Goths for Girls: Predators on the Prowl**

This unusual 'Goth' pair in Santa Cruz's downtown takes a break

while trolling for 'girls' (or at least one 'girl') for the both of

them -- the man's a networking engineer, with his 'girlfriend' --

his wife is inside the nearby nightclub (yes!). Your ratings and

critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly or very

critically, pleae submit a helpful and constructive comment/Please

share your superior knowledge to help improve my photography.

Thanks! Enjoy! John

Very dramatic, strong.. Think again :) about cropping on the left untill the legs of that lady, and upprside in between those two glowing leaves.. Congrats.

When you say 'think again' about 'cropping' it suggests I did crop this photo, but this is uncropped except for in the camera as this is a full take from the sensor.

 

As to cropping from the 'leaves' that is unintelligible' did you mean 'lights'?

 

And about the women's legs?, I am uncertain.

 

I think I'll leave this as it is, it's one of my best ever.

 

Regardless of the ratings.

 

John (Crosley)

John, I was thinking, you might have thought about the possibility of cropping. (against her legs..) On the upperside I ment "between the two green, fosforising.. leaves above her head." The two head figures are so strong, that hardly attention is pulled away by some possible cropping issues! Liking your own photo is the best there is! The shot is indeed so real.., that I do understand it's your favorite! What an expression!! And that leather! They do "need" that dark corner. Congratulations. And raters? Bad food, bad raters.. haha! Regards, Olaf.

Now, despite language/translation issues, I do understand.

 

You are right/liking one's own photo is the best.

 

And the same about the raters.

 

I always take ratings with a grain of sale, especially recently, as I see very few ratings, so now I expect few well-thought-out ratings and critiques as compared to previous times.

 

Your comment was indeed well-thought-out and I am very appreciative of it.

 

I like the balance of their 'darkness' which is very 'Goth-like' compared to the brightness and activity of the street' and their 'sinister' look and inactivity -- typical of predators waiting, compared to the 'street activity' out there in the lights, for a good comparison.

 

Just look in his eyes, and the smoke coming from her mouth.

 

I showed this on my 'screen' to them and they just loved it.

 

They thought it very accurately portrayed them; they lauded my abilities as a photographic artist for my ability to capture their essence (or perhaps their masks ...who knows for sure?)

 

Best to you, Olaf.

 

John (Crosley)

The light in his eyes, the unsharpness on his leather jacket, the smoke blown out from the woman's mouth (the fact that she is unsharp), all wonderful elements in this magnificent street portrait. I understand Olaf's reaction about the cropping though. There is indeed something distracting about the background. It needs to be there because of the depth but maybe there are too many people? Are the colours of their clothes too bright? Don't know.

It's 'street'.

 

It is what it is.

 

I don't or hardly Photoshop anything.

 

I barely lightened this so the guy's features would show a little bit; same for his eyes, which were selected and had 'shadow/highlight' filter applied, just a little.

 

Other than that, it's pristine.

 

It needed just a little basic lightening, and only a touch more to make it like it should be.

 

Anything more, in my book would transgress into the field of digital alteration.

 

I just made it fulfill its 'truth' as a capture, not 'alter' it to make a 'creation' that distorts the truth I saw, because i thought it was a fabulous truth.

 

Too many people -- too much background -- that's for another time.

 

This is gonna have to stay as it is/it's about people looking sinister (they like to look like they've crawled out from under a rock, I think -- at least look VERRY different) and so the contrast between many street people brightly lighted and their 'darkness' (in many senses) is essential to this portrayal.

 

They liked it very much; fell in love with it; invited me to a party (tonight), but I couldn't go (told me to bring my camera) (A Goth party).

 

Imagine, Goths and Halloween's coming and this is Santa Cruz, which is weird all the time and now they're wearing costumes on the street on the 6th already. (This is a week old.)

 

Halloween is bigger than Christmas here.

 

These people have a head start -- he was 'different' he says going back over a decade at least (told me stories of how he 'stood out' and I might remember him from over ten years ago).

 

I like that you commented and pointed out how this might have been a different and better photo -- I'll file that away in 'compositional references' for my next shooting opportunity, since I'm not going to edit this one, for obvious reasons.

 

I very much appreciate the time and effort (and the compliment).

 

Best wishes.

 

John (Crosley)

I get a rather creepy impression that this is a decapitated head on a leather platter being walked into frame. Spooky.

