Has there really been progress in photography? Reflections upon viewing the works of Käsebier, Stieglitz, and Steichen.

Landrum Kelly · September 20, 2011

This is why I reject the tendency to talk in hyperbole and superlatives about art. When someone declares a photo to be perfect or a photo to be a work of genius, that's simply an excuse not to be substantive, not to feel something more than "greatness." Just like it often leads us astray as photographers to long for or seek to make a great photo, rather than longing to express ourselves or to understand or empathize with our subjects, etc., it also leads us astray as viewers to see "greatness" rather than the actual expression being conveyed or subject being depicted. The language of value can be an avoidance of the reality of what's in front of us.

</blockquote>

Perhaps we are talking past each other here, Fred, but, then again, perhaps not. In any case, I see no particular tendency for any of that to happen. Saying that one photograph is better than another (even if both are one's own) seems to me as common and natural as evaluations of other things. I cannot imagine a world in which persons did not do that. I get the sense that you are fighting some phantom that I do not understand. I do not mean that in a particularly negative sense, rather in the sense that for you all references to value perhaps feed into some previous or ongoing philosophical conversation to which I was not a party. Thus it is that your meaning--not to mention the rationale for speaking as you do--escapes me.

One may certainly be more precise and point out precisely what one thinks is better. We can certainly go beyond "I like this better," I believe. You and I do it all the time, in fact, both in critiquing our own photos and those of others.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · September 20, 2011

"I just want to do something that is above me so I can basically say it was an experience and also illustrate that experience to the best of my ability and gain experience out of it and possibly a good way to get my name out there." _____________________________________

If this is your primary goal, as it appears to me to be, then I have to say you're doomed to fail before you ever get started. Like I once told my ex-husband - Can't you ever do anything just because it needs doing? Not because it will benefit you personally?

</blockquote>

This is a bit of dialogue from this thread (http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00ZLnP) where a young man wants to go shoot dangerous war photographs. I think the response relates to this discussion of value. Is this young man expressing an interest in war itself, the hardships of it, the devastation of it, perhaps the inevitability of it, sometimes the necessity of it? Or is he, on a significant level, expressing the desire to be better or even great? Is his motivation about what he's actually doing, the subject of his photos, or is his motivation a more generic valuation of doing something . . . anything . . . that seems good.

Ultimately, my contention would be that if one's photography is more about ANYTHING that would be "good" than about something you feel something particular about, the photographs are likely not to be that good. So, a concentration on value is counterproductive. You don't get to the good by looking for it. You get to it by the kind of involvement you achieve in something meaningful to you.

Norma Desmond · September 20, 2011

I see no particular tendency for any of that to happen.

</blockquote>

Then you need to look again at your own comments on many photos and the way you formulate many of your threads. The tendency is rather obvious to me. It often seems much less about the work and much more about whether it's categorized as this or that or whether this is better than that. That's, of course, when it's not just an excuse to post more T&A pictures, as with your recent streaker endeavors if not with most of your chosen links and examples. :-)

luis_g · September 20, 2011

Lannie - "Saying that one photograph is better than another (even if both are one's own) seems to me as common and natural as evaluations of other things."

It's a meaningless statement unless you can tell me why and how are they different, and how those differences add up to "better than". This reminds me of the ancient commercial with one kid outshouting another with "My dog's better than your dog..." at the end we find out why, his dog eats the advertised product. Crude, but to the point.

I think I see what Fred is talking about with the evaluations, Lannie. To look at the big things, we simultaneously remain and transcend ourselves. It's hard to get out of your own skin otherwise. Worse, you can't relate them just to yourself, but to others as well.

Landrum Kelly · September 20, 2011

Then you need to look again at your own comments on many photos and the way you formulate many of your threads.

</blockquote>

Well, since my field is normative political theory (often seen as a subset of ethics or moral philosophy), I am hardly ashamed of the fact that I am prone to make value judgments. I can only say that I can often offer a rational defense of my judgments, or else simply write them off in some cases as matters of personal taste.

