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

Norma Desmond · September 10, 2011

I think the underlying problem that comes up in these sorts of discussions is that to show progress, one has to assume the position that this picture is better than another.

</blockquote>

John, on the contrary. I think many of us have clearly stated, especially at the beginning of the thread, that the word progress is often value-laden and that we'd prefer to discuss it as development (which Luis suggested) or as an unfolding (which I suggested) which would avoid having to assess one time period or photo as better than another. A progression can be a regression and things can often get worse. I think the tendency to compare in terms of "better" is often a tendency to miss the photo or the art for what it is. I can't imagine looking at a photo of Nan Goldin next to one of Stieglitz and caring one iota about which one was better. From a photographic and historical perspective, I'd have many other concerns before making that kind of value judgment.

______________________

Almost all contributors in discussing the works of Käsebier, Steiglitz and Steichen have assumed that their works look the way they do (grainy, soft) because of technical limitations.

</blockquote>

David, I don't think this is true of almost all contributors here.

AJHingel · September 10, 2011

I find it is an obvious fact that equipment and techniques play a role for creative work. It has always done.

To give a historical example, the artistic use of the "bleu outremer" the oriental deep blue (<a href="http://www.art-paints.com/Paints/Spray/Basic/Ultramarine-Blue/Ultramarine-Blue.gif">PB29</a>- Ultra marineblue) made from lapis-lazuli stones from Afghanistan from the first years of the 15th century (quatrocentro) changed dramatically at the beginning of the 19th century when finally (1806) a process was invented to produce it synthetically. Suddenly, the deep blue became affordable even for poor painters.

One of the things I find interesting about "progress" (i.e. "what ever happens over time") is that in all technical fields it includes, apart from new technics, technologies, materials and tools, also the obsolescence of techniques and crafts. Major efforts are made in many countries of preserving crafts that make maintenance and restoration of ancient works of art possible also in the future (Japan, China do considerable efforts in the field as do also France and Italy). One of the results from such efforts is of course that contemporary artists still can apply ancient techniques to their works (stone cutting, tapestry, woodworks, pottery). So also in photography.

If you have gone to the portfolio <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=526277">Emil Schildt</a>, one of the most popular photographers on Photonet and of good reasons, you would have seen how he reinvents the use of Bromoil and Cyanotypes to create his extremely creative images of fantasy visions of mostly undressed ladies (nudity warning!). Old techniques are reinvented continiously.

I therefor very much agree with those (open list of names!) that have hinted at the fact that progress in photography is not a question of ever higher levels of something, but is an ever increasing stock of tools and technics available for photographers in their strive towards artistic expression. The main threat to such progress is the obsolescence of technical achievements of the past. Progress in ethics is however a non-starter.

dhbebb · September 10, 2011

I therefor very much agree with those (open list of names!) that have hinted at the fact that progress in photography is not a question of ever higher levels of something, but is an ever increasing stock of tools and technics available for photographers in their strive towards artistic expression.

Above all, good art (photography or any other medium) says something about NOW, the NOW that the artist is directly experiencing, and thus all art is potentially equally valid and unique and equally impossible to compare in terms of superiority/inferiority. Which is of course not to deny that when we view contemporary art, the filtering effect of time is absent and we have to wade through the good, the bad and the ugly.

Norma Desmond · September 10, 2011

I agree with Anders that progress is not simply a matter of higher levels of something. I'm hesitant about his conclusion (in the paragraph re-quoted by David) because it seems to put all the emphasis on tools and technique. They do play a role. But so do other things, a couple of which Anders has alluded to himself. I hope we're not boiling this down to a matter of utensils and techniques. Morality, philosophy, politics, cultural sensibility, even the evolution of the earth plays a role in the development of photography and the development of photography contributes to all those things just mentioned.

Development is a reciprocal matter. Photography is affected by and it also affects. We tend to think of facebook and social networking as seriously affecting photography. It's good to keep in mind how much photography has affected the development of these social networking media and those who use it.

luis_g · September 10, 2011

For me, it's not that the available technical means don't matter. They do. It's that they are locked in for particular timespace/cultural coordinates (David's "NOW", the present), a "given". You are where you are, and can only work with the available tools. There are far less concrete, though no less formidable limitations regarding feelings, thoughts and ideas.

