Jump to content

Spontaneity


Recommended Posts

<p>Disclaimer: Using a standard definition from the dictionary...</p>

<p>Do you value spontaneity in your -- or other people's -- work? How? Does it play a part in your working philosophy? When you want it while working with a model or models, how do you bring it about directorially? Or is it something you try to avoid and/or control? And I am talking all ends of the equation, both in front and behind the camera.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I value spontaneity in good candids--which admittedly make up a small percentage of shots that I make, and which are typically either of children or of students at the college where I teach. There are rare occasions when I am simply carrying a camera when I drive and take shots as I see them. (Some turn out surprisingly well.) Spontaneous expressions--and changes of expression--are particularly welcome, whether in my work or in that of others.</p>

<p>In general, however, I like to plan my shots pretty carefully. I do not set up or pose a lot of shots, but I do take a lot of shots of stationary objects or landscapes. There is typically no rush in such shots, and so spontaneity plays no role in my decision as to how to bring off the shot. This is not to say that I might not change my mind on the spot as to how best to capture the shot--and so even in landscapes there might be more spontaneity at work than I had thought.</p>

<p>Weather shots (including clouds) involve sufficiently fast changes in the sky that I suppose that I could refer to a certain spontaneity in my approach to shooting them. For clouds, I will often use a 12-24mm superwide on a full-frame camera with high ISO so that I can dispense with the tripod, which also maximizes spontaneity. In general, I do not know specifically what I am going to shoot when I go out, except in the most general sense, and so I suppose that a degree of spontaneity might be present in more shots than I ever imagined.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Spontaneity, I consider the key to understanding what I'm doing in all fields of artistic expression, but only if referring to the execution of the work (the actual shooting).<br>

<br /> I shoot spontaneously, but I plan very much in details where, when and how the spontaneity is being released. I go to places that I have studied and known in details in order to identify the season, the precise places and the people I wish to encounter. I plan the equipment I bring with me etc etc.<br>

<br /> Spontaneity is in my mind also related to inspiration. Inspiration for shooting (inspiration of certain light, perspectives, composition, colors...) comes in my case from a continuing return to my previous shots and not least from an in-depth passion of arts in all its expressions and not only photography. Paintings, sculptures, films, theatre, literature, music all provide input for creating inspiration that invites me to shoot certain shots at certain moments spontaneously.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Spontaneity is one of those concepts that I think is so multidimensional that such a discussion about it could almost be endless. Spontaneity can be such a small thing as a last-minute change of an aperture to the slight movement left or right before releasing the shutter or the last-minute decision to tilt a light 1 or 2° this way or that. It can also be the employment of major changes in the original idea because of a last-minute brainstorm or the recognition of something in the environment where you are shooting that hadn't yet registered.<br /><br />To me the whole idea of spontaneity is integral to the creative process. It is not counter to planning and directing a shoot but rather is a quality that can augment the process. It can be a conscious or subconscious process.<br /><br />When I'm photographing a person, whether a model or someone I just met, my approach will vary depending on the nature of the photograph I am making. Generally, I would say that I am looking for a natural and honest/genuine response from the subject and have to wonder if that is the same thing as spontaneous. I don't think one can direct someone to be spontaneous, but one can create an environment where one can react honestly. As I think about it, I do wonder if it is the photographer that must spontaneously react to what the model does naturally more than the model being spontaneous. In any case, if the photographer doesn't recognize the moment and respond to it, it is all rather moot.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>John A - "</strong>I don't think one can direct someone to be spontaneous..."</p>

<p>Maybe not one person, but Joel Meyerowitz used to do the advertising for Newport cigarrettes. He was known for making ads brimming with spontaneity. The way he did it was to issue instructions to the models individually, and never gave them (the ads usually showed couples) the same set of instructions. As the scene unfolded, the disparate instructions resulted in apparently spontaneous behavior.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Luis, creating an environment where spontaneity happens is different than directing spontaneity to me. A device to create chaos--albeit maybe controlled chaos-- is different than directing the spontaneous.</p>