As for the photo forums, I gave up on them a long time ago as a means of serious critiques. They are now most often a social exercise. They bore me. My serious value judgments are hardly reducible to such banalities.

In any case, I still do not understand the aversion to making value judgments, nor the tendency to devalue value judgments. Let's not talk about the better or the best for awhile. Let's talk about Dachau, Auschwitz, or Treblinka instead. Remember what Hannah Arendt said about Adolph Eichmann, that he did not seem like a monster, rather was simply a man whose words revealed a "total absence of thought."

Shall we flee the field and leave it to those who would try not merely to offer value judgments, but would instead force their values to become our values? Every judgment is not a condemnation, after all. It can also be a mere expression of delight. That we have trouble giving verbal articulation to the beauty of some of the photos posted in this thread both puzzles and intrigues me. What is the ground of the esthetic impulse? From whence does it come? How does it resonate with both the highest and the lowest in human nature?

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · September 20, 2011

Lannie, value does not have to be comparison. Things can have worth in their own right without being in competition with each other.

I think the historical value in Stieglitz's early work is that he was intent on seeing and having others see photography as an art form. I think the historical value of his later work is that he was helping to define it as a unique art form unto itself. I'm fine with not seeing one of those as "better" than the other. Both approaches have good reason and show insight and are visually compelling. In the earlier works, I see an aesthetic of contemplation, an epic and idealized sense of beauty. In the later work, I see more an aesthetic of tension and an intimate attachment to the real world and the fleeting moment. To me, one is not better than the other. Value doesn't always imply a scale and doesn't always suggest "better." Very often, finding the value of something is finding its import and/or significance. That value doesn't always have to better than its counterpart, which oftentimes is equally significant. Different is not always better or worse. As you well know, diversity can be embraced. Black people and white people, gay people and straight people can be different and they can still be of equal value. Why not photos and paintings and schools of photography and painting? And I can maintain that black people are as good as white people without feeling inconsistent when I maintain that Hitler was evil and Mother Theresa and most everyone else who ever walked the planet was better. As I said value is assessed differently in different contexts. Value is NOT always a matter of who or what is better.

Landrum Kelly · September 20, 2011

"Saying that one photograph is better than another (even if both are one's own) seems to me as common and natural as evaluations of other things." --Lannie

It's a meaningless statement unless you can tell me why and how are they different. . . . --Luis

</blockquote>

Very often I can explain why I think that one photo is better than another. At other times I am quite mystified as to what makes a photo hit me with such force. It is not thereby "meaningless" simply because I cannot always understand it.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 20, 2011

Different is not always better or worse. As you well know, diversity can be embraced. Black people and white people, gay people and straight people can be different and they can even have different values but still be of equal value. Why not photos and paintings and schools of photography and painting?

</blockquote>

Well said, Fred, but the fact remains that not every comparison is an invidious comparison. I can certainly deprecate militarism compared to pacifism--and there are some who have expressed out loud that they would like to kill the pacifists--knowing that I was a pacifist.

I can even see some of the beauty in Leni Riefenstahl's work--until I remember what purpose it served. I try to find the best in everything--including the streaker link. (Hint: it was not the pictures but the stories that they told.)

I still wonder why HCB repudiated photography so totally later in his life. That is a great mystery to me. That was a value judgment, too. I wonder what lay behind it.

--Lannie

luis_g · September 20, 2011

A few comments... It is important to note that long before Modernism, Stieglitz was pushing for photographic excellence within Pictorialism. He had studied Engineering in Berlin and begun photographing there, where there were different currents and influences underfoot, and he quickly distinguished himself there, before returning to the US. When he returns, he immediately begins a push for Pictorial excellence. His own style, even in Pictorialism, was a lot straighter than most American Pictorialists. The Photo-Secession, his own invention, and in solidarity with similar movements that had preceded it in Europe, was not against Pictorialism, but against conservatism in Pictorialist circles. What I am trying to say is that the break Stieglitz is best known for was not his first. That was the Photo-Secession and within Pictorialism. ______________________________________________________ When talking about photographs from the past, we run into another problem besides the photographer and technique: The viewers' consciousness was very different from our own. Reception Theory has been used widely, but rarely in the history of photography. _____________________________________________________

Norma Desmond · September 20, 2011

Lannie, I didn't mean to suggest that every comparison is an invidious one. I invited you to be more aware of the photographic comparisons you seek to make and why you are making them and what you might be missing by approaching different photographs as you would approach, say, Hitler and Churchill. I'm inviting you to consider whether a comparative and value-laden approach is of equal value (I know, irony) in all situations and if, in some situations, it can't actually be a distraction from more important concerns.