Rather than being 'flip' maybe as you intended, your remark aptly summarizes this photo's essence -- spooky.

 

I could have greatly applied shadow/highlight filter, to bring out more of the guy's leather-clad arm, and take away the mystery, but mystery is what this photo is all about.

 

They're a mysterious couple -- passersby even motioned for me to 'take their picture if you want a good photo' and I just walked by them, nodded and acknowledged that 'yes' they'd make a good photo, but only my way.

 

Later I approached them and asked, since they were just standing there, that since they were 'very interesting' and 'obviously trolling or posing' if I could just 'hang' with them and take a few photos at which point they started to pose and I instantly stopped them. 'I don't want posed photos -- that's the antithesis of what my photography stands for -- poses are cliches and mostly stupid, especially under light like this,' I told them.

 

I stood against a light standard and braced myself and camera/lens against the standard, accounting for the unusual-fixed angle, and also for the clarity with a long exposure (any port in a storm), and proceeded to take several dozen photos as we (or they talked and joked), and settled on this as the very best. Others showed them happy and smiling -- jesting, etc., but this captured their essence -- their Gothness.

 

A friend in Russia, who adores Goths, says this is 'super' and sends me a greeting that says this is absolutely fabulous -- one of my best ever. So for that viewer, I guess I succeeded, at least.

 

Head on a platter or words to that effect -- they just got the jump on Halloween.

 

All year around.

 

On purpose.

 

Life is a costume party.

 

You have to stand out if you want to be noticed.

 

This is their way.

 

Quite a pair.

 

I don't make judgments -- I'm an acute observer and they're very interesting (and photogenic).

 

(And he's a network engineer, who makes -- I'm sure -- Megabucks -- he named his employer for me and his length of time on the job, and I am sure he is absolutely loaded with stock options and a huge salary.)

 

Looks can be deceiving sometimes.

 

My ex-father-in-law once railed at the leather-fringe clad 'hippies' on the shore in Sausalito, wondering where they got 'all the money' to be hanging out in such a nice place, sipping drinks and driving expensive cars and motorcycles, completely disregarding that they were sometimes stockbrokers on the weekend, construction workers, builders and contractors, entrepreneurs, etc. (He was a bit narrow-minded, though incredibly smart otherwise, but sometimes very unwise, -- and quite cruel to those he passed judgment on.)

 

He'd have classified this pair as 'bums'.

 

I know better.

 

They're just in costume, for what they want on a weekend night.

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

It works for me. I'm starting to get the bug of approaching people too - life is endlessly more fascinating that my imagination.

When approaching people, some people simply can't stand that you don't want to take their photo -- one hears snide (or otherwise) remarks about 'take my picture cameraman' or similar.

 

On the other hand, not so beautiful young women, very, very full of themselves imagine that they've had their photo taken when you raise a camera when you've done nothing of the sort -- they get all 'huffy' like you've 'stolen' their God-graced image, even while they're in a public place, while you're framing the movie theater marquee down the block and it's nowhere near where they are.

 

I had one experience with a model candidate in Ukraine, attractive enough, but a little overweight, who I asked if she wanted to pose and she, in front of her mother, went into a tirade about how she was getting married and was too good to pose for photos, no matter how good the photographer (yet she had answered an ad, and it was pretty explicit).

 

She indeed had come in, been interviewed, brought her mother along, just so she could brag about how a 'famous American photographer' had been turned down by her -- something to feed her oversize ego. It certainly was no loss except for a good story for me to tell (and entirely truthful.)

 

It takes all kinds; one has to beware when approaching people with a camera. Be sure never to answer questions about the value of your equipment -- that makes you a target -- simply ignore those questions or beg off and pointedly don't answer them even if it appears rude and say it's your personal rule never to discuss such things with anyone who is not a close personal friend or a relative. Period.

 

Also beware of people who want a 'light' for their cigarette--it's a classic ploy among smokers, who already are greater risk takers, to lure people closer to them, to be able to see what they can grab from them.