<p>What you describe Joel doing is akin to what I suggested above, "creating an environment where one can react honestly". The environment created is not the same for every shoot nor the same with one or two or ten models. The idea, which is what you describe above, is to get honest and candid/natural reactions. If we choose to call that spontaneous, then great, but sometimes spontaneous can also be fake and practiced, which is evident when the photograph records that--my premise here is that people, even when confronted with the unexpected, can--and often do-- control their reaction if they are being watched.</p>

<p>I will also add, to clarify my comment above about the photographer spontaneously responding to something, is that there is also an important but different attribute the comes into play in all of this and that is anticipation--having an intuition about what is going to happen through observation of what precedes it.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Generally, I would say that I am looking for a natural and honest/genuine response from the subject and have to wonder if that is the same thing as spontaneous. I don't think one can direct someone to be spontaneous, but one can create an environment where one can react honestly. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>If one goes directly to the dictionaries and check what "spontaneously" means you will find definitions likes this one :</p>

 

 

<blockquote>coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned: a spontaneous burst of applause. </blockquote>

 

<p>I would not therefor introduce "honesty", because surely you can be "spontaneously dishonest" and still be covered by the definition. If you are "Honest" you would not lie, so the terms are describing different phenomena, I would think.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>John A., I understand what you mean. What JM did was a form of indirect direction, the result of which was to reintroduce unforeseeable events, amongst them, spontaneity. My main reason or bringing that up was to show that even in extremely controlled conditions spontaneity can be made to happen,</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For me a large part of sponteniety is being able to "listen" to your inner voice and respond to it. It is very reflexive and fluid, hence, spontaneous. It can be much like improvisation for a jazz soloist. You are best when you are in command of your instrument through experience and practice, so you can use it fully as the inspiration arises.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"even in extremely controlled conditions spontaneity can be made to happen," </p>

<p>I certainly don't disagree with this, in fact, I do think that the most creative work happens only when one can allow for spontaneity in the process--otherwise things get lost or too codified and stilted. But even with that, the most important thing is the recognition that spontaneity is not just one specific thing nor does it manifest itself in just one way--it is a continuum.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The key word here is "apparent" - jazz musicians practice for hours but seem on stage to have just thought of the phrases they're playing - actors rehearse for days so that their comedic playing seems spontaneous to the audience. It's most often a case of art concealing art, the principle of the Zen archer (constant practice leading to a flowing and seemingly effortless performance), etc.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>David,<br>

I think you have hit the nail on the head with your reference to the term 'apparent'. I remember someone interviewing Frank Sinatra and commenting on the 'effortlessness' of his performance. Sinatra replied, "You have no idea how much hard work goes in to being effortless."<br>

I find that if I plan what I'm going to do then it creates an environemnt in which things can happen. There must, IMO, be a guiding idea around which other ideas can emerge. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I like what David and Chris have written. Unfortunately, though spontaneity is important, it is often used as an excuse for thoughtlessness, laziness, and lack of vision. Spontaneity often <em>feels</em> fabulous but doesn't <em>look</em> very good. It's best, photographically speaking, when accompanied by a well honed sense of vision and craft.</p>

<p>Something that's very planned and contrived can LOOK spontaneous and something very candid and spontaneous can LOOK extremely trite and contrived. (I'm not against a good contrivance.) Even Jackson Pollock's somewhat random paint splatters have a guiding light, which has to do with methodology as well as art history and other things.</p>

<p>The word "apparent" has been introduced and we should spend an entire thread on that sometime. For me, though what I experience is important to my life, the significance of what is apparent can't be underestimated relative to a photograph. It's why I keep coming back to Avedon's quote about surfaces.</p>