Repudiation of prior interests is not necessarily a value judgment as much as a matter of personal development. At a point, I kind of repudiated Philosophy because I found better methods and processes for myself in art, specifically music and then photography. Actually, only after exploring the arts more directly than through the philosophical study of aesthetics could I come back to Philosophy with renewed interest and a greater depth than I previously experienced. The 30-year gap between my undergraduate and graduate work served me well. By giving up Philosophy and moving toward music and photography, I wasn't saying these things were better than Philosophy by any means. I was evolving and moving toward what I needed and/or desired at the time. It was about me, not about Philosophy. And I imagine that, if Bresson was at all enlightened, he'd realize that his repudiation of photography was not about photography but about himself or at least his relationship to photography. I can recognize that my repudiation of Philosophy at a given point in time was not about Philosophy per se at the same time as I can recognize that my repudiation of Hitler is about Hitler. Some value judgments incorporate more of ourselves and our needs into the picture and some are much more objective, and universal.

Landrum Kelly · September 20, 2011

When talking about photographs from the past, we run into another problem besides the photographer and technique: The viewers' consciousness was very different from our own. Reception Theory has been used widely, but rarely in the history of photography.

</blockquote>

Well, Luis, your literary background gives you the advantage on this, as on so much, but I can only say that I have been rather astonished at what I have learned to appreciate over the last decade, after being away from photography for years. Whether it is because of shared cultural background or what, I do not know. I grew up in a medium-sized city (Akron, Ohio) as well as Spartanburg, South Carolina. I have devoted my life since my early fifties to learning to appreciate other peoples and cultures--thus my Spanish- and Spanish-American literature phase, followed by my African-American phase (having taught at an African-American college since I turned sixty back in 2005). Both cultures "grow on you."

It is certainly true that one can "acquire a taste" for this and that by understanding it in its larger cultural context. I remember Andy K saying one time to me during my "collapsing barn and farmhouse" phase: "Lannie, I just cannot see why you shoot what you shoot." Well, I didn't then understand his taste in street photography, but I began to catch on--and in that case it was simply as a result of viewing more street photos--and hearing the discussions that ensued. I had not yet seriously tried to capture any street shots of my own.

I was once a chemistry major, and so the other day I was sitting and trying to figure out what happened in a common chemical reaction. A friend asked what on earth I was thinking about, and I tried to explain in great detail, becoming more enthusiastic as I went. I made no converts to the beauty of reaction mechanisms that day. . . .

Hell, why we're at it, why don't we try to figure out why people fall in and out of love?

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 20, 2011

I can recognize that my repudiation of Philosophy at a given point in time was not about Philosophy per se at the same time as I can recognize that my repudiation of Hitler is about Hitler. Some value judgments incorporate more of ourselves and our needs into the picture and some are much more objective, and universal.

</blockquote>

Well said, Fred. I cannot improve upon that.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 21, 2011

ETHICS, ESTHETICS, AND OTHER THINGS

Some value judgments incorporate more of ourselves and our needs into the picture and some are much more objective, and universal.

</blockquote>

The criterion of objectivity could be problematic here, but overall the "some" used in both portions of the sentence seems to save this remark from substantial criticism.

What is interesting about the statement to me is that it suggests a possible entry point into what makes esthetic value judgments different from ethical value judgments pure and simple. For example, unless one's actions affect the well-being of others in some way, one typically would not use ethical language to evaluate such actions. I am not saying that we would be indifferent to Hitler's biases if he had had no political power and never took action to harm others, but we would not say that he acted unethically unless others were affected--or at least I don't think that we would.