People place far too much emphasis on the technical (and even the conventions of "skill", but that's for another thread) and too little on the creative aspects, probably because one can simply purchase the former, but the latter has no royal road. There are a lot of things encoded into that difference.

Landrum Kelly · September 10, 2011

Almost all contributors in discussing the works of Käsebier, Stieglitz and Steichen have assumed that their works look the way they do (grainy, soft) because of technical limitations.

David, I don't think this is true of almost all contributors here.

</blockquote>

I have to agree, Fred. When I said that starting with Käsebier was arbitrary, I did not mean that it was entirely arbitrary. I did want to be sure that the photographers alluded to in the original question were all using sufficiently sophisticated methods that attention would be focused on the creative/artistic or other merits, not on their gear. I did not want to start with Daguerre or someone quite that early, even though he showed that, even with his relatively primitive methods, he was capable of producing some remarkably good work:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boulevard_du_Temple_by_Daguerre.jpg

One of the reasons that I linked to the shot of Rose O'Neill

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rose_O%27Neill.jpg

was that it was pretty obvious that, even over a hundred years ago, very sophisticated methods were already being employed--and surprisingly great results were being produced in terms of both technology and artistic/creative merit. (I absolutely love the tonal range in that photo!)

I don't doubt for a second that technological limitations could have been factors at times in the methods employed (and therefore also in the artistic effects produced), but I have no idea (for example) whether the grain in Stieglitz's Fifth Avenue shot was deliberate or simply inevitable, given the lighting or other limitations under which he might have had to work. Perhaps someone knows the answer to that.

--Lannie

dhbebb · September 10, 2011

I have no idea (for example) whether the grain in Stieglitz's Fifth Avenue shot was deliberate or simply inevitable, given the lighting or other limitations under which he might have had to work. Perhaps someone knows the answer to that.

I'm starting to think we've reached saturation point here! I explained in a posting yesterday that the "grain" is the deliberate result of using apigment printing process. Stieglitz would undoubtedly have taken the winter view of 5th Avenue on a plate 3 x 4 inches or larger, even with the fastest plate available in the 1890s (ISO 20 or so) there is no way silver grain would show in a computer-screen-size image and itwould not be very apparent at the size Stieglitz originally printed (about 9 x 12 inches).

Norma Desmond · September 10, 2011

I think it's important to separate technique from gear. A discussion about technique can both be tied to gear and also separable to an extent from gear. And I always keep in mind that technique is what is used to further an artistic, expressive, or creative vision. One can purposely create grain, as Lannie suggests, even when the tools don't demand it. It can be an aesthetic choice. Plenty of people try, mostly unsuccessfully, to create grain with digital instruments. Most often it just looks like applied noise, rather than having the depth and feel of grain. But grain has certainly been created not because of the particular gear but because of a kind of vision.

Even if there are limitations to our tools and we run up against the fact that with certain cameras, lenses, and films, grain is going to be the result of certain lighting conditions, we can USE that knowledge expressively, thereby transforming a limit into freedom. Sometimes, we will simply say, "That's the way it has to be. I have to live with it." But much of the time, we say to ourselves, how do I USE that fact to my advantage and to express myself? Knowing I am going to get a certain level of grain, given my equipment and shooting conditions, how can I effectively work with it? Can I transform that grain into an aesthetic element? The answer, of course, is usually yes. It's one of the many places where the technical becomes and informs the aesthetic.

The most effective, creative, and visionary photographers, painters, sculptors, integrate technique with aesthetics. They play one off the other. They utilize them symbiotically. An aesthetic doesn't often just come about. It is crafted.

Norma Desmond · September 10, 2011

[Addition]: And aesthetic visions and considerations very often lead to the creation and discovery of new techniques. So technique can serve aesthetics and aesthetics can serve technique.

Landrum Kelly · September 10, 2011

Sorry that I missed that point earlier, David.