<p>.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My photographs don’t go below the surface. They don’t go below anything. They’re readings of the surface. I have great faith in surfaces. A good one is full of clues.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I think we can get lost in trying to communicate how we feel. A good part of spontaneity, for me, is in the fact that when I explore what I SEE and different ways to SEE and different ways of looking at what I SEE and different ways of transposing or transforming what I SEE into how my photo looks (APPEARS), the appearance of that photo somehow starts to express how I feel. That's because what's APPARENT may be what's photographable, and may also transcend itself.<br>

<br>

Philosophy got stuck early on in a silly debate between REALITY and APPEARANCE. Photographs provide a tension and counterpoint between those two, where they can actually merge . . . spontaneously. This helps explore a question from the previous thread on vulnerability about the difference between a photo and the subject of a photo. If the subject is the reality, the photo is its appearance. In a photo, the APPEARANCE of the subject, not the subject, can become the reality and, often, the PHOTO itself becomes the subject.</p>

<p>More and more, I photograph for the photograph rather than the subject. What I'm seeing in the world is an eventual photograph. What spontaneity I feel in the moments of planning, shooting, processing, and post processing seem to be guided by my vision of the photograph. I will spontansouly skew the camera, quickly change focus or exposure, alter my perspective or body position or that of my human subject and then realize it's because of how I want the photograph to turn out or, perhaps to put it better, how I see the photograph in that moment. Often, my genuine engagement with the subject is necessary to accomplish this. And I DESIRE that engagement.</p>

<p>As to how to get my subjects (or myself) to be spontaneous, when I want that (which is not always), I often simply remind us to "be spontaneous." I'm not a big fan of distracting my subjects in order to get them to relax or whatever. I'm more a fan of getting my subjects and myself to pay attention (and to engage). Distraction often LOOKS like distance and lack of care (which is often how candidness looks, frankly). Attention, for me, often LOOKS deeper and more connected. (Again, this all depends on what I want and how things feel at the time. Sometimes, I want that disengaged look and then I will go for it.)</p>

<p>Steve brought up being in command of one's instrument. There's an irony and even a disconnect in that. Definitions suggest that spontaneity is something "unconstrained" and "without cultivation." Being in command suggests, in some ways, the opposite of spontaneity. Some humility (like Sinatra admitting how much hard work it still takes, even after all those years) before one's instrument may be a key. There are always new challenges and lacks of proficiency. Once those seem to stop, time not to pretend you can now be more easily inspired, time to admit you probably are no longer. I may say this because I'm relatively inexperienced and still have room to learn my instrument and grow into it. I'm not in complete command and that's both exhilarating and exciting.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Chris, it was I who first used the a-word in this thread.</p>

<p>"As the scene unfolded, the disparate instructions resulted in<em> apparently</em><strong> </strong> spontaneous behavior."</p>

<p>Thankfully, not everything is under our control. Things are happening, or at least potentially branching out all the time. Allowing them to do so or seizing upon them and taking them further.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The ability to act in response to seeing is not seeing itself. It is a different issue.<br>

The ability to act in response to the imagination is not imagination itself. It is a different issue.<br>

The ability to act in response to any thought is not thought itself. It is a different issue.<br>

The ability to act in response to fear is not fear itself. It is a different issue.<br>

My ability to act and type in response to any post is not a response in itself....</p>

<p>Erudite, but this is exactly why I specified the dictionary definitions of spontaneity (which heavily reek of Free Will) How about execution as a different <em>thread?</em></p>

<p>_________________________________________</p>

<p>Confession time: I don't believe in spontaneity. As a closet Determinist, for me there is no such thing, but I play along with the delusion, mostly because I don't know how to carry on otherwise (except in a schizoid parallel manner, which may explain a lot...) and apparent /visible spontaneity can be valuable photographically.</p>

<p>It is true that many use it as an excuse or crutch, but then, in photography many more use craft as an excuse for perfectly dull, rigid, beautifully crafted lifeless images, but that doesn't render craft any less important, nor should it nullify spontaneity.</p>

<p>Avedon understood the value of both better than most, in his studio, location and street photography. He also knew how easy it was to get bogged down in craft, simplifying and paring down his own to a minimum, as did many other great photographers. Commercial photographers who are subject to demand characteristics of clients, art directors, editors and other creative team members have to be more broadly proficient. </p>

