Originally posted by Darren Cox
Reposted by MCAC

I liked reading about Guy Hembling, but where was his art? Were those photographs of paintbrushes and rolled up drawings stock photography??? I've never seen an article on an artist that didn't show their art before!

I like the idea of 'the unlikely artist' series yet the tone was a little depressing, more business than inspiring. Why glorify the people's day jobs when you could talk about their dreams and aspirations? perhaps I take my art too seriously, perhaps I romantize art when most people just see it as an extra source of income, a lesser source....

I just want to suggest that you fill the pages with art, inspiration and essoteric wisdom and stop trying to look like a corporate business magazine.
It's an ART magazine right? Give us the art! Why not have a whole page of nothing but art *gasp*, well there was that super nice page with the b/w photos that was good!
...and the cover.... Is Spinal Tap coming to Red Bank and this is the tribute? Is this the symbolic death of visual art or something an inside joke? No, it's most likely a graphic design decision, all nice and tidy and clean, high clbutt baby! yet, this is an ARTS magazine! Graphic design is supposed to emphasize the subject here not BE the subject!!!!
I like the patron pages (except the page with just the definition of what a patron is, half a dozen pages of graphic design from the 1990's handbook is too much for an art magazine, mix it up! throw a little Adobe Illustrator shapes in the mix at least!!!) I like the idea of a patron talking about the artist and the artist about the patron, it's interesting and on topic.
ok, so that's my opinion! you can read more of ranting on my art blog if you wish http://99daz.com