Does suffering enhance [photographic] creativity?

Landrum Kelly · October 3, 2011

Responding to my own question, I have never agonized over a photo, though exposure and post-processing can certainly be frustrating at times.

I have, however, truly agonized over some of the issues that I have grappled with in ethical theory and political philosophy. I think that the reason, though, is that I have often been wrestling with myself, trying to figure out what I truly believed. The writing, and the multiple rewriting, has often been very intense.

I have not read Irving Stone's The Agony and the Ecstasy, nor seen the movie, about the life of Michelangelo. I am tempted now to do so. Nor have I read or seen the movie version of Stone's Lust for Life, about Vincent van Gogh. They might be worth looking into.

The person whose emotion seems to come through most strongly in his work on this forum is Fred Goldsmith, but so far he has not weighed in. I hope that he does, because I am sure that he would have something worth saying on this subject.

--Lannie

AJHingel · October 3, 2011

With some photographers you suffer after seeing their photos.

</blockquote>

John's remarks are right and shows, as far as I see it, a clear sense of understanding of the role of much art: Making the viewers questioning themselves and their self-righteousness, destroying expectations and opening up to borderlands of unknown aesthetics, provoking new creative understandings of reality. This is "suffering" or at least anything but comforting.

johne37179 · October 3, 2011

Anders: My comment was meant to be a little flip, but you make a great point. I think the great photographers and great artists in general do agonize over their work. The subjective (and at times objective) analysis we do of our own work is really what makes the next effort better. Once that struggle stops work tends to stagnate.

DawsonPointers · October 3, 2011

My answer to Lannie's original question is ' Yes, but drugs do it faster'.

I think that creativity in some part is an altered perspective of the common. Suffering alters perspective which results in the 'common' being presented in a different way. Drugs do the same, but they make holding the camera and a bag of Doritos at the same time much more difficult. In other words, having an altered perspective may be creative, but it doesn't mean beans unless you can get it across to others.

Regards, John

djthomas · October 3, 2011

Perhaps we could create two lists: artists who have suffered (or are suffering) and artists who have not suffered (of course we'll have to define what one means by "suffering"-- after all, we all suffer a bit from time to time). Let's compare the works and see if it reveals anything about the work or artist.

I seem to remember a quote attributed to William Faulkner that went,"I write when the spirit moves me; and it moves me every day." Perhaps perserverance--even in the face of suffering--is what makes the artist.

gregscott · October 3, 2011

Suffering can force a person to acquire depth. Needless choice of suffering may indicate a lack of depth. So it can work either way.

paul_de_ley · October 3, 2011

My guess of an answer to Lannie's original question is: sometimes yes, sometimes no, and a lot of the time we don't know.

Suffering can be the result of external adversity making life harder, of more or less internal causes (like mental illness, unrequited love, addiction/compulsion to innovate, etc etc), or of the damaging interactions between both. Suffering can for example result in, but also be the result of, extreme social isolation or feelings of otherness/not-belonging. Being an outsider can give you unusual ideas and perspectives that are well outside the norm, and thus provide the raw material for creative expression. Sometimes creativity is the only channel for torrential release of pent-up emotions. So in those cases: yes.

At other times however the answer is decidedly no: protracted isolation & emotional stifling will lead to depression = shutdown of any and all creative faculties = the exact opposite of channeling & release. Then again, a lot of creative people would (have) be(en) diagnosed as bipolar by present standards, meaning that they cycle(d) through both states and periods of great creativity alternating with lack of any meaningful output.

And in many cases we have no way of knowing. It's not like you can test what someone's creative output could have been, had they gone through a life of greater/lesser suffering instead of their actual lives. Unless maybe you have an identical twin who is better/worse off than you and subscribes to more/fewer photo forums, uploads more/fewer photos and gets higher/lower ratings on average? :)

Landrum Kelly · October 3, 2011

I think that creativity in some part is an altered perspective of the common.

</blockquote>

John, that is quite profound and has implications beyond the question that I raised. I will have to think about that one some more. I can see another question here if someone wants to post it: "Is creativity an altered perspective of the common?"

(By the way, on an entirely different topic, I have noticed that these postings get more responses if posed as questions.)