<p>Spontaneity to me is relative, one end of a continuum, opposite to iron-fisted, choke-the-chicken control. Most pictures fall somewhere in between. It confers nor takes away anything per se, and just like control, it contains the seeds of its opposite -- and can often mimic it. Most of the time we can tell the difference. Spontaneity can add the illusions of immediacy, authenticity, intimacy, liveliness and more to the viewer's experience (depending on too many other variables to go into at the moment).</p>

<p>How many times has a photographer who has labored long and hard to gain a measure of control sent me an URL to (usually) a Flickr account of a young hobbyist's pictures, (often a young Asian self-portraitist/diarist, almost always a woman) wistfully remarking on the spontaneity of the pictures.</p>

<p>I also see a connection between the ecstatic factor and spontaneity.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jazz musicians don't practice for hours, they practice for years. But that doesn't mean that the performance is a repetition of what

they've practiced. The performance will contain snippets of things that they've practiced mixed in

with other ideas that come to them in the moment perhaps inspired by what their bandmates are playing.

 

I have practiced writing the English language for years, and yet I have never written before what I am writing now. I

am using my knowledge of grammar and spelling to respond to a topic that I had seen posted only moments ago.

That's how jazz works. The practice gives the jazz player the ability to play his instrument as fluently as most of us

speak in conversation. On stage he doesn't repeat what he has practiced. He plays something brand new that all of

that practice has enabled him to improvise before your attentive eyes and ears. There is nothing 'apparemt' about the spontaneity involved.

 

It works the same way in photography. If you photograph a wedding or a sporting event, you plan for certain moments

to happen. A player scores a goal. Husband and wife kiss for the first time. But even these predictable moments can

happen in an infinite number of ways. We react to them and frame them the best way that we can in that moment.

But the event will also have hundreds of completely unexpected moments. Player kicks the ball in a moment of

frustration. Bride reacts to the arrival of a surprise guest. The spontaneous photographer is good at capturing these

moments. All of the practice regarding how to expose and focus quickly in challenging situations, how to select the

right ISO and shutter speed, etc. makes it all possible even though we didn't plan these shots explicitly.

 

I shoot spontaneously. I see, react, select, compose, and fire. Then I reconsider, adjust, and make another shot. I rarely have a plan, and if I have one I'll ditch it if a

more interesting opportunity presents itself. If I'm working with models, we experiment. I'll suggest trying something. The first idea usually

doesn't work so we try something else. After a while they're coming up with ideas that I never would have thought of.

 

 

We're all spontaneous as children. Life conditions us to be reserved and predictable. When you encourage someone to be free and let

loose, they become comfortable and the spontaneity returns. Spontaneity is like a horse in a stall waiting for permission to walk

out of the barn and run free again. Open the door, reassure him, and the horse will run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks Dan, you explained it really well. </p>

<p>And in response to Fred, the longer you've practiced with your instrument/camera the more effortlessly you can express yourself spontaneously as ideas flow through your mind. I don't see this as a contradiction to spontaneity. In fact, it enhances spontaneity.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with what Dan and Steve say; just from own experiences I know that photos I take in an instance, reacting quickly to some situation, have improved most over time - as I focussed more and more on composition, on getting my exposure right etc. Anything that comes as "natural" is one less obstacle to a quick and spontaneous reaction with a higher probability of a decent result.</p>

<p>Apparent and spontaneous are a bit mixed here and I wonder whether that's fully right. There is spontaneously taking a photo, and there is the matter whether that photo appears spontaneous. The first has to do with what Dan and Steve say; for the second point, Fred's post touches a lot of important points, but photos taken spontaneously do not have to appear spontaneous, and vice versa. So, the execution matters here, the result matters here, but they all have subtly different effect. Which possibly could hinder this discussion a lot.</p>