What you have raised for me, Fred, is the possibility of a pretty firm line of demarcation between ethical judgements per se and esthetic judgments--both value judgments, to be sure, but still different. For years, I simply set aside any kind of theory of esthetics precisely because esthetic judgments did indeed seem so private, not because esthetic judgments could not be communicated and shared, but because in their simplest form they do not seem to affect anyone else's well-being besides oneself. (I know how simplistic that might sound.) Since I was concerned with political philosophy and ethical (and policy) judgments that did involve others' well-being, I was comfortable in relegating esthetic judgments to another realm besides my own field of study.

Now, with more conscious awareness of esthetic judgments as a result of my increasing interest in photography and the arts over the years, I suppose that I have to come to grips with how esthetic judgments might or might not be related to ethical theory in general, if I am to make any progress. In grad school, I remember being a bit surprised to see that my first graduate level course on ethics was actually labeled "Seminar on the Theory of Value" or some such. That title left a lot of latitude as to the possible content, but we did not (to my recollection) address esthetic judgments per se.

With awareness of the issues raised by the distinction between "the priority of right over good" v. "the priority of good over right," my consciousness in the mid 1970s was directed explicitly to the difference between "good" and "evil," on the one hand, and "right" and "wrong," on the other. Utilitarians, for example, typically posit the priority of good over right, in the sense of epistemological priority: one must make some judgment as to what is good or worthy (on this view) before one can decide what is right (in terms of what maximizes the good, on the Utilitarian schema). The deontological view in general is that nothing is good in itself but is made good if it first of all fulfills some criterion or criteria of right. (Some deontologists equate right and good, of course.)

I am sure that all of this is old hat to you, especially as it informed the Kantian-Utilitarian debate over a hundred years ago (as if that were over), but I don't know that I ever seriously considered the implications for esthetic theory--if only because I simply tended to ignore esthetic theory and never had any formal training in esthetic theory.

I am sure that Plato's claims about what constitutes the "good life." much less the "summum bonum," raises questions which would transcend any simple divide between ethics (pure and simple) and esthetics, but I have not given that much thought, either--at least not in the last few decades.

I raise these questions here because your remarks have raised a question in my own mind as to what indeed makes esthetic judgments different from other value judgments. In your last post, you seem at least to hint of the foundations of such a distinction. It might well be that you have studied this or thought about this to a much greater degree than I have. I am not laying a trap for you in asking if you do have any general statements about the nature and significance of esthetic judgments beyond what you have already said.

The simple fact is that I do not know much about esthetic theory, and I would be interested in trying to relate esthetic theory to ethical theory, since they both fall under that vast category of "value theory" or simply "value judgments."

May we infer that a person who says "This is a good picture" is not trying to make an ethical judgment? Besides emoting, what is such a person doing? That is only one question that comes to mind.

Questions about "progress" and comparative judgments of esthetic worth in this thread have led me to this quandary. So far, however, your remarks have only served to pique my interest more about the differences between esthetic judgments and ethical judgments. I have many more questions than answers at this point. I am not sure how totally the two types of judgments can be factored out, but your remarks have at least provoked me to ask that question.

Works that I have read that might bear upon these questions include G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica and W.D. Ross' The Right and the Good. Even so, it has been years or even decades since I read those works, and so I am rusty on the contemporary analytical foundations of ethical theory. One statement that stays with me is A.J. Ayer's famous (or infamous) claim that "Values are nothing more than emotional preferences." or words to that effect. (Language, Truth, and Logic)

Ross and Moore in particular no doubt influenced my early thinking on intuitionism, against which Ayer (and sometimes Wittgenstein's) emotivism seemed to be a reaction. This stuff gets pretty heavy in a hurry, but I do think that it might be germane to what underlies some of our basic points of difference. I really am not sure.

Thanks for the very brief but provocative statement with which I have led off this post, Fred. I am sure that my subconscious must have wrestled with it all night long such that I have these questions this morning.