By the way, after posting the shot by Daguerre linked to above (shot in 1838),

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Boulevard_du_Temple_by_Daguerre.jpg

I then followed the links to his rival W. Henry F. Talbot, who produced this work back around 1845:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:London_Street,_Reading,_c._1845.jpg

Maybe I should have gone even further back when trying to pose the question for the thread!

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 10, 2011

[Addition]: And aesthetic visions and considerations very often lead to the creation and discovery of new techniques. So technique can serve aesthetics and aesthetics can serve technique.

</blockquote>

Fred, I had never thought of that reciprocal kind of symbiosis before.

As for how limitations can enhance creativity, I was just sitting here thinking of an analogy with poetry, in which self-imposed limitations on rhyme and meter can often promote creativity as well. (The same is true for short stories and just about any literary genre, I suppose. Consider the related limitations of the stage v. screen when it comes to writing plays, for example.)

Anyone who has walked around with one lens on the camera for several days knows as well that there are all kinds of limitations that can paradoxically wind up opening up new avenues of thought and creative work. In addition, one gets to know one's gear better that way, which in turn makes one more spontaneous in terms of being able to take advantage of creative possibilities as they arise.

That takes us back to the thread started by Luis that triggered all this:

http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00ZGcG

(Sometimes I think that the entire Philosophy of Photography forum is in reality just one big thread in separate installments, one continuing conversation that never ends, with themes from former threads perennially feeding into new ones.)

--Lannie

Norma Desmond · September 10, 2011

"Necessity (who) is the mother of invention." --Plato, The Republic

</blockquote>

Lannie, I'm glad the reciprocity of technique and aesthetics appealed to you.

The more I look at and learn about Man Ray in particular, the more developments (progress) in terms of using photography to express an aesthetic I become aware of. He seemed to want to be very much in touch (literally) with his medium in order to further an aesthetic (surrealism/dadism) which he was helping to envision and carry out. To that end, he invented, re-invented, and conceptualized techniques. Though photograms were not his invention per se, he developed the rayograph specifically because it was so useful to his surrealistic vision, the immediacy he sought, and the effect he wanted his juxtapositions to have. He is credited eponymously precisely because he needed it to create what he wanted and utilized it so endemically to his vision.

Didn't Adams's aesthetic lead him to develop the zone system (which is more of a technical schema or description than a technique per se, though I think the zone system is also used as a matter of technique)?

There are even writings about Caravaggio using salt mercury in his canvases, so that he was actually using darkroom techniques and light-sensitive materials, "burning" his canvases to help create the chiaroscuro effects he's so noted for. In reading about this, one is led back even to DaVinci's use of primitive camera obscura.

The technique of pointillism served a vision. It's not like there was already pointillism and people started using it because they felt it could help them express themselves. It got developed over time because an aesthetic was developing. Jackson Pollock developed his techniques of splattering paint because of a dissatisfaction with traditional methods he thought of as too static.

. . .

It might be that new technologies allow for certain techniques to be developed and certain aesthetics to be realized. That doesn't mean the new technologies are always the driving forces, though they certainly can be. Desire and expression lead photographers and artists to new techniques and, in some cases, even to new technologies. It's often hard to tell the chicken from the egg.

luis_g · September 10, 2011

Fred - "The more I look at and learn about Man Ray in particular, the more developments (progress) in terms of using photography to express an aesthetic I become aware of. He seemed to want to be very much in touch (literally) with his medium in order to further an aesthetic (surrealism/dadism) which he was helping to envision and carry out. To that end, he invented, re-invented, and conceptualized techniques. Though photograms were not his invention per se, he developed the rayograph specifically because it was so useful to his surrealistic vision, the immediacy he sought, and the effect he wanted his juxtapositions to have. He is credited eponymously precisely because he needed it to create what he wanted and utilized it so endemically to his vision."

In no way contradicting any of the above, Man Ray, the unflagging self-promoter, was also not averse to go retro -- and simultaneously take credit for a number of Atget's photographs (in publications), which were made with what at the time was quaintly ancient technology, technique and a vision so futuristic it looked like leading-edge Surrealism of the time, though it wasn't, and to Man Ray, well worth taking credit for.