<p>Luis, your last post seems one major contradiction to itself. You do not believe in spontaneity, but you have to play along with it else you would not know how to carry on, and you see it as an end to a spectrum. Which implies you admit to its existence, you need it to exist, but you don't want to believe in it, because it goes against a belief in determinism? <br />Plenty of food for another thread there, I'd say.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Thanks Dan, the "Pedant of the Week" award is yours! I said that jazz musicians practice for hours, believing that everyone would understand I meant "each day" and not "during their lifetime". I don't know if you are a musician or have in any other way been in a position to hear a certain jazzer's performance repeatedly either in the course of several takes in a recording studio or live performances on successive nights of a tour. If you had (as I have), you might understand better what I mean - sometimes one version will be very different, just for the hell of it, most times different versions are similar but not identical as ideas evolve. If you have not had this experience, you can verify this with almost any boxed set of CDs by a well-known player (such as Charlie Parker) which includes alternate takes.<br>

You say you photograph spontaneously but if would seem only after overtly conscious decisions as to what location to visit and when, what equipment to take. etc. or in the case of studio work, what models to work with. etc. Whatever works for you is fine, I might just question how spontaneous it really is. There is the saying "Chance favors the prepared mind" - what I think is beyond dispute is that artistic expression should look (i.e. apparently be) spontaneous - if not, it will seem contrived and stale. From much experience in photography (and music, the theater and other fields), however, I would say that the vast majority of what seems spontaneous - isn't! Extreme (and you might think frivolous) example - the late British comic Frankie Howerd, famed for his "off the cuff" style and phrases such as "Oo er!", "Please yourselves!", etc. - all scripted down to the last comma!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Wouter, it was a personal admission that I do not believe it exists, but behave as if it did. Yes, it is a contradiction, and I manage to live with it, as I do with the idea of Free Will. Determinism is not a belief, because there's plenty of evidence for it (simply all of science as we know it today). There's little in the way of scientific evidence on behalf of Free Will (and spontaneity) although it sems so real (as angels and demons once did) -- which does requires belief. I accept it as a useful delusion of considerable survival value. It's no big deal, really. This is also why I brought up the <em>appearance </em>of spontaneity. But I was only speaking for myself and no one else wrt spontaneity, which is what the OP is about.<br>

___________________________________________</p>

<p>Dan's post illustrates the value of spontaneity in adapting to situations that are not in our control, fluid and involve a large number of shifting variables. Experience and practice enable one to anticipate (as Dan's response clearly mentions) higher-probability events and the ability to photograph them. A lot (but not all) of what passes for spontaneity is foresight.<br>

___________________________________________</p>

<p>Steve Murray, Julie and Fred, yes, the ability to actualize or execute a spontaneous idea as close to real time as possible can be crucial. But this is not about becoming more adept at what you do. I don't think anyone here argues against that, although doing it in balance to everything else matters.<br>

_______________________________________________</p>

<p>John A., what you said about "... creating an environment where spontaneity happens..." can also refer to the photographer's mind. In my own work, there are times when I have a very clear idea of what I want, and I do everything in my power to make it happen including kicking some spontaneity aside. The results may or may not be successful. Other times my sixth sense (talk about another thread!) is telling me there's something there that I can't quite perceive, and the alertness that results from that makes me more receptive to the spontaneous (an analog of which would be the readyness to shift strategies upon varying contingencies). <br>

________________________________________________</p>

<p>"No art was ever less spontaneous than mine. What I do is the result of reflection and study of the great masters; of inspiration, spontaneity, temperament I knew nothing."<br>

--- Edgar Degas<a title="More Art Quotes by Edgar Degas" href="http://quote.robertgenn.com/auth_search.php?authid=284"><br /></a></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>what I think is beyond dispute is that artistic expression should look (i.e. apparently be) spontaneous</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Disputable for sure. I don't think any photograph, painting, sculpture, or work of architecture "should" look a certain way, spontaneous or otherwise. Photos and art are a contrivance*. Why "shouldn't" they look contrived, if that's what the photographer wants them to look like?</p>