 

For that reason, be wary of carrying a camera bag. I almost never do. I often carry one, two, or three cameras around my neck and if it's cold enough, I have jackets (light and heavy) and a long coat, each with pockets long enough for four lenses. Thus I NEVER have a camera bag into which someone can reach and steal a $2,000 US lens. Also very good advice. I understand in London, thieves have gone to the trouble to cut off camera straps to steal the camera -- pretty brazen stuff. In Paris in summer, you can get pickpocketed with a hand into your pocket while you're focusing on something with a tele and concentrating and some Arab, black or other minority with no money and maybe no documents will be running down the street and onto the next rue before you know it -- you're lucky to get a photo of the back of their head and running feet if you're composed enough. Imagine if it were a camera bag with a pair of Nikons in it, and a bunch of expensive lenses.

 

Even backpacks can be reached into; I saw that once near Gare du Nord in Paris from behind a restaurant window where a guy pickpocketed a woman's backpack, stealing her money and her passport (she was obviously British) and I couldn't get to an exit to warn her or stop the pickpocket (a waiter had alerted me to 'watch this' he said.) She was leaning over and while she leaned over to read a sign, the guy quickly unzipped her backpack, took out her wallet and simply walked away, appearing to those around to be her boyfriend, I think.

 

It's OK to 'approach' people, but consider your 'options' before you do, and apply character analysis when doing so.

 

And be well and safe, my friend.

 

John (Crosley)

I'm pretty 'street' John, don't worry for me too much - I'm no fool.

 

Once whilst walking through Kings Cross underground (KX is notorious) on a business trip to London, with a less than street aware colleague, I commented on the brazen nature of the 'undesirables' - he was completely oblivious and most likely a prime mark. A bit of eye contact goes a long way in sealing oneself as 'not worth the effort'.

Ben, the cautions were not only for you, but for the many readers of these comments.

 

I have learned that many people troll through these comments, looking for hints and tips about the 'how' of photography and how to grapple with the angst of actually getting out there and taking the photograph instead of just taking still lifes or landscapes.

 

Moving targets, humans, even birds, are some of the trickiest subjects in the world and all have similarities -- the skill set for taking one transfers, I have found, to the other.

 

Among those who read these comments, there will be a rube or two, who would otherwise have a camera bag dipped into, a lens or two stolen, a backpack dipped into, a camera stolen, and by my comment to you, they may have been saved that ignominy -- so it was written with that in mind -- a sort of universal caution with you as an immediate addressee, but knowing nothing about your personal circumstances . . . knowing you'd understand that it's in the nature of these comments to offer 'general' (or universal) advice even though addressed specifically to a commentator such as yourself.

 

I hope you didn't mind.

 

Someone will benefit, I hope.

 

John (Crosley

Did you see this has only 7 rates and middle 4 rate -- one of my all-time best photos of any genre, with already 12 (now 13) comments.

 

What have things come to?

 

John (Crosley)

John, of course I don't mind, and understand the device you were employing.

 

Regarding the rating, I think there's probably a huge crossover with the psychology of the average music buyer and the PN rating masses - most remain mainstream and are happy to gulp down whatever the marketing/media/pr spin doctors throw at them (heavily saturated landscapes/nudes in the photography world). But music, like photography (and most cultural phenomena), has very wide fringes, which are often occupied by the most talented individuals - it's these fringes which attract the more discerning (or should I say less easily led/hoodwinked) and/or intellectually hungry listeners.

 

I hope my allegory is clear, I'm not saying that either 'camp' (a far too simplistic grouping I might add) is correct, or more intellectually able, simply that the fringe perhaps tend to be more willing to inspect the merits of a subject without solely attributing value to aesthetic beauty, or probably more correctly, ease of comprehension/accessibility.

 

Anyhow, that's my take on it - and if I was worried, I'd be deleting my low scorers.

Thanks for the clear explication AND the affirmation.

 

You may note that it's a rare day when I take down anything at all, and never just because it got a low rating.

 

Some of my lowest rated photos are my highest-viewed, what I call Evergreens, because people keep clicking and clicking on them, and when their higher scoring neighbors have, say, 20,000 views, they'll have 50,000 views, even though they couldn't even pull the highest-rated list or get high enough ratings to last on the TRP sorting engine.

 

And so it goes.

 

I trust myself when it comes to knowing what satisfies me; sometiimes when there is something less than fully satisfactory to me, I'll look to the ratings and sometimes be absolutely stunned at how successful a photo may be; other times contrariwise.

 

And so it goes.

 

That's the way when you expose your work to a popularity contest.

 

I always enjoy your well-thought-out comments.

 

John (Crosley)

John, I have long sought empirical referents for such concepts as "justice" and "truth"--to no avail.