In any case, here are some links in case anyone is interested:

http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica (G.E. Moore, Principia Ethica)

http://www.ditext.com/ross/right.html (W.D. Ross, The Right and the Good)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language,_Truth_and_Logic (A.J. Ayer, Language, Truth and Logic)

I imagine that there are a lot of people who browse the thread who do not understand what are the real points of contention between us, Fred. Nor do I claim to fully understand them myself, but I would speculate that a lot of our differences on this or that point go back to some very fundamental premises on which we disagree--if we could only figure out what they are.

I am sorry for the overly long post, but this is a tortuous topic to get into, and what I have offered above only touches the surface, of course.

Relating these issues back to photography would be quite challenging, of course, but I will bet that someone has done it. For all I know, there might be an entire corpus of works out there that address these issues.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 21, 2011

What about literary theory and criticism, Luis or Julie (or anyone else)? Are you aware of works that link studies of ethics to esthetics? Fred, perhaps your knowledge of the classics could give some insights into claims that predate the writings of modern analytical philosophers.

Barring that, does anyone have a theory or at least a thesis to advance? As usual, we are left with more questions than answers.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · September 21, 2011

I don't want to put you off, but it's not something I want to get into here.

Landrum Kelly · September 21, 2011

I understand, Fred, but in a way we are already in it--and have been throughout this entire thread.

I nonetheless respect your wishes--and understand. It appears to be quite a philosophical morass. Going any further into it on a public online forum would likely be a disaster, or at least grossly dissatisfying.

I still have to say that this excerpt from your last substantive post was quite intriguing and intellectually provocative:

I can recognize that my repudiation of Philosophy at a given point in time was not about Philosophy per se at the same time as I can recognize that my repudiation of Hitler is about Hitler. Some value judgments incorporate more of ourselves and our needs into the picture and some are much more objective, and universal.

</blockquote>

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 22, 2011

WHEN IT ISN'T ABOUT ESTHETICS PURE AND SIMPLE. . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

If the photo is an answer of some sort, what is the question?

More about the artist/photographer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andres_Serrano

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 22, 2011

Lannie, I'm not denying value. I make value judgments all the time.

I'm questioning your consistent emphasis on it regarding photography. What's better? What's good? Who's better than whom? Why? Was the earlier so-and-so better than the later so-and-so?

I don't read Plato and Wittgenstein and get bogged down in who was better.

</blockquote>

Well, I do make comparisons between rationalists (e.g., Pllato) and empiricists (e.g., Wittgenstein) all the time, Fred, even though I recognize the contributions that both have offered. After all, with regard to comparing philosophers (or, more precisely, philosophies, that is, their works), there are defenses of altruism, and then there is Max Stirner, a logically consistent defender of egoism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner

One ardent defender of altruism, the opposite of egoism, has been Thomas Nagel, by comparison. Another defender of egoism has been Friedrich Nietzsche. I confess that I have learned a lot from reading Nietzsche. The point, though, is that it is rather hard to be indifferent to the judgment of value when comparing the arguments of altruists and egoists--assuming for the moment that both uses arguments that are [logically] valid. Assumptions are still different, and thus conclusions are different. Competing philosophical conclusions cry out for choices, and in making choices we consult our values.

But this is a photo thread, you say! Well, then, let's go back to Serrano and his works.

(As for Plato and Wittgenstein, it is pointless to try to compare and evaluate the men, but surely we may compare and evaluate specific arguments and passages. We may even set aside evaluations of the man Hitler, but then there is always Mein Kampf to consider as a work which is also a statement of his personal philosophy.)

--Lannie

luis_g · September 22, 2011

I did not mean to imply that the break between Pictorialism and the onset of Modernism was a neat, discrete thing. In photography, it was a fairly slow, messy, interleaving of the two as one ebbed and the other gained ground. The thing is that the Pictorialists welcomed and respected the incoming Modernist aesthetic, and gave them most of their first wall space/shows. It is hard to imagine, but the main of that transition occurred between 1910 and 1950 (!) and most of it within the then-numerous and popular camera clubs. And in many photographers there was cross-over/hybridization. Trying to follow history is incredibly complicated. For example, one of the things that brought about the "West Coast" school (during Pictorialism) was the influence of Japanese immigrant photographers who had brought with them the idea of notan.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notan">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notan</a>

And it so happened that two of its Pictorialist leading Japanese practitioners were members in the same photo-club as a Pictorial Portraitist from Chicago named Edward Weston, who took an interest in their work. I look at "Pepper # 30", and see some of that influence. Then you had A.Adams, who, while arguing with Mortensen over Pictorialism in a manner prefiguring some of the Usenet wars, was a good friend of Fred Archer, who was a Pictorialist and out of that. of course, came the Z.S.