--Lannie

jane_rickard · October 3, 2011

Labor Day weekend I had a bad show, REALLY BAD. Saturday was the monsoon and the flood 1/2 of my stock was water damaged. Sunday I set up with repaired and undamaged stock, then three hours into the day as things started to pick up steam, tent collapse. 100% of frames and stock damaged.

As a friend of mine would put it was "a real God damn it". We packed up and I cried for an hour, then pouted for 36 more hours. Tuesday night about 10:00 it was clear, still and warm perfect for a night shoot I grabbed my camera, favorite lens and depressed as hell went out and shot neon, lights and facades. In about 90 minutes I did some of the best work I have done all year, it set me up to start repairing, remounting and in general getting ready for last weekends show.

Is suffering the mother of creativity? I can't tell you but I really hit rock bottom Labor Day Weekend and haven't stopped climbing out since.

stp · October 3, 2011

Personally, I don't think suffering (defined as experiencing deep [please don't ask me how deep] mental or physical pain for a significant period of time [please don't ask me how long it has to be to be significant] makes one more creative per se, but it often does provide the motivation to engage in artistic pursuits that may have either been absent or present to a much lesser degree prior to the suffering. I'm coming from the point of view that a portion of a person's ability to be creative is innate, and that portion is not affected one way or the other by suffering. However, to the extent that a portion of one's ability to be creative can be learned (i.e., affected by experience), then obviously creativity might be enhanced by suffering (or even diminished, depending on how the person deals with or integrates the suffering).

johncrosley · October 3, 2011

I skipped everything above so I could write my own thoughts untainted.

Many of the most creative minds (not all) have some sort of ability to have a multiplicity of viewpoints.

One viewpoint can be helpful in creating a multi-point art. If you see the world from a black and white viewpoint and it never varies, then it is likely that your art, whether writing, photography, playwriting (if that is at all possible) etc., is likely to be pretty cut and dried, and reflect a black and white viewpoint.

The good novelist is able to see things from the viewpoint from each of the characters, and that involves an ability to transcend the novelist's personal experience to become involved in the character of each of the individuals whom the novelist seeks to portray.

Dickens was famous for his portrayals. He was an astute observer of humans and the human condition.

Consider from the Pickwick papers this description of the character 'Joe'.

'The object that presented itself to the eyes of the astonished clerk, was a boy--a wonderfully fat boy--habited as a serving lad, standing upright on the mat, with his eyes closed as if in sleep.

'Joe is constantly hungry, very red in the face and is always falling asleep in the middle of tasks.

'"Sleep!" said the old gentleman, 'he's always asleep. Goes on errands fast asleep, and snores as he waits at table." '"How very odd!" said Mr. Pickwick. '"Ah! odd indeed," returned the old gentleman; "I'm proud of that boy--wouldn't part with him on any account--he's a natural curiosity!"'

In fact, Dickens was such an acute observer for this relatively minor character that in modern times what eventually became known as the Pickwickian syndrome eventually has become known as the Pickwickian HypOventilation Disorder - the inability of a very obese person to take deep breaths and consequently his/her inability to ventilate well, leading to an abnormal amount of sleepiness. That has lead to its link to sleep apnea.

Was it Dickens' suffering? I don't know, but he was an acute observer. If one is so comfortable in one's existence that the world just passes by and one does not observe what is passing by, one is not likely to know or inquire why the Joes of this world who are obese are not breathing deeply, are sleepy all the time and thus are 'oddities' to be described in one's writing.

Dickens was a master of the verbal picture.

If you are not curious, it may be because you have a singular point of view and that may be because you have not had your point of view challenged by others or by your internal mental processes. Those processes can happen as your mood or emotions vary or sometimnes 'swing' from one point to another as they do in persons with 'mood swing' [bi-polar disorder] or hypomania and hypodepressive disorder which are phases in which bi-polar disorder is not fully-blown.

James Thurber, who wrote of characters that daydreamed nearly impossible dreams may have himself had a rare condition in which he himself daydreamed extensively, and turned it instead of suffering into a wonderful art form adored by millions and millions (see for instance his character Walter Mitty and his daydreams). Thurber got rich over writing of such daydreaming character(s),so it's not so clear he suffered, but it's true he was an artist, and if he was afflicted, he turned it to his fortune and became famous for it.

