Critiques of Intention in Street Photography

Brad_ · August 1, 2014

No, I simply said: The elements in the frame came together in a pleasing manner and I made a photograph.

charleswood · August 1, 2014

Right, you said that to describe the moment when your intent was formed. Your intent is what caused the muscles in your index finger on the shutter to contract. Seeing something pleasing, you contracted your finger. Intent is the cause, the contraction of your index finger an effect. Therefore, you intended to make a pleasing picture, to save a copy of the frame to memory because you thought it was worth it to save it as a picture because it was a pleasing frame. Right?

charleswood · August 1, 2014

Jeff provided us with this helpful link: http://zonezero.com/open/157-debunking-the-myth-of-the-decisive-moment

It shows contact print sheets for some notable pictures that help us understand the artists selection process.

Brad, for your Look Deeper shot, would you be so kind as to post here a collage of the entire sequence of images that led to the shot you selected?

Brad_ · August 1, 2014

>>> Right?

No. That's not it at all. It's about elements coming together in a pleasing manner within the scene. It's an almost instantaneous

decision, perhaps subconsciously recognized. Lex described the process very well in his 7/30 4:24pm post up above about

being in the zone and the benefit of practice.

I expressed my intent up above in my 7/31 10:16pm post. No need to repeat that again as I'm not able to add any additional

information.

I'm beginning to appreciate even better the stance Winogrand took with some interviewers, attempting to shoehorn their views and

perspectives (without benefit of experience) onto how he went about his shooting on the street, and his views about photography.

.

Vancouver • ©Brad Evans 2014

.

</center>

Norma Desmond · August 1, 2014

It's also mocking the interpretation that it's about some kind of sleazy sexual innuendo (picture two cretins, Beavis and Butthead, if you will, elbowing each other and snickering "Look deeper...get it! Hehheheheh!"). It offers that interpretation, but it's actually mocking that interpretation when its says, "No, you're miles off, pal!" —Steve

</blockquote>

With respect to that particular photo, Steve Gubin (and others who have seen it and commented previously) nailed it. When I was out shooting I saw the message, security camera, and spotlight up above, and waited for the right subject - thinking an attractive woman would be ideal, positioned directly below the spotlight with security camera pointing towards her. I took a bunch of shots with others walking by previously to see how it might look. —Brad

</blockquote>

OK, so far we have Steve's understanding of Brad's intent and Brad's description not of intent but of methodology. That an attractive woman would be ideal is one thing. WHY an attractive woman would be ideal is another.

Here's what I get putting the two together. A photographer lying in wait for an attractive woman to walk past a found scene with certain story-telling elements that tells men who might view this sexually (but in an immature sexual manner like B&B), "no pal, not quite."

It's too bad we don't have several women participating to give us their views on what's also going on here. I say also because pictures and statements can be interpreted in so many different ways, and probably should be, despite whatever the intent of the photographer.

I think Steve probably nailed it, too. But there's more, IMO. When you say you lie in wait, when you set up a shot which includes a street camera and spotlight and wait for an attractive woman, I suspect but can't be sure many women would understand how (and that) the woman in the photo is being used. How effective is it really to wait for "an attractive woman" or the right attractive woman in order to supposedly show something revealing about sexual innuendos toward women? Could a man find a way not to reduce women to "an attractive woman?" Could the woman in the photo somehow be made to be seen as a person rather than someone (something) a photographer lies in wait for who will fit the bill. I have a feeling many women would decline this kind of photographic offering.

spanky · August 1, 2014

It's threads like these that make me pleased to be the intellectually challenged person that I am. I don't care about a photographers intent, the gear they use, what they had for lunch, what materials they use and so on. All I care about is what effect if any the picture I'm looking at at that moment has on me. That's it. I think too many people get their minds cluttered with a bunch of garbage when they start trying to pry into the methods and psyche of other photographers. Why not concentrate on ones own work? God knows I have enough issues with my own photography that I don't need to devote any time to wondering about other peoples.