 

You have finally given me one for "evil," though. The essence of evil is palpable here.

 

Between the man's expression and the woman's stream of smoke (originating somewhere in the depths of hell, I surmise), you have shown us something here that is sheer photographic genius. I am sorry that it, like so much of your work, is vastly underappreciated.

 

--Lannie

It is not necessary, that my work on Photo.net be appreciated.

 

Yes, it is true that there is the appearance of 'evil' here, but truly these folks are 'just folks' though they have chosen a different path.

 

It's not a path I would take, but one I am curious about, and may, with their guidance meet the denizens of some day, as I have their e-mail.

 

They are also are capable of great smiles and great humor -- I just caught a moment and sometimes that can tell a 'truth' or it can be somewhat 'misleading'. Like much of the denizens of Santa Cruz, this is as much a bit of costumery as anything I think.

 

Probably the guy leads a job of white collar existence, and I'll bet he's an amazingly productive employee.

 

Remarks like yours make the experience here worth it all, in the end, you know.

 

I have been taking photos of 'pelicans' and looked at a photo recently of a 'pelican' submitted by a member with a fish in its beak and said to myself 'that has no resemblance to any reality I could ever see through my lens or capture' and realized it had been so heavily Photoshopped that it was more art than photography, but it didn't appear so, unless one had actually tried to attempt such captures.

 

The more I photograph, the more I understand that my form of minimal editing capture is just a different kind of photography, and may not attract the hoards. All the editing on this photo has been within the realm of what a chemical darkroom worker could have done -- lightness/darkness, dodging, etc./just a big of sharpening and not much at that, and that only because ALL digital captures require sharpness enhancement (except perhaps soft portraits), according to 'Shutterbug' magazine and others.

 

I try to think -- could a Costco Noritsu processor have made the adjustment, on automatic or manual? If so, I feel OK about doing it. If not, it's generally to 'rescue' an otherwise worthy photo that has severe technical defects.

 

Case in point, the photo of the old woman, bent over, crying, in front of a poster of a woman, whose hand and fingers seem to be resting on her shoulders, a messy capture if ever there was one, with a long smear of a taillight reflection throughout and security wire running through the window, distracting, with reflections in the window also beside the long, red taillight reflection. That one was worth 'restoration' and so noted.

 

I note that Tony Dummett after writing the obit of Henri Cartier-Bresson noted that visiting the negatives and prints of H C-B noted that many were heavily retouched -- which then was done in grey paint, as I recall. That was not considered above the ethics of the man master, who let only one photograph of his ever be cropped.

 

Thanks for help keeping these pages alive. (This photo was taken a week ago, before Halloween got into full swing -- now people are already wearing costumes on the street, but these people are NOT in costume.)

 

Nice to see you here.

 

John (Crosley)

Okay, John, maybe I judged too soon. If they are simply post-punk, then I don't know where they are in the moral universe, but I don't care to emulate them:

 

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

 

Even so, as among most sub-cultures, there might be something to learn from them.

 

Great work, in any case! Maybe you should meet with them and see what you can bring back to Photo.net.

 

--Lannie

I think 'dark' dress, androgynous behavior (she's lesbian or bisexual as explained), and he's 'with her' perhaps as 'bait' or to 'share', and they share offshoots of the 'punk' culture, so I think you (and Wikipedia) have hit the nail on the head.

 

And, like you, I don't expect to be following their morality down the primrose path . . . (ahem) . . . but it sounds interesting, and meeting their fellows surely would make for interesting photography.

 

I certainly have led a 'different' life from the corporate nine-to-fiveers, and there are those who at one time would have judged me for that, given my earlier life, yet look what's flowering from my photographic efforts recently . . . so there you go . . . (as George Gobel -- comedian -- used to say regularly).

 

One does not have to 'love' or even strongly 'like' one's subjects to photographic them well or even sympathetically -- one only has to want to portray them well and with the dignity that they deserve, as I have tried to do here, and in a small series that took all of about 12 minutes (and which I immediately knew was among my best).

 

I just keep taking photos and keep getting amazed (sometimes) by the results. You just have to keep focusing and banging away on the shutter, and getting into situations where you 'want' to take photos because they seem 'compelled' out of necessity, to end up with photos like this. In other words, take a walk a block out of the way, as I did here, with a camera, available light, in the middle of the night and see what you get.

