Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Art For Everyone (?)

Ben Davis has once again managed to both impress and frustrate me in equal measure with a piece published on artnet.com. Ben's good at doing that...the best out there, in my opinion.

His latest effort takes the form of a Tale of Two Art Worlds:

On the one hand, it is the Best of Times. This year has seen not one but two artworks sell for more than $100 million at auction, an almost unheard of feat: $104.3 million for Alberto Giacometti’s L’Homme qui marche I; $106-million for Picasso’s Nude, Green Leaves and Bust. To put such numbers in perspective, the price of the Picasso Nude alone is a wee bit less than the entire annual budget for New York City’s Cultural Institutions Group, which gets $110 million to fund the city’s storied museums.

Which, in turn, points us to the Worst of Times. Michael Bloomberg’s 2011 budget for New York City featured a $20-million cut for culture, though this was taken with relief because it was not quite as catastrophic as feared. The Billionaire Mayor is already back for more. In Los Angeles, smooth-talking Mayor Villaraigosa proposed a "crisis mode" arts budget earlier this year. The Illinois Arts Council is in such dire straights that it has had to chronically delay the delivery of funding. In Florida, the state arts council ate a cut of over one half this year. And so on.

It's a thoroughly researched, very well considered think piece, elegantly synthesizing the countless details into a convincing big picture view (truly, Ben's second only to Frank Rich in my book for this type of writing). Then, as Ben often does, though, he leaves me shaking my head, by offering something short of a workable solution to the problems he so accurately describes. This time the solution is not so much outlined as hinted at by the poster used to illustrate the article:



Poster by Jeremy Deller, Scott King and William Morris, for Save The Arts in the UK [via artnet.com].

That poster bugs me on several levels, I must say. First and foremost is the assertion that art (a personal expression that may or may not appeal to any other being on the planet) is parallel to freedom (a human right) and education (a requirement for meaningful freedom and a workable democracy, as well as a economic advantage) in any meaningful way. We can legislate that education must be made available for all citizens (forcing children to attend school or be schooled at home), and we can legislate that certain freedoms are made available such that combined they provide as much independence as possible (ensuring speech, religion, press, etc. are free from government interference), but we cannot legislate that someone be forced to view art, or make art, or even like art without violating their other rights. Certain religions