Here's my take: Every time some takes a photograph, be it a street shot, a landscape, a nude, or even just snaps at your Aunt Bertha's 70th birthday, the intent is all the same. It's to make a recording of what you are experiencing. That word by the way is key: Experiencing. It's not enough to just "see", you have to experience something based on what your eyes take in and send up to your brain for processing. You have to be moved by something. I've always told those folks who wanted to tag along with me to learn to shoot in the streets to listen to their gut. "Trust your feelings and you will know when to press the shutter," is what I tell them. It may not always serve you in the way you would like, but it's the only way to make authentic work.

lex_jenkins · August 1, 2014

These debates, disputes, discussings and cussings over critiques, intentions and whether it's even necessary or appropriate to critique intentions remind me of the most often cited quote by Robert Doisneau:

"If you take photographs, don't speak, don't write, don't analyse yourself, and don't answer any questions." - Robert Doisneau

</blockquote>

Yeah, well, that sounds great until you realize Doisneau, like Winogrand, was pulling our legs. Doisneau also went on to offer many of the most <a href="http://www.photoquotes.com/ShowQuotes.aspx?id=225&name=Doisneau,Robert">insightful observations</a> about the nature of photography and photographers.

Artists and creators love to hate critics and critiques and disparage the entire process of criticism as some sort of useless wankery or parasitical activity. Until the critics and critiques happen to grok what the creative folks are doing. Or when the critique helps us to clarify some vague notion so that we may more fully and completely explore a concept in our own photography or art. Then we love the critics and critiques. Until some newb or rube asks us about our process. Then we pull on our magician's robes, use a little sleight of hand and tell them it isn't important.

Brad_ · August 1, 2014

>>> I think Steve probably nailed it, *too*. But there's more, IMO. When you say you lie in wait, when you set up a shot

which includes a street camera and spotlight and wait for an attractive woman, I suspect but can't be sure many women

would understand how (and that) the woman in the photo is being used. How effective is it really to wait for "an attractive

woman" or the right attractive woman in order to supposedly show something revealing about sexual innuendos toward

women? Could a man find a way not to reduce women to "an attractive woman?" Could the woman in the photo

somehow be made to be seen as a person rather than someone (something) a photographer lies in wait for who will fit

the bill. I have a feeling many women would decline this kind of photographic offering.

Nice try, Fred. As I said above, I don't agree with that particular aspect Steve mentioned.

From what you are saying it appears that you truly don't understand that many women in society today are objectified

based on their appearance. I can't help you with that, seeing your goal seems to really be about obfuscation. The

message is simply Look Deeper, even though it seems to not make a lot of sense to you.

Perhaps a "homeless" person or an attractive man could have been used as well, seeing how they have been objectified,

especially in photographs I've seen here - with the same message, "Look Deeper." But then there would no doubt be the same pushback from you.

.

Spearhead · August 1, 2014

Here's what I get putting the two together. A photographer lying in wait for an attractive woman to walk past a found scene with certain story-telling elements that tells men who might view this sexually (but in an immature sexual manner like B&B), "no pal, not quite."

</blockquote>

I saw nothing sexual at all in Brad's use of an attractive woman. Quite the opposite, it appears to be social commentary. I don't think any man would view the photo as sexual.

On the other hand, my photos here are quite obviously about sex and/or lust. However, they are not directed at men in particular.

charleswood · August 1, 2014

Sure Mark, but it is also about making a decision that what we are experiencing is worth recording. And once we decide to share our recording everyone is going to have an opinion about its worth.

A curator has to justify their decision before the picture is even shown. A curator can't claim that their decision was, quoting Brad "...an almost instantaneous decision, perhaps subconsciously recognized" and get to keep their job. Because we all recognize that a decision was made and a conscious act resulted from that decision for reasons. A conscious act even includes deciding to take a picture for no particular reason. It matters whether a picture resulted from an involuntary spasm in the index finger or from deliberation.

Norma Desmond · August 1, 2014

I very much do understand that many women are objectified based on their appearance, Brad. What I'm saying is that to objectify a woman as you have in that photo in order to comment on the objectification of women just doesn't work for me. And this has nothing to do with your intent or what you've said about lying in wait (though that did add some emphasis). This has to do with what I see in the photo. I see a woman (any attractive woman who happened along) walking into a scene that a photographer thought had narrative potential. (Like, Jeff, I didn't see anything particularly sexual. I was addressing Steve's comment and Brad's "Steve nailed it.")