 

Now you know why I haven't attached myself to a specific 'genre' except most often to say I shoot 'street' and most often don't Photoshop -- aside from that, sky's the limit. I've been shooting birds, recently, and find there's little difference between shooting people and birds, when the birds are fast-moving, the compositions change so rapidly, and it requires rapid-fire judgment about composition, focus, exposure and using the shutter finger.

 

The skill sets seem to overlap somewhat, except that one can't easily interact with birds (though I have a certain rapport with a set of egrets and pelicans, if you can imagine that . . . true).

 

John (Crosley)

Sorry John. The good news? I'm not washing my hands anymore, using daily my Dutch-English dictionary.. The dirt is getting visable on the side of it! So, why washing..?! What a pair..! (I do mean the two above..)haha! Enjoy!

But I sense that in person you must be truly jolly fellow; a guy with a great generous and humorous outlook on things. And I took a look at your street photographs, and although they're in their infancy (everybody has to start someplace), few ever have any chance of succeeding in the 'street' genre, but I have to say you 'get it' which from my point of view is an accolade.

 

Yes, these guys are a 'pair', but no dummies either -- they're dressed as 'bait' for what they are seeking -- a juicy young woman to seduce, if I am to understand them correctly, and apparently to 'share', also if I understand them correctly.

 

It's an alternate lifestyle, (after all, he says his 'wife' was inside the giant nightclub in front of them -- behind me -- but then was she really a true 'wife' or was it a figure of speech?). You've probably seen me write about my 'wife' and maybe even seen her photo (in Hawaii, under caption 'brain cancer victim on sponsored holiday' with my stepdaughter, single color portfolio), but there is a nagging question -- are we really married? -- yes, it's true, I cannot really be honestly sure at this date whether we still are or are not and actually would have to do research or investigation to find out.

 

In fact, I might have been single for several years, and scared off potential companions (by saying I'm married) when in fact I was not actually . . . life can be ambiguous.

 

These guys live a life of studied ambiguity . . . and because I also respect things that are not always BLACK and WHITE but in infinite shades of gray where appropriate, I can respect them for their ambiguities, even if I do NOT share their lifestyle or even understand it.

 

Olaf, you do, I think, have a respect for the weird and unusual, and share a hearty inner laugh at life, as I sometimes do, despite the gruff, dour exterior I sometimes wear.

 

One look at my photos often reveals the truth.

 

Thanks for commenting. I look forward to more. (I'll hope you consult your dictionary, but it's also OK to wash your hands.)

 

John (Crosley)

John.., being humorous was a unconsious way of surfiving.. Must have started already during the few weeks I did visit the school for toddlers. Maingoal..: getting the certificate. That by the moving of your own eight cubic meter sand within two not rainy days.. And if such a young one is already seeing, feeling the grown up world not open, not real, but like a kind of theatre.. is having a humoristic way of observing and reacting great! I will not write down the book here. For some adventures followed.. haha. And the only reason, I'm not sleeping now as forinstance a designer under (!) my own bridge.. is the fact that The Great Designer does have more sence of humor and sence for reality (!) than me. Amen! John Crosley.., fotographing with the left, writing with the right! The opposite? I wouldn't wonder.. It's very nice to discover PN and his domistics (?) in a blanco way. Not following "the photographing" for at least thirty years.. I'm able to handle my not reflex camera as a young free bird.., in that kind of a way. Of course the family albums are there.. (good ones, my wife did photograph too)But hardly one and a half year ago, with the first and only digital, the photographing did realy start and during six weeks I did shoot myself totaly dull! After a real total amount of a hundred hours now, well it's tasting more and more. THE taste? People! Always different and unpredictable! Why? Just following my heart and eyes. Difficult? No, I'm much taller. Dangerous? Only one father, thinking I purchased his small dauchter, kicked me my glasses of. Do you regret? What do I have to regret. Some people are thinking and reacting more primitive than me. Do you have a daughter by your self? Yes, at the age of twenty seven now.. I'm waiting already for at least one year for a photo she did promise me.. Her beautiful small curled long (!) hair on it.. You didn't shot that one? Why should I..! I did hear, you are involved now in a kind of " photografic street genre..?!" Yes.. PN! Porno Nights..?! Only when not controlling your pc. Do you control? Yes, for ninety nine and a half percent. Is it easy to control? Just smoke too much and your blood will gone thicker and thicker, with the normal results.Where you intending to share this? No, but you did ask for it. What was your goal by writing this letter. Goal.. Telling him, like I did Karina Byrs and then in Dutch of course.., I'm not a "street" photographer, but photographing in the streets. Next I do post some results in "street" where they are expecting "street photography" Is there any difference..? There should be no difference on forehand! That's all you want to say about it? Sir, my father was a sculptor, a good one! His drawing was fabulous! As a child on board of his fathers sailingship he was always drawing. Even on toilet paper. At the academy he was asked by the firm Philips to stop imediately and to work for them as reclam designer. Just after the war and just married! He refused, followed his heart and got an earning (!) sculptor. Is that important to you? Sir, my father didn't speak much about beauty or sculptures. And he did NEVER argue about it. Did sometimes just say..: "Look.." And then he did point with his finger the ear.. of a baby. You haven't forgotten that, haven't you..? No sir. I'm thinking now.. That's my way of photographing.., just..: "Look.." And that can be all..