Those who have had mental/emotional challenges, whether form mental and/or emotional illness, substance use/and or abuse (notice that not all 'use' is 'abuse') and other conditions which may lead to different mental states, not all of which are 'suffering' but may lead to one experiencing a multiplicity of viewpoints, are more likely to be able to see things from more than one point of view.

While a person who only has one point of view (Think Ayn Rand perhaps), may indeed make a successful novelist (thus artist), think of those who must weave a tapestry in their novels of various characters with various predilections, personalities, viewpoints and characters, then follow and work those characters into a whole that somehow 'works'. That requires some mental gynmanistics, and is far from the ability of most, and requires some facility generally with dialog as well as reaching into the various mindsets of different individuals and various social sets and subsets.

In order to have experience with those characters, one has to have had some ability to 'experience' either personally or through study of those persons the ability to emphasize or at least assimilate the characteristics of those personalities enough to portray them well and realistically enough that their use in a novel setting 'works'.

I have hitherto written about the 'novel' setting because it literally almost cries for the novelist (or the playwright, who is a close cousin) to climb in the skin of each character and present that character's side while at the same time keeping a central theme in mind and weaving that presentation with those of others characters and then into the entire novels themes and sub themes.

Creating art, to the extent it requires concentration, may by itself lead to the abnegation of some personal wants, just because of the concentration it requires. Concentration of such intensity may require giving up other comforts for those who are not supremely gifted and for whom such work does not come easily and it comes easily to a very few of the successful.

Cartier-Bresson, quited in his unauthorized biography, a work told to a French journalist who published it without authorization after Cartier-Bresson's death, recalled in one of their many, many meetings (which the journalist recorded afterward), a famous artist calling at a neighbor's house.

The artist was poorly dressed and apparently disheveled, but was one of the most gifted and ultimately most famous artists the early 20th C. France, calling on a patron, but rather surreptitiously because of his down and out look. He was described as being almost looking like a bum calling at his rich patron's home (Cartier-Bresson's family was patrician -- one of France's top 200 most wealthy).

Good art and good dress and demeanor do not always go hand in hand, but that does not mean they cannot.

Suffering does not make good artists. Many who suffer have no aftistic inclination or talent.

Good artists may suffer because of afflictions, and those afflictions may allow them to concentrate on their art or even CAUSE them to concentrate on their art, in part because for some it's all they can do or it's what they feel driven to do for whatever reason.

A Photo.net member write me that when he sees my photos he 'HEARS' my photographs audibly and even has written me a piano composition (two in fact) of what it is he hears. (they're beautiful, moving and haunting).

However, and as much as he has suffered for his own art (and he is an acclaimed painting artist in former times much exhibited, who has moved on, and is both a photographer and an accomplished commercial graphic artist, the suffering did not necessarily make him an accomplished artist but may have been just part of his personality and his success came from his talent.

He bore a burden (and a gift) that others did not bear.

I tend to think of it as a gift, but others may feel differently (I will not name him.)

My photos literally caused him to hear sounds -- sometimes melodious and sometimes dissonant - and he sought to share them with me.

(that particular deviation from 'normal' actually is very rare and is medically named, but I won't attempt to replicate that name here . . . as it's outside the bounds of this discussion.)

Artists who are incredibly devoted may abnegate all other things for their art, and in that way if they lead a unidirectional life and derive no other pleasures in their quest solely for their art and if their art is not well received (think Van Gogh) then they may indeed suffer.

However, one can posit that if Van Gogh's art were well received in his lifetime, that he might have had a much happier end -- even been the toast of the town in Paris and his name might not have ended up synonymous with 'suffering' and 'suicide' of the supposedly 'failed artist' who was 'sick with melancholia'.

That of course is speculation.

But if his brother Theo had succeeded in selling his work at high prices, who knows?

We might have different ideas about artistic success even today.

Did Michaelangelo suffer?

He certainly had his wealthy sponsors. It cost enormous sums to take those huge blocks of rock (oh, I forgot, stone) quarry them, move them, and then work on them to create his various Davids, etc.)

Working on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel certainly sounds like grueling work, but when I, with my aching post-operative neck and back, go out with impossibly heavy cameras on unsteady legs, and make a great or near-great capture, I find that the suffering I undergo, becomes LESSENED by the joy of creating something wonderful that maybe will outlast me.