AJHingel · September 10, 2011

I think it is important that we seem to arrived at a kind agreement that both "technology" and ethics/creativity are in play when we look at evolution of arts, here photography. It might be reasonable to say that for certain periods technology took over and provoked artistic change and in other periods it might have been the other way round, however all a question of degrees.

Much change in arts, and maybe even progress, can be found in the democratization of technical means of artistic expression. Ever falling prices of photographic tools and ever increasing technical capabilities of such tools, has resulted in drastically increasing part of population that have such tools available for personally creative expression. This is also progress, I would believe, of photograph, in one sense or another. The same is the case for the invention of oil-pastels (see the interesting <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_pastel">historical context of the invention of oil pastels</a> in the 1920s ,made of genuine pigments, that made "painting" available for children in whole new continents (Japan and later China).

Landrum Kelly · September 10, 2011

The technique of pointillism served a vision. It's not like there was already pointillism and people started using it because they felt it could help them express themselves. It got developed over time because an aesthetic was developing.

</blockquote>

I think that you are dead-on here, Fred, and this ties back beautifully to your idea of "the reciprocity of technique and aesthetics." There is no point, that is, in trying to figure out the chicken-and-egg issue of which comes first. Even one who creates a technique or a new technology in order to realize certain creative goals is not going to be able to predict how he or others will subsequently use those techniques or technologies. As persons develop proficiency with the technique or the technology, they will increasingly see the potential applications. No one could possibly see them in advance, any more than anyone could have foreseen what the "microcomputer revolution" would mean for society as a whole--or even for photography, for that matter, since our DSLRs are also computers, whatever else they might be.

It got developed over time because an aesthetic was developing.

</blockquote>

Okay, so I quoted you again, but it bears repeating. The specific antecedent of "it" does not even matter here, does it? Whatever the technique or the technology, there begins a cycle of evolutionary interaction between the technology and its possible applications--and new creative visions. "Development" was the word that Luis reached for back there, and it is the word that you are using here. The word is so commonly used that we cannot easily and instantly grasp its possible implications for what I ineptly referred to as the "progress" (or lack thereof) of photography--or at least I could not and did not grasp it.

I can see why Luis was saying that "superior" is not the word we need here. Some things may indeed be superior to others--according to some stated criterion or criteria--but the word "progress" not only implies the possible threat of value imperialism but also short-circuits insight into what is really happening in our own minds as we adjust to and apply the emerging technologies and techniques to new creative visions in a spiral that keeps continuing. "Reciprocity" and "mutuality" touch upon what is happening, but in any case the word "development" winds up having a much richer connotation than I ever imagined.

I will be interested in seeing what else anyone besides you and Luis can bring to this idea of "development," both in the abstract and in the concrete. For me personally it suffices for the moment to say that I keep incorporating insights gained from looking at other persons' work, but I also keep discovering new applications and new potentialities independently of what others are doing once I start using the new technology. Photography does indeed "evolve," as you said much earlier. Where does it go? Where is it going? We cannot see that in advance. If we could, the whole creative process which photography avails would not be nearly so fascinating. Perhaps that is why we are not quite sure whether we are "creating" or "discovering" in this, as in all intellectual pursuits--and photography is, of course, an intellectual pursuit. It is hardly a technical application or skill and nothing else.

If photography were a mere technical application and nothing more, then we could abandon this forum and myriad discussions of a similar nature--but, as I have long said, there is nothing more practical than good theory. Imagine Charles Townes inventing the LASER if someone else had not already come up with the idea of "coherent light." Imagine nuclear energy (for better or for worse) if Einstein had not said very early in his 1905 article on electrodynamics: "If we postulate that the speed of light is constant. . . ." (Emphasis supplied.)

Who knew? Who knew? I think that it is safe to say that Einstein saw some of the creative and theoretical applications, but I am quite sure that he did not see them all--and I doubt that anyone has yet.