To add to the complexity, photography still imitated painting in many ways, even Modernism. Look at the early works and see the influence of Cubism. etc. Yes, photography individuated, but did not divorce itself from the other arts (and I am not saying it should or should not have).

Norma Desmond · September 22, 2011

If the photo is an answer of some sort, what is the question?

</blockquote>

Who said photos were an answer of some sort? Many of them are questions, explorations, beginnings, wonderings, suggestions, descriptions.

Why have you posted a link to Piss Christ? What is it you're interested in discussing about it?

Norma Desmond · September 22, 2011

If your point is that Piss Christ engenders strong feelings and gets some people's religious panties in a bunch, that's true. So, of course there are ethical considerations regarding all kinds of art, from Sturgess shooting young women to everyone and their brother shooting homeless people.

My point about value was not that photographs don't express values and involve ethics and don't stimulate ethical concerns and considerations on the parts of viewers. It was that ranking photos as better and worse, or forcing them into a classificatory hierarchy (this period was better than that period), is often counterproductive and often distracts the viewer from what he is seeing. A critical and aesthetic comparison can be made very much aside from "this is better than that."

Landrum Kelly · September 22, 2011

Fred, you are always trying to put words into my mouth.

I was hoping that perhaps someone can tell me what is so great about Serrano's work--the entire corpus, not that one only. Obviously, a lot of people do think that it is quite worthy. Perhaps someone could enlighten an ignoramus like me.

As for classifying or grading the quality of work, I suppose that curators must make some such decisions. This issue raises your ire, for reasons that escape me.

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · September 22, 2011

I was not at all irate. I don't know what made you think that, though I may be a little bit now.

I thought you may have posted Piss Christ because of its obvious controversial ethical foothold. When conversing in a forum like this, where we don't get immediate answers and where a poster doesn't give a reason for a link or posting, it's sometimes easier to surmise what the poster was getting at based on what else has been said in the thread. If you were in front of me, I would have asked first. Even if it wasn't what's on your mind, it's what was triggered in my own mind and it seemed worthy of addressing in that way whether or not you intended it to be taken that way.

It is you, not me, who deprecates you, referring to yourself now as an ignoramus.

My point was to distinguish between values expressed in photographs and ranking photographs better than one another. Does that distinction make any sense to you? Can you see where I was challenging your consistently ranking photos and time periods as good, great, and better and then you took that narrow notion of valuation instead in the direction of a much bigger picture of Value in both philosophy and art?

Norma Desmond · September 22, 2011

someone can tell me what is so great about Serrano's work

</blockquote>

Why are you concerned with what's GREAT about it instead of what it says to you? Why not tell us what it says to or invokes in you? Tell us what you are seeing. Someone may then want to tell you what they see. All without a GREAT or BETTER THAN.

Norma Desmond · September 22, 2011

There are two ways of approaching value. One is to ask if this photo is great? Another is to ask what values are expressed, shown, or seen.

And values can relate to but not be the only or major influencing factor in looking at and understanding a photo. They can sometimes distract. A viewer immediately put off or even blinded by the ethical considerations of Riefenstahl's work might very well miss many other significant things about it. But I'd surely say the ethical considerations here are important and can't be totally extracted from the aesthetic ones. What's less irelevant, less informative, less telling, and less insightful is a relative valuation: Riefenstahl is better or worse a photographer than so-and-so. (Which is a much different issue from talking about whether Riefenstahl's values are better or worse than someone else's.)

Sign In

Has there really been progress in photography? Reflections upon viewing the works of Käsebier, Stieglitz, and Steichen.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in