Hi everyone. Today you get to meet another member of irevuo‘s crew. His name is Adrian Gabor, and he’s the guy who designed our logo. Also, I’ve worked with him on a number of projects along the years, including a gaming magazine, a movie review website, and some other stuff.
He’s also a great photographer. You can check out his stuff here.
You’re something of a jack of all trades when it comes to online and social media. Along the years, we worked together on a number of projects. What do you think it’s most appealing about this outlet?
I guess you are right about me being a jack of all trades in some ways. In retrospect, the projects we worked on were rather limited in terms of audience, and I think that’s why irevuo can truly have an impact, the possibilities are endless. And then there’s the endless source of new and original content that we have with a project like this. It really makes me excited.
What do you think went wrong with our previous ventures?
I’d say that not doing it in English limited our audience too much, and reaching the exact type of person you are writing for is a great challenge, even with the tools we have today. There’s also some luck needed, which is true for anything and any type of venture. I wouldn’t say something went wrong, in the end I see it as a learning platform.
What’s different about irevuo? What made you choose to work on this project?
Unlike previous projects, I really feel like there already is an audience, interested in the project and ready to hear what we have to say. We didn’t really have that before, it was more like just an idea. In a perfect world perhaps it would be enough, but it helps to see people being interested, and it is a big morale boost.
irevuo plans to feature and promote unknown artists. What do you think is the difficult part? Finding artists or successfully promoting them?
I think finding artists is easy. Everyone is an artist on the internet. I’m joking. Take photography for example, the web really exploded when it comes to this particular art form, you only need to open any photography website, and on the last page, with the least profile views or whatever statistics used to quantify success or popularity, you are bound to find at least someone deserving of more exposure.
Truth be told, these days anyone can be an artist. Or at least try to be one. You can self-publish with a few clicks, you can set up an online store within minutes. Also, success is being measured not only in monetary terms, but in new ones as well, such a followers, likes, comments, and so on. The web has changed the way we perceive value. Does this alter the way you, as an editor, perceive quality?
Artists that make it their goal to please the public will always have more likes and more people clamoring on their Facebook pages. And that’s fine. I don’t think my perception is distorted by numbers, but I’m sure there are people that look at these values and think that someone that doesn’t get a lot of likes is a lesser artist; it doesn’t work like that. It seems to me that artists nowadays need to also learn how to be effective internet marketers.
Do you think that’s the main difference? Making good art doesn’t guarantee you success, while being a good marketer does?
I think that if you make something that’s very pleasing, doesn’t upset anyone and goes great with what is popular at a given time, you will have a much easier time than some artist pouring his soul out creating something that may not be as pretty, or easy to understand. If you want to get noticed and your art is not as accessible, then you need to be a good marketer too, if you want to get more exposure. It is nothing new, successful artists were always involved, or at the right place and time, always out there. Creating a Facebook page and hoping for the best is not enough, not even on the internet, unfortunately.
What’s your definition of “good art?”
It really depends on the point of view you are using to ‘judge’ art. If you’re a well- known critic you may have very high expectations. For me, it’s enough if I see something done with passion, that is clearly original, and not something that is copied or part of the latest trend, it is not hard to copy, not from an artistic point of view, it may be hard in terms of technique in some cases, but generally copying or getting on the same bandwagon as everyone else won’t make you a great artist. And another thing, art itself is tied to the artist, I think, if the artist doesn’t know how to manage his “image” then he may be looked down upon, for example someone praising his own work with every possible occasion, that only makes me less interested and affects the way I look at the work itself.
So basically you’re looking for artists who have found their “voice,” who not only want to say something, but also have something to say. Are there any other qualities you will be looking for as an editor?
Well I don’t have a list with checkboxes, not really. There needs to be something that sparks my interest somehow. I mentioned earlier that I’m looking for underrated artists, that have not had a lot of exposure, that would be high on the list if there was one.
The idea is to publish a magazine every three months. Not only digital, but also a print edition as well. In an Internet driven society such as ours, how do you think this will play out?
I think that’s great, I can see the printed edition being more appealing to a select few, who like to collect magazines in print, or who enjoy the pleasure of reading something that they have in their hands, or that simply want to support irevuo in a different way.
You can contribute to irevuo magazine here. We’ve got some cool perks, and you can also buy advance copies of the magazine, which will be launched in January 2013.