If you ever can get an appropriate translation into Dutch, you might consider reading the writings of American author of the '20s and '30s, John Dos Passos, a famous one-time socialist, almost Communist at a time when Communism was fashionable, who wrote in stream of consciousness. You might feel at home with his style; I have a feeling your writing is sui generis, (one of a kind) but akin to the Dos Passos, stream of consciousness way of writing.

 

(Dos Passos later became a reactionary and abandoned his more leftist leanings and became a staunch rightist -- a great change of course for the famous writer.)

 

I'm interested in your writing.

 

It's Dos Passos with a touch of Joyce, and a Dutch/english dictionary thrown in for measure.

 

John (Crosley)

John.., commenting the photograph eight miles above.. I was thinking.. John.., Crosley.. Photographing.. forgetting his pain.. And all felt together at the same time with the photo of the silhouets.., I did, do imediately remember, better: "seeing" in front of me! To me now, you are not "only two fotos" (yes you are on the list of the "to examin," to DISCOVERING like a journey.., portfolios. :) but more! There must be some simularities.. haha! Behind the humor of artists is mostly also to find the most serious way of looking! The book I did refuse to write here, did start already but I did stop. It was too "gecomprimeerd" concentrated (?) The word isn't in my small dictionary. Will phone them to morow! It was like a sirop, needing water for drinking! It did come out in a clearly way (I was surprised)but it seemed if I was trying to avoid the slightest possible impression that I did write for my "own, glory and name.." So I did stop. And that's why you and a very, very (so a total of two) small amount of PN ers too, are the victim now! hahaha. Serious: the photographing took it's place. So Olaf, do ask your self some questions.. For it shouldn't be just a book. It should have been your family adventures (!) with the Designer of life. I did work with and for children.. The biggest possibility of sharing freely! "Sir, you have to write it down!" John, I NEVER write. (a few exeptions of course, writing for TV untill the result is greyer than grey.. haha!) I NEVER draw. Twenty ears ago.. one time, a selfportrait for the schooljournal. It was a resembling good one! But the SHARING has my heart! That's what you are liking too! That's not the same as talking for a whole day.. That's why I only do read "sharing" books. And a story? If it is a real one. But the exeption will may be be (it's not correct but I do like it) Dos Passos. I do like the name! (In every book should be at least one good portrait of the author! Especialy in schoolbooks. It's making it easier to throw some away earlier! I am serious! Eyes are telling a lot! Not to throw the PERSON away.., that's the difference.) The climate for reading a Don Passos (I like it indeed.., like Don Quichotte..)is very well in this most northern province here. In the twenties the most millionairs were concentrated here on the "best" clay there is. Very rich farmers! So the ultimate climate for socialism and communism here! The fore-men did die, but the last ones were to be find here. Nice story.., one farmer these days did start a different big business (farming is difficult now..) He got a wealthy man by laying roads and selling buildings. And.. one day.. in the open fields.. one could see from five miles distance,, the calm greeting arm of.. Lenin! haha. Bronze.., eight meters high, bought in Russia.. HaHa! Politicians did succeed in getting the charming monster next to the biggist shed. No longer next to that crossroad.. John, for the book I will have a look on internet. The medium for this kind of stuf. Your evening is starting.., here the day.. Yes, I am crazy! But in a pleasant way! So long! Olaf.