Did Michaelangelo even feel pain from painting the Sistene Chapel of was it pure joy?

One thing is certain in my mind: If a person has suffered from a mental process that causes that person to experience a variety of experiences and from a variety of viewpoints, that person is somewhat richer when it comes to the art of portraying those viewpoints and in relating to those he seeks to portray.

Imagine Rush Limbaugh trying to interview a bum on the street and asking the bum how he makes it from day to day living on meager Social Security or SSI.

Now, if one views my own photographs, imagine me asking the same questions of that bum and then ask yourself, who is likely to get the fuller picture of that individual's life experiences and thus to make a better judgment of who exactly that individual is?

Of Rush Limbaugh and John Crosley, who is more likely to have sampled the rich tapestry of life, not only with the rich and famous (as I have too), but of the lower half of life as well, and who can portray ALL sides well?

I think the answer should be most revealing and helps answer the question you posited Lannie.

[i freehanded this answer at 60 wpm.

[it is not a polished or finished essay, but merely some semi-random thoughts tossed together, and I stand ready to be challenged on any/and/or all points.]

I hope it adds to the discussion.

john

John (Crosley)

Landrum Kelly · October 4, 2011

Thank you, Jane Rickard, for a wonderful story. I have a story similar to that to tell about one single lecture (in my whole life) that got me a standing ovation, a lecture that I gave immediately after getting news from a colleague that he and some others were not going to support my bid for tenure (back in the late 1980s). I was crushed but had to go immediately to class, and so I threw my whole heart and soul into what I said that day (and I don't even remember what it was). Later that school year, I would find out that I would be awarded tenure after all, but it meant less to me than the standing ovation of my students--the only one up to that time, and there have been none since.

John, you are always the true photojournalist--and more. I cannot begin to offer anything worthy of being called a response. I can only offer this: from whence comes empathy if not from some personal suffering so that one might identify with the oppressed, the downtrodden, or the simply unfortunate? How that might translate into photography is not certain, but this one by Tony Dummett suggests that it can:

http://www.photo.net/photo-of-the-week-discussion-forum/0045U6

I do want to thank both of you for taking the question seriously, and for writing here from the heart with all you had.

--Lannie

Landrum Kelly · October 4, 2011

Did Michaelangelo even feel pain from painting the Sistene Chapel of was it pure joy?

</blockquote>

John, that gets into the therapeutic value of creative activity--a separate and yet curiously related question, I believe.

I retreat to photography and to Photo.net to post a picture from time to time to simply forget about other madness in my life--such as my work situation. The madness or suffering of that "other life" does not make me a better photographer, in this case, but the photography gets me through some rough times. Its therapeutic value is without question.

So perhaps we have two questions:

(1) Does suffering emhance photographic creativity?

(2) Is photography or other creative activity therapeutic?

No matter what the truth is as to the first question, I do not hesitate to answer the second in the affirmative.

--Lannie

johncrosley · October 4, 2011

Lannie, I think you give me too much credit.

While I did write from the heart, I also wrote at 60 words per minute, and I just threw together some thoughts that had been churning, bubbling and ready to burst out after some internal ferment for a rather long time, which I had not thought thoroughly through, so they are just preliminary thoughts and not some 'essay' as I am wont to write with fully formed thoughts.

You have a gift for asking good questions, and I responded in the spirit of helping foster the discussion rather than positing dispositive answers, as I have none, though I have some thoughts that I think are interesting and were worth discussing at least.

In today's New York times there is an article about destructive altruism -- people who give until it becomes destructive, and in the same sense (or in some corollary sense) it may be posited that for some artists that the very act of creating is too all-absorbing or even addictive (as one way of explaining it) that it harms other parts of their lives, and for some it even causes them to shorten or end their lives. (Van Gogh for instance? Or was his depression and/or insanity exogenous to his art? That's a chicken or egg question of course.)

Certainly Van Gogh with his taste for very, very young women (girls even) would have had a tough slog in today's modern society, and would possibly have ended up imprisoned if he had not conformed to today's legal standards. [just take a look at his bio in Wikipedia.org for a primer].

He similarly was noncomformist in any number of other ways and distinctively 'weird' in any number of other personal mannerisms and lifestyles, but nevertheless a genius with a paint brush, paints and colors.

An artist need not be 'weird' to be artistic or successful or even seen as a genius as his art.