One of the reasons I moved onto other things after shooting on the street for several years early on was because I didn't find it enough to scout out interesting locations and wait for the right person to walk into them. That was my own shortcoming, in my mind. I would like to get back to street shooting at some point and it will be to explore something else. One thought I have is to explore moments that are already happening, to find excitement as it is lived. If I were to wait, it would be to wait for something to unfold before me, not to wait for someone to walk into a background of my choosing. And, of course, it wouldn't all have to be candid or surreptitious. There could be lots of engagement as well.

I'm not suggesting any other photographer work the way I would. And I'm not suggesting I won't be open to other ways of shooting once I get out there again. I'm telling why I'm unmoved by this particular photo. Brad has a lot of photos in a rather varied portfolio that I relate to better and that I get more out of.

Charles, who lives outside the city, landscape photographers who've never shot on the street, and people who weren't there alongside the photographer could have some significant insights to share, without needing to be invited to spend a year or two shooting on the street. Just like we all have an important and equal voice in a Philosophy forum whether we've spent years formally studying Philosophy or not.

Participating in a particular genre, of course, gives us certain insights that others might not have. Likewise, those who don't participate in a particular genre might have a kind of perspective that can enlighten those who work in that genre.

charleswood · August 1, 2014

Jeff "I don't think any man would view the photo as sexual. "

Speaking for myself the woman is the only interesting thing about the picture. The text next, the light, and security camera after that. She isn't pictured in a way that comes off as sexual to me. Consequently I don't think there is enough sexual emphasis in the photo to make the text's counsel relevant to it as a picture of a woman. She isn't pictured attractively enough to warrant the admonition.

charleswood · August 1, 2014

Since exploiting, objectifying women ordinarily involves a more provocative photo of a woman than Brad's photo of a woman, then to me at least, based on my reaction to the woman in his photo, the words exploit and objectifying may be an overstatement of what I sense is wrong about the picture.

Part of the reason I characterize most of Brad's work as crass is because I feel that his subject portrayals are gratuitous. To me it seems that appearance is the only reason behind Brad's subject selection. To be clear, gratuitous means "uncalled for; lacking good reason; unwarranted". The only reason I can find in Brad's subject choices, appearance, lacks good reason, is uncalled for, is unwarranted. Sure that's a value judgment of mine.

And that is why I would prefer that his work not be shown as art. His broad body of work doesn't reflect the kind of values I want promulgated in our culture by art. I want more than just appearances in art. We have enough of 'just appearance' in the advertising media that form most of our communications. Often discussions, critiques of art involve discussions of values. So be it.

There is an irony that Brad would sit for more than an hour looking at advice from text on a building that was also advice he sooo needed to hear, at least from my view of him. Look deeper than appearance Brad, because to me appearance is all that your work is about ultimately. And that is why I don't view it as art. It is not only shallow, but brash.

AJHingel · August 1, 2014

""Every time some takes a photograph, be it a street shot, a landscape, a nude, or even just snaps at your Aunt Bertha's 70th birthday, the intent is all the same. It's to make a recording of what you are experiencing. That word by the way is key: Experiencing.""

Marc made the one comment that made me react to this flow of discussion. In a funny way he managed to formulate the exact antipode of what I have been doing in photography since years outside family and privacy snapshots. Everyone of the more than thousand photos I have uploaded on Photonet the last ten years are anything but registrations of my "experiences". They are all something else or at least something more, where the viewers of my imagination play a central role. They are more like writing prose or poems which are never descriptions of direct experiences of mine.

As no-one up till now has taken up Marc's input, maybe this is just a side remark to the thread.

Brad_ · August 1, 2014

>>> Fred: (Like, Jeff, I didn't see anything particularly sexual. I was addressing Steve's comment and Brad's "Steve nailed it.”)

Again, you conveniently ignore the I’ve cleared up that aspect in Steve’s post and continue to reference it. At best that comes off as disingenuous.

>>> One of the reasons I moved onto other things after shooting on the street for several years early on was because I didn't find it enough to scout out interesting locations and wait for the right person to walk into them.

What you seem to be saying here is that street photography is only about that. I would guess most is making spur of the moment photographs as things unfold on the street. But it is not limited to that. The Look Deeper photo I made in 2003 and have done little hanging around for a photo since, unless it was for a posed portrait. I honestly can’t remember the last time I hung around in an area waiting for a scene to unfold. It may have been 9-10 years ago.

