.  Ty  15:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I believe you. I refuse to pay money for London's evening equivalent of the Daily Wail, but as I understand it Sewell is their pet guardian of Art against the barbarian hordes of lefties, homos, women feminists, foreigners, coloureds, and the other demons of the middle-aged white English lower middle class. And perhaps in the world of art in general he's a cross between the kind of wrestler who wears a pencil moustache and is booed on his appearance, and Kenneth Williams. Are 35 articles going to present this factoid? Or, if it's necessary to explain this particular gallery ... isn't there some more cogent alternative explanation? -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC), amended Hoary (talk) 11:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Other articles need to be judged on a case by case basis as to relevance for inclusion. I don't understand your last sentence.  Ty  01:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

''it doesn't have to be remarkable or even notable. It has to be relevant and verifiable. It is revealing of her view of art and in particular her view of the stance of Sewell (the opponent of the kind of art she shows). With your explanation, you seem to tacitly acknowledge that it does'' have to be notable. Whether or not this is so, thank you for the explanation. But look, Sewell is an art tory (and a cartoonish one to boot), Paley is an art trendy. Anyone can infer the latter from the "YBA" stuff. As a trendy, she won't like a tory; the Sewell letter really won't tell us much. Still, in its current form the account is concise and I have no objection to it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to it either. Sewell's specific comment on Paley is currently included in the article Brian Sewell as one of several examples typifying his style. The public disagreements between the two add an interesting note and are worth including in this article somehow. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

five women of note
The article told us that the Torygraph called Paley one of the five female gallery owners of note, or similar.

Actually this is an article about somebody called Pilar Corrias, signed by one Jo Craven. It starts with a kitsch "work of art", which I suppose is ironically kitsch and therefore OK, and burbles on. Here's a sample:


 * Corrias is a striking-looking 39-year-old. Blonde with big brown eyes, she has a sleek dress sense: when we meet she's wearing towering black patent-leather stilettos and a printed silk-jersey dress, set off insouciantly by a pebble picked up by one of her sons and threaded on to red string.

Here we have art criticism of the London "quality" press. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Edits by User:Gallery history and User: Eastendarchive
Many of the edit summaries made by these two editors appear to disguise potentially tendentious editing, and also, some are difficult to comprehend--e.g., well sourced referenced material removed on the basis that it is "out of date." How so? These editors are both SPAs and should likely proceed with caution and be certain that all their edits are assiduously NPOV --Artiquities (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another editor has raised this today at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * SPI investigation at Sockpuppet investigations/Gallery history.  Ty  14:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Confirmed, see Sockpuppet_investigations/Gallery_history/Archive. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Gallery history has declared an interest. I have left further advice at User talk:Gallery history. - Fayenatic (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And now for another London art entrepreneur?
I see that after a rocky start, work on this article is now bubbling away healthily, pardon the mixed metaphors. Good! I wonder if any of you, who clearly know much more about London art dealers than I do, would care to make this link to "Nicholas Treadwell" turn blue. When I'd never heard of him or "Superhumanism" or any of the artists he represented, I heard that Denne Hill (whither he'd departed from London) was a place to see art that was thought provoking, amusing, silly, tacky, or some combination of two or more of these. So I went along there. I was not disappointed. Yes, some of the stuff was crap, but enough was good (in one way or another) to make the trip worthwhile. I'm surprised and sorry to read nothing about him in WP. Any takers? -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Blue.  Ty  17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even by Ty's high standards that is impressive. Phew ... no sooner said than done. My hat goes off to you. --Artiquities (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, you don't have to eat it... Ty.  Ty  18:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I've copied the above to Talk:Nicholas Treadwell, now that it exists...  Ty  23:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And the Sound of Three Hands Clapping for Tyrenius's most splendid new article. I suppose the next job is to create articles on some of Treadwell's artists -- but of course that's not a matter for discussion in this talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo of Paley
(Somebody posted this at the top.)

User:Gallery history, an energetic contributor to this article, works for Paley. So photos of her, the gallery, her in the gallery, etc, should be easy to arrange. -- Hoary (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Over the years (2007-2023) this article has had multiple acknowledged editors who work for the gallery (87.224.31.70, Gallery history, Eastendarchive, Historyandwisdom), as well as several editors who I suspect have a COI. Users MaureenPaleybeck and Maureen Paley have only ever edited this page and have names associated with the gallery. Users Londonartupdates, Updates2020, Updates2022, Louisaelbr, have only edited this article and generally lack a neutral tone.

If you look at artists who Paley has worked with Sarah Jones (artist), Wolfgang Tillmans, Gillian Wearing, Rebecca Warren, and Daria Martin, there is also a considerable amount of COI editing from these or similar accounts.

Vegantics (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)