Chopin was a toast of Paris with his piano artistry, yet he distinctly was not 'weird', and he had entree into high society there because of his artistry, but didn't seem compelled to misbehave, nor does my cursory reading of his history (nor of Liszt either) seem to suggest that either of those two piano geniuses suffered overmuch in Paris as they practiced their genius.

I think one can be a happy artist is one's art is accepted and if one is productive, but if one's art is rejected and one is compelled to produce, then one is bound to have possibly an unhappy time.

In contrast or in opposition, however, recently I went to a Los Angeles exhibition at a gallery of the work of hitherto unknown street photographic great Vivian Maier, a nanny, whose negatives were found in a storage locker and now are being exhbited by their buyers after her death.

Nothing in her biography, info found from her former employers, suggests that for the great art she produced that she was particularly troubled -- she seemed content to produce her great street photography, not exhibit it, keep it sealed up and stored, and eventually die with it unexhibited, apparently lost for all time (but resurrected, for the world to see, fortunately, as I found on viewing her wonderful work) without any qualms about it.

Generalizations don't work too well in evaluating the 'artist' in terms of 'suffering', although I would suggest that for certain types of art, a range of mental states can be helpful in being creative - and that may include certain mental states, such as depression and elation, bipolar disorder, (a more severe form) psychosis (when it's managed and not completely, 100% disabling), and even altered states, just related to life experiences which many people pass through, not to mention altered states caused by certain substances.

Perhaps Edgar Allen Poe comes to mine, as well as numerous late 19th C. and early 20th C. authors and poets who indulged in cocaine, heroin, opium, absinthe or liquor when each was less illegal and more available and thus more all were more accepted parts of living the artistic and bohemian life as they sought altered states.

Drink often has been a companion of successful novelists. Truman Capote, Cartier-Bresson's companion as Cartier-Bresson traveled America photographing it in the 40s, eventually did not write anything significant as he drank his life away at the end, I understand.

Drink often has been a novelist's companion, I am told, but it was never a necessity.

It's easy to have stereotypes, but I am unaware of any true scientific studies on this subject.

(This comment also keyboarded at 60 wpm).

;~)

john

John (Crosley) (good discussion, lannie)

Landrum Kelly · October 4, 2011

I responded in the spirit of helping foster the discussion rather than positing dispositive answer

</blockquote>

I think that the reason that that works, John, is that the question is for me a jumping off point in a forum like this, not a question in a philosophy journal. We do well to allow others full expression, even if it sometimes takes us far afield. There is no way that one is going to "discipline" an online forum. Let it go where it will. . . . No one person really sets the agenda here, least of all the person who asks the original question. Questions morph. New insights come to mind. We can afford to let our threads here be less disciplined and more. . . creative. Let if flow--and, wow, do you ever do that!

I do thank you for your great thoughts. I won't try to refute a word you say above--because I cannot.

--Lannie

AJHingel · October 4, 2011

Is photography or other creative activity therapeutic?

</blockquote>

Not more than anything else I do with passion. If I did not do it, I would suffer or find substitutions.

john_macpherson · October 4, 2011

There is a body of study that has explored the links between creativity and 'illness'. For some easily accessible reading I can thoroughly recommend<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Creativity-Disease-Illness-Affects-Literature/dp/0714529419"> 'Creativity and Disease: How illness affects literature, art and music'</a> by Sandblom, which I reach for on numerous occasions. Also worth a look is<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Outsider-Art-Spontaneous-Alternatives-World/dp/0500203342/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1317744544&sr=1-1-spell"> 'Outsider Art: Spontaneous Alternatives</a>' by Rhodes - slightly tangential but worth it for the perspective. Will come back later - other duties press upon me! Good thread Lannie.

Allen Herbert · October 4, 2011

There is plenty of suffering in the world. Read the news.

By that take there should be masterpieces being produced on a spit second bases. I struggle to understand why anyone would need to be poor and starving to produce Art or anything else for that matter. Of course a believer in suffering, to produce High Art, could prove me wrong by injecting themselves with Leprosy..any takers?. Or, they could cut their dicks off so all that stuff goes straight to their brain producing High Art. They then could change their name to Richard Head and become famous...

Some folk are wired a bit differently from others so perhaps that helps them to see a bit further around corners.