>>> I would like to get back to street shooting at some point and it will be to explore something else. One thought I have is to explore moments that are already happening, to find excitement as it is lived.

That’s a large part of my photography, the other being street portraiture and listening to and putting together stories of people I meet on the street. The lying in wait aspect was simply a suggestion as to how HCB made the shot mentioned by Arthur. Indeed, the Pedro Meyer piece that Jeff pointed to reinforces that possibility as that’s how he seemed to work on many occasions. I don’t find that particularly shocking. OTOH, I really don’t care for HCBs work that much - which was reinforced seeing his retrospective at SFMOMA a couple years ago.

>>> Brad has a lot of photos in a rather varied portfolio that I relate to better and that I get more out of.

I’d rather characterize that as having many different portfolios, developed over many years, covering my interests at a particular time.

>>> Charles, who lives outside the city, landscape photographers who've never shot on the street, and people who weren't there alongside the photographer could have some significant insights to share, without needing to be invited to spend a year or two shooting on the street.

As I appreciate all points of view, he could very well have some insight, but so far, he seems too invested in mischaracterizations, intentional misquotes, and gotchas to the point where any such insight would be extremely suspect. This is something he has demonstrated other times, on other threads - usually when I take exception to a point you have made. Which does seem strange, by the way.

No, the people I seek for advice and insight are individuals who have no ulterior agenda, shoot straight (no photographic pun intended), are credible, have my best interests at heart, and have earned my respect. So far, Charles fails badly on all counts.

>>> Charles: And that is why I would prefer that his work not be shown as art.

I have never shown my work as art (or attempted to). As I’ve explained several times in this thread, I do not shoot for others and therefore would give no weight to your preference whatever that might be. I have never claimed my work is art (it isn’t), or refer to myself as an artist (I'm not). Indeed, when others refer to me as such at a talk or reception, I gently correct them and say something like “photographer works fine.”

But, by suggesting that I should not be showing my work as art (when that claim was never made), does construct an straw man that you can then beat down, as if you were saying something very profound - when in fact it comes off weak, weird and disingenuous (at best).

>>> There is an irony that Brad would sit for more than an hour looking at advice from text on a building that was also advice he sooo needed to hear, at least from my view of him.

There you go again, making stuff up again to bolster an argument you’re attempting to make. Nowhere did I say I sat at a building for more than an hour. When you make stuff up like that and in other places, and create straw man arguments, your credibility suffers and anything that you do say that might have some truth or merit gets substantially discounted. Why would I soo need to hear advice from such a person? That's makes no sense. The real irony is that such a person is passing themselves off as someone with advice that is soo needed to be heard.

.

NYC • ©Brad Evans 2014

.

</center>

charleswood · August 1, 2014

Not art? Fair enough. Thanks for correcting me.

What is Maier then? An artist, a documentarian? Does deciding if she was an artist depend what critics find in her intention?

Uhooru · August 2, 2014

I don't get this thing of trying to devise the one great truth about photography, or take someones description of how or why they made a certain photograph, and then pounce on it to try to pigeon hole the idea into, so this is what you believe or intend with your photography. Really. So much of this is just semantical B.S. If you blow up the words like the common one, I want to show what I was experiencing, etc. What does that really mean? What experience? To my little world of street photography, seldom do I have an agenda. I was thinking about what am I thinking about in terms of photography, when I'm shooting. Am I lurking about waiting for something I find interesting, or visually interesting to happen? Now and again. Do I keep an eye out for things that look interesting? Of course. Think about what you think about when in the act of taking a photo that isn't a process of engagement with a person. Me, when I'm clicking the shutter I'm thinking that might be cool, or I wonder how this weird lighting will work? or this is moody, I wonder how it will look, snap snap, or that girl is beautiful, or that person has a really interesting face. Its all a bunch of really small impressions decisions, many of which don't result in an interesting picture, but some that do. sometimes something you see will jive with imagery you've seen elsewhere or remind of something you've read or thought about .....click. Its, at least for me, a simple process. Is there conscious or unconscious intelligence that sometimes compels one to snap some thing that you don't fully see at the time you take the picture? I think probably yes. And sometimes, you see something crystalize and you are fully trying to capture certain details, light on a fabric, a piece of interesting junk, a building detail that if you frame it this way transmutes the object. Really, you can have all these thoughts within a span of 20 minutes on the right day. And then sometimes its just capturing the joyful fun of human nature having a good time or a bad time whatever, like Jeff's sexy photos that are so much about the vigor and openness of S.F. There's no one method or intention, at least in my photography world, unless I'm on a project:)

Uhooru · August 2, 2014

What is Maier then? An artist, a documentarian? Does deciding if she was an artist depend what critics find in her intention?