What do physics and photography have in common? They have at least this, I believe: that the theoretical insights and the practical implications/applications are tied together in a much more complicated way than the "pure v. applied science" distinction of a generation or two earlier ever grasped. Photography is, of course, a technology, but it is so much more. I'll shut up now.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 10, 2011

For what it's worth, here is one by Léonard Misonne made in London in 1899:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_lpywx6OjZR1qzdzano1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAJ6IHWSU3BX3X7X3Q&Expires=1315788083&Signature=rG692RhiSegp%2BH%2FXCGDNKFe1WhU%3D

Here are some others from the same epoch:

http://turnofthecentury.tumblr.com/page/3

--Lannie

Uhooru · September 10, 2011

Is quantum mechanics superior to Newtonian physics? Is the path from modernism to post-modernism progress? Whoever said this is a dog chasing its tail type of question has it right IMO. How do you define much less quantify "progress". The original question only makes sense if you view an individual photographer, style or movement in a vacuum and an attempt to reduce this ocean into a test tube does strike me as controlling and as Wouten said, some what fascistic.

But, to actually bite on the question, I would simply say that without placing judgement, "progress" has occurred in how people see and in the meaning of what they see the discussion of media = or doesn't= message I would say fits into that.

Landrum Kelly · September 10, 2011

Is quantum mechanics superior to Newtonian physics? Is the path from modernism to post-modernism progress?

</blockquote>

I am not sure that I would try to make analogies of this sort from the natural sciences to other areas. Some analogies there are, but they are very limited. Quantum and relativistic effects can be significant, and, if one has to deal with such effects, Newtonian physics is not going to be all that useful.

I cannot understand the aversion to all value judgments, as if the Ptolemaic model were "just as good" as the Copernican model. It was not, but neither was perfect, and even Copernicus's model had to be modified.

Making any kind of leap from any of that to categories such as "modern" v. "post-modern" is not going to get anyone anywhere.

--Lannie

luis_g · September 11, 2011

Lannie, others here have made contributions to the idea of development, maybe not in a literal sense, but pointing to and refiniing it. Wouter, David Bebbington, Anders, Barry Fisher, Phil Hardy, and others I can't remember off-hand have all made contributions as significant as anything Fred or I have said.

_________________________________________

It is a mistake to think that people are dodging making value statements. They're avoiding making meaningless or unsupportable judgments. Remember the Sontag essay/ thread awhile back? I think it has relevance to this one. That addressed the stultifying, paralyzing structure that the critical value judgment system of an age had created.

__________________________________________

Landrum Kelly · September 11, 2011

Luis, my recent remark was triggered by one question: "Is quantum mechanics superior to Newtonian physics?"

There comes a point at which discussions of meta-ethical concepts on a philosophy of photography forum become counter-productive. We reached that point, in my opinion, some time back. In any case, I have nothing more to say about it. Suggesting that discussions of "progress" or using the word "superior" sounded "fascist" did absolutely nothing to promote rational discourse when you first said it, and continued assertions of that sort are not anything that I am going to waste my time trying to address.

In NO case will I respond to things that I did not even say. Merely to ask a question is not to suggest an answer. I am only going to respond to things that I have said, not to things that you infer (and even imply) that I have said.

--Lannie

Wouter Willemse · September 11, 2011

What do physics and photography have in common? They have at least this, I believe: that the theoretical insights and the practical implications/applications are tied together in a much more complicated way than the "pure v. applied science" distinction of a generation or two earlier ever grasped.

</blockquote>

Lannie, I think there is more in common, and with a detour it might even end up back where you started.

Both physics and photography are to a large extend part of the human quest to record and explain what we see happening around us. In a way, both are also part of some sort of collective agreement on what is real and what's not. We all say an apple falls to the earth, and comics say the earth dropped away from the apple - and maybe the comics are right. But we're not likely to accept their vision. Likewise 'we' (generic) tend to believe what we see in a photo, but when edited too much, we say it's nonsens and not true.

