Six people -- artists, writers -- who had known Coplans were invited to contribute to his obituary. Irving Blum's reminiscence aptly explains the editorial direction of the magazine during Coplans' tenure, and, by observation of the February 2005 issue, today as well. Blum notes that Coplans had a "bulletproof bull***** detector. He was astonishingly direct about every issue" (Banks, 2004). Blum notes that Coplans could both voice his feelings and explain why he did or did not like something, a feature of the writing in the magazine today. In addition, when the art public was giving some new ideas a lukewarm reception, and Coplans disagreed, he was not shy about pushing forward his own ideas about the works. For example, the Warhol Soup Can show was greeted by the public and other critics with indifference at best, hostility at worse. Coplans, however, took the time to understand it and began, in fact, to promote it.

Coplans also spoke his mind, a continuing feature of the editorial content of the magazine, and arguably what makes it influential with readers, art collectors, and artists alike. Banks says of Coplans "artists adored him on the one hand and were leery of him on the other. It was not love-hate but love, because of his clarity, coupled with a kind of hesitation" (2004). This seems to be a metaphor for the magazine itself.

Despite its influence, Artforum also covers older, less controversial issues in art, and older, more established artists. For example, the February 2005 issue included a review of Frank Stella, once a ground-breaking modern artist, but now a venerated artist, representative of a more innocent period of modernism. On the other hand, the issue deals with extremely contemporary installation art; indeed, it is extremely contemporary because the artworks in question self-destruct, after changing by themselves, at the behest of wind and weather, in the locales where they are placed.

Advertising in Artforum...

The advertising both places seems to be aimed at those who already know the artists being promoted. An extensive front-of-book ad for PaceWildenstein gallery, for example, uses no images at all, but simply typeface with the artists' names. There is a certain assumption, then, that the readers of Artforum will not be art world neophytes, but rather will be familiar with at least the major names.
The design elements are what one would expect of a magazine just behind the cutting edge, but light years in front of the stodgy. A photo page of MoMA inside the magazine is crisply laid out, but entices all sorts of readers with the central image in a tableau, a Picasso painting of a boy and a horse.

All this is packed into what one critic said of the magazine's editorial creed, whether in 1962 or today: "There is no danger of saying too much. There is always the risk of saying the wrong thing; the danger is only of saying nothing" (Sidney Geist, quoted by Artforum, June 1962, 2002). Artforum seems to have avoided that danger with abundant editorial content, and none of it 'sound bites.'