</blockquote>

What is she to you? Critics can add texture, context and meaning to the work which is in itself an art, but other than effecting the sale price of a photograph or other piece, really only you can decide if Maier is an artist, or a documentarian, or if there is truly a distinction and are they mutually exclusive terms. Or does the dilemma arise simply from the dialectic one buys into about what these terms mean and how they relate to a work. Critics, I find, justify their existence by creating or attributing meaning to what ever they are looking at, and, especially when the maker is no longer around to explain themselves what they were doing, they (the critics) seem to live with the concept that nature abhors a vacum and thus they fill in the story, or narrative etc. So restating the OP's questions, is the intention of the maker have anything to do whether a work is art? or critically perceived as art by the critique world, and does it, in the final analysis, really mean anything to the actual work it self. The critical explanation of Maier's photo may have absolutely nothing to do with what VM actually intended, who knows?

cyanatic · August 2, 2014

I'm almost sorry I commented on Brad's photograph. My comments were my take on the image, period. I have no idea whether he waited or didn't wait in one spot. I have no idea whether he intended it as a tongue-in-cheek comment on the objectification of women. Something about the image gave me the impression that it went beyond simply seeing it as a sexual innuendo, provided that someone might even see it in that way. Not a visual clue, more an apprehension based on instinct. A feeling not based on any overt objective visual evidence contained in the photograph itself. And for me, despite having mentioned it, that was not the most salient feature of the photo (though it seems to have dominated further discussion of it). Put an elderly woman in there, a child, or a man. It doesn't matter. The oddity, the pressure and tension of the giant letters and the camera, would still be there. And that is the dominant aspect of it. But that is just my interpretation of it.

One of the things I like about certain street photographs is their ability to reach beyond the level of just the objective visual evidence they contain. They go beyond the ability of words to encompass them. One can describe them, but the essence of how, or why, they make one feel or apprehend something ineffable does not yield itself easily to mere words. I think that sometimes you just have to let a particular image make you feel. But here words fail, because I'm not talking about the feeling you might get because a portrait or a landscape reminds you of something from your life, or you revel in the technical perfection of it, or you are struck by its beauty. Maybe it goes back to Julie's quote of Tallis (discussing Keats "negative capability" and Coleridge) and the Penetralium of mystery. (The Penetralium of mystery can run the risk of being a cover for laziness, but that's a different discussion.) We live in an age dominated by corporate metrics, marketing demographics, and a grasping quest for certainty and objectivity. To bastardize Keats again, does one seek knowledge from a photo or does one seek feeling (Keats' beauty)? A photograph can contain both, but if it must contain only one, I would prefer that it contain the latter. The photograph which provides only half-knowledge, and is understood best through feeling, rises to the level of what I would call art. Intention be damned. I do believe that some of Maier's photographs qualify her for the term "artist". Certainly there are enough of them that do. Nor do I feel that she alone among street photographers has produced photographs that rise to art. I know that there are some who do not think that street photography can be art. That's up to them to decide. I believe that it can be. As for being a documentarian, one could also say that, yes, Maier was most certainly that as well.

And in the end, does it matter whether we call something art or not? [EDIT: I posted this before seeing Barry's comments above...I'm in agreement.] There seems to be this fear of using the word. And much sneering and derision when it is. Sneering at those who choose to call certain things art (or sneering at that horrid boogeyman "the Art World") is the province of the technicians, the classicists, the literalists, and the objectifiers.

(An example of....nothing in particular. I just felt like posting it...I wish more people would post their photos in these threads. We are photographers after all.)