<p>_________________</p>

<p>*contrived: obviously planned or forced; artificial; strained: a contrived story.</p>

<p>*contrive: to plan with ingenuity; devise; invent</p>

<p>________________</p>

<p>A lot of photographers I like allow me to see the artificiality of what they're doing. They're not trying to hide anything. As a matter of fact, they're openly exploring their contrivances. The surrealists are especially relevant here.</p>

<p><a href="http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kr3haoQN4c1qa01u8o1_500.jpg">EXAMPLE:</a> Marta Hoepffner</p>

<p><a href="http://jeuxdelumiere.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ilse-bing-self-portrait-in-mirrors-1931.jpg">EXAMPLE:</a> Ilse Bing</p>

<p><a href="http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kxdw5oMrrQ1qzt4aqo1_500.jpg">HERE'S ONE</a> by Francois Kollar that looks (appears) both spontaneous and contrived. I fear if Kollar had been too hung up on spontaneity, he would have seen this differently, less intentionally and contrivedly, and missed a great opportunity.</p>

<p>I love Mondrian's paintings. They don't look spontaneous to me, nor would I want them to. I don't find Adams's photos or Weston's particularly spontaneous looking nor do I care. I assume each worked with some element of spontaneity or chance at play with regard to their process, but when I look at their work, I don't SEE spontaneity. Spontaneity is but one element a photographer "may" (not "should") portray.</p>

<p>Because we click a shutter in an instant, we are duped into putting a premium on spontaneity.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>David Bebbigton, while I agree that a lot of what appears to be spontaneous is not, I disagree with this: "...that artistic expression should look (i.e. apparently be) spontaneous - if not, it will seem contrived and stale." A lot of very successful photography appears to be, and is openly contrived, and is not stale.</p>

<p>A good example would be the head-on deadpan portraits that were the rage in the mid 1980's and are still around. Here's some classics:</p>

<p>http://projects.vanartgallery.bc.ca/publications/75years/exhibitions/images/renders/VAG-88.51.1.jpg</p>

<p>http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W_zd9YtXDaI/TckpB7kOmGI/AAAAAAAAAgc/PBLWBzQniDM/s1600/4x_ruff.jpg</p>

<p>For me, the appearance of spontaneity is not required, and contrivance does not equal staleness.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Fred, that Francois Kollar is a great example of the honed, rigorously prepared mind meeting/seizing chance. That's some composition. As you indicate, it is a mistake to de rigueur link the thin timespace slice of photography to spontaneity. And there can be spontaneity in the photographer's mind, the situation and the subject, or any or none of them.</p>

<p>[i want to say that while I do not worship at its feet, I also have no disdain for apparent spontaneity. ]</p>

<p>A comment on apparent spontaneity: My goddaughter's favorite portrait is one I took when she was about two years old. She always talks about how spontaneous it was, but in reality, I had restricted her space by using the end of a hallway as a stage, carefully chosen my gear and settings, and was at my peak in terms of street-honed projections into the future, sheer reflexes and speed. The result looks very spontaneous, and the model can be said to have acted that way, but at my end it wasn't.</p>

<p>A lot of photography is very <em>still. </em>This is neither good nor bad. Sometimes that's a choice, more often it has to do with stilling the subject/situation so the photographer can play catch-up and get it. Getting away from that stillness is often mistaken for spontaneity.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I had restricted her space by using the end of a hallway as a stage</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the creative and good side of manipulation . . . and has nothing to do with Photoshop ;-) It's a carefully-introduced artificiality (even theatricality) into the moment. And that the photo may appear spontaneous is a tribute to Luis's pro-active creativity (rather than waiting around for something candid to happen, he understood the effects of his own actions and posturing -- without necessarily restricting still candid actions on the part of his goddaughter, in this instance, though in another situation he might have wanted to photograph just what his goddaughter was doing at the time) and to the difference between how the photographer might act and what the photo might look like.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...