Einstein's theories and quantum physics made physics as disconnected from that 'collective reality', as does the realisation that a photo represents <a href="http://foucault.info/documents/img/notapipe/Magritte-pipe.jpg">a point of view on a subject</a> (rather than the subject itself) does. It all becomes a result of "who, from which position, looking for which behaviour" - rather than a singular statement "this is it". Think the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect">Doppler Effect</a>. Realising this Doppler Effect really ruins the idea of truely empirical science ("as observed") as much as looking at a photo does: you have to be aware from where you are looking, what your point of view is, as well as where the subject matter (probably) is and what it's doing.

In physics, quantum physics turned a lot upside down. Where some searched for unified theories, it suddenly became a scattered probability of being one or the other, or something maybe somewhere in between. Relativity is a brilliant thing to realise (in every sense, not only physics), but it's also a much more complex animal to tame. It demands empathy, the ability to be wrong or just partially right, it demands to accept that answers tend to be incomplete or just a step in a long journey.

Photography - if there is one development I might think of as very relevant, it's the point where photography became (accepted) as being a creative expressive medium, rather than a recording device. All the main things we tend to discuss here (intent, perception) are result of the fact that we doubt the photo as such represents its subject. The list of names you included as starting point are pioneers and firsts in that. The Einstein, Bohr and Schrödinger of photography?

Where does it head to? Both physicists and photographers try to catch the behaviour of light. I think for quite some time to come, it will only continue to amaze and confuse us more.

luis_g · September 11, 2011

Lannie, is it wrong to question the question? I wasn't the only one to do so, and I think we all did so politely and in positive ways, trying to enhance this discourse. Perhaps, as you say, the thread has crossed over and is subverting itself. Perhaps not. I wish you wouldn't, but if you choose to take your toys and go home/leave, you will be missed.

If you look over the thread, there's been progress (sorry, I just had to) in many ways. Some of your questions have been answered, terms discussed, misunderstandings and assumptions have been clarified, and many angles of approach explored, if briefly. We have also touched upon vast, wide-open sideboards that would make good threads on their own.

To this simple mind, these are the signs of a productive discussion, and a near-great one for PN.

[The reason I thought of Fascism when you talked of the "superior/inferior" dichotomy was because it instantly brought to mind Degenerate Art. Nazi/Aryan Art = superior, Jewish (and other art) = inferior. ]

luis_g · September 11, 2011

That was elegant, Wouter. I think you would find this interesting...

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Physics-Parallel-Visions-Space/dp/0688123058

In photography, Wynn Bullock comes to mind as the photographer most concerned with relativity. I read about, and was told this by the executor of his estate. Can you tell by looking at his imagery?

http://www.google.com/search?q=wynn+bullock&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=496&prmd=ivnso&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=PAJtTteGG8ugsQKF0dD9BA&sqi=2&ved=0CC8QsAQ

Does his work look all that different from his contemporaries? How so?

Landrum Kelly · September 11, 2011

I love for people to rephrase the question, Luis. Challenging the question is what philosophy is all about. Your last paragraph above points to my only concern, since it seemed to be directed at me (originally) for using the language of "superior" (and I don't even remember the context). All that I can say is that, when I casually used that term, I never realized that that would provoke that response--not only from you, but from others as well.

No harm done, I hope. No one thinks I am a fascist for asking the question, I don't think. The thread/conversation survived that little hiccup. Knowing how treacherous exchanges on the web can be, I think that we do pretty well here. If I had read the previous thread that you alluded to earlier, then I might have understood the context of the remarks a bit better. Yes, making value judgments is necessary, but it is still very dangerous territory, especially where the arts are concerned--a particularly insidious kind of ethnocentrism can be behind the impulse to judge what is "better" or "superior," as we all know. We all struggle to get free of our own cultural baggage, but it is sometimes very difficult.

I will say that, if this turned out to be a good thread, it was not because of anything that I did. A number of people carried the conversation to heights that would never have occurred to me.

Wouter, I will respond to you after your remarks have percolated in my subconscious for a while. Right now I am coming up dry.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · September 11, 2011

If you look over the thread, there's been progress (sorry, I just had to) in many ways.

</blockquote>

That one left me laughing, Luis. Thank you.

--Lannie

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