Just a few thoughts.

john_macpherson · October 4, 2011

Hmm.

Rather than saying 'suffering creates art' it might in some circumstances be more useful to say that 'art is a response to the fear of suffering'.

I think that for some creative/ill people 'art' enables a degree of control over the chaos of their existence they would not otherwise have. If one is unable to 'manage' ones personal circumstances or finds the world a daunting prospect, the considerable control that being an artist brings is perhaps a liberation, and a necessity. Some may not even find it (art) a pleasurable experience, and laden with risk and fear of failure, but consider it infinitely preferable to not doing 'art'.

chris_raney · October 4, 2011

I have posted in several forums over the years and I perhaps have a bad habit of expanding my narratives a bit longer than absolutely necessary. That said, compared to the length of John Crosley's contribution--several pages back--I'm downright terse.

Marc Todd made some lovely points about suffering, anguish and madness (paraphrasing) not being particularly necessary for the creation of great art. And if some of those artists who had famously suffered from mental problems (again, I paraphrase) had had their illnesses cured their art might have been all the better. I couldn't disagree more. Stand in front of a painting like Van Gogh's Wheatfield with Crows and your eyes will water at the creative rage that consumed this artist's psyche. A man with a 'normal' mind couldn't have possibly painted like this.

'Normalcy,' whatever that is, is just another word for banality to the truly creative mind. I would suggest that finding any great artist in any field of endeavor, not just a talented person, but an individual with an outstanding gift will, by cognitive necessity, exhibit signs of behavioral 'abnormality.' And yes, great art is often created by some of the most troubled and troublesome people. Great art is compelled to disrupt the status quo. And that compulsion, the drive to create that level art is certainly not 'normal.' It may very well be, as we're now discovering, a form of creative 'madness.'

I am certainly not diminishing the sadness and suffering of those whose mental demons have robbed them of any hope of living content and satisfying lives. But any art, great or otherwise that conforms to the status quo--what is 'normal,' in the conventional sense--is not art: it's kitsch.

johne37179 · October 4, 2011

OK, Chris, you have convinced me. I'm ready to cut off an ear. I'm just not sure which one. Is it OK if I cut off one of Matt's ears?

Uhooru · October 4, 2011

I suffer every time I look in a mirror, but I suffer more when I try to respond to one of these leave it to Beaver questions.like "Jeez Wally, I was just thinking.. do you think suffering enhances creativity?? Jeez, I don't know why I wanna know, just kinda curious I guess..." But yes, questions like this make me want to rush out and take photographs instead of reading forums and so I guess suffering can enhance creativity.

Uhooru · October 4, 2011

Ok, to be less flippant, you could argue that someone like Frieda Kalo's art was informed and arose out of deeply personal suffering, Munch, Van Gogh there's a long long list of people who suffered and were great artist. Some suffered because, as others have said,they never recieved the recognition by society when alive, others just had great internal pain that they lived with, others great physical pain and everything in between. The question begs itself though as to whether the act of creation itself arises out of suffering. And of course "suffering" is a term of degree, from mild discomfort to raging pain of some kind. To me suffering represents a blockage, some kind of block of energy, and personally, when I'm "suffering" I can't create. My function doesn't. Its blocked and its a chicken and egg effect as well, but there's no drive to be creative. Some would say, I never create anyways but I at least, feel that my best work arises from when I'm enthralled enough with what I'm doing, even if I'm just doing a job, to create a real interest. Sometimes just doing something which seems mundane to me like going through 5 or 600 photographs of my vacation or a wedding, I find myself becoming engrossed and then things start to happen. But never when I'm in any state dramatic enough to be called "suffering". Then I don't want to shoot pictures, or post-process and edit at all.

chris_raney · October 4, 2011

I wouldn't have you suffer for anything, Barry. But even you have to admit that when you're 'enthralled' or 'engrossed' (your expressions) with your work you are certainly not in a 'normal' state of mind. Perhaps after five pages of verbage we should all retire the worn adjectives pain, suffering, and agony and go with something like...passion?

Uhooru · October 5, 2011

Bingo Chris. But not so un-normal, I do basically enjoy my life. I think I should have just stick with my first post. Anyways, I'd rather read a good book than wade through all this.

Sign In

Does suffering enhance [photographic] creativity?

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