Norma Desmond · August 2, 2014

Steve, I was very conscious that some of your thoughts were a springboard for some of the discussion that ensued about Brad's photo. Please don't be sorry. I think it's great to take some of the abstract thoughts that sometimes get brought up and make them more concrete by applying them to specific photos. This is good stuff to hash out and if it gets charged, well, it gets charged. And though I discussed the whole objectification/innuendo thing, that wasn't my big takeaway from the photo, which was more about it looking like one of those find-a-background-wait-for-the-right-person photos, which I just don't find challenging or moving in most cases, Bresson notwithstanding. And to be sure, Brad responded by saying he can't remember having shot a photo like that in almost a decade.

I've been questioned on my approach to photos and the depth of what I produce on enough occasions. It stings at first but the more it stings the more I usually wind up getting something out of it. So, as hard as it can be, I welcome even those critiques that make me the most defensive. Sometimes, I've agreed right away if it really rang true and sometimes it took a bit of time for me to absorb it and found ways to deepen my photography. Other times, I felt perfectly comfortable with what I was doing but also very much understood someone else's negative and even hostile reaction. I doubt many of us are looking for universal appeal. What appeals universally is often quite boring or vanilla. Good photographers, good artists are bound to turn a segment of the population off and often do. It goes with the territory.

I very much agree with you about being aware of much sneering and derision when art and critics are mentioned and I usually walk the other way when that happens.

Barry, if I understand you correctly, you don't think about much when you're in the moment of photographing. We're similar in that regard. I may think about where the light is falling or whether a tree or wall molding seems to be growing out of a subject's head. Probably it's more of an intuitive kind of noticing than real thinking. But I do have agendas. And I consider what I'm doing with photography a great deal. I give it a lot of thought. It's not when I'm shooting, though. It's when I'm lying in bed at night before sleep, when I'm driving, taking a shower, hear something in a conversation I think I can express in a photo, get a feeling in the pit of my stomach at some time or another that is worth inspiring an idea for a future photo. That sort of thing. Very conscious focus and effort goes into a lot of the work I produce, which doesn't mean serendipity and spontaneity aren't also partners to my more deliberate side, which probably tends to be dominant.

Marc, for me, it's not only the recording of an experience (though I think it's partly that), it's the making of a new experience, the photo. I might say that there are at least two important experiences for me (and there's overlap and it can be hard to separate the two), the experience of being with who I'm shooting and at the same time the experience of projecting toward the photo. A camera seems able, in different hands, to record almost like a fun house mirror reflects. A photo winds up transforming the original experience and moment, sometimes distorting it almost beyond being able to recognize that original moment in it.

Brad_ · August 2, 2014

Excellent summary of what shooting on the street can be like, Barry. No doubt that will still confound

those that demand qualified intention be asserted in order to make street photos. While having zero shooting

experience to draw upon and (as a result) not understanding what it's really about.

.

.

</center>

Norma Desmond · August 2, 2014

While having zero shooting experience to draw upon and (as a result) not understanding what it's really about.

</blockquote>

And here we have it again! Restated clearly. You, the other, the foreigner to my world, the unwashed inexperienced, couldn't possibly understand a thing about what I do. What a telling "artist's statement." Excuse me, sorry, "photographer's statement."

Brad_ · August 2, 2014

Sorry Fred, I don't know what you are going on about. OK, you're right, arm-chair internet experiences are just as good, just like what Barry expressed.

.

.

</center>

Norma Desmond · August 2, 2014

The same way you would, Brad, with understanding and empathy. How do you know what Barry experiences not being Barry? Well, that's exactly how anyone can understand what Barry experiences who's not Barry. If I thought no one who doesn't shoot portraits could understand me or my experience shooting portraits, I'd give it up tomorrow. I would never want to put myself in that kind of vacuum. So that's what I'm going on about. I love talking with non-photographers about what I do and I love talking with non-portrait photographers about what I do. And I generally get the sense they can very well understand what I do and how I do it. Part of my purpose in photographing is to communicate and to generate understanding. Not to isolate myself off from the world who I think can't understand my experiences because they don't experience exactly what I do. I'm not about to yield to your attempts to turn this into the Old Street Boy's Network, others need not apply.

charleswood · August 2, 2014

Barry, Steve: It's up to me? I'm starting to see I don't do all that well with open endedness. Well, that wave is kinda pretty Steve.

Sign In

Critiques of Intention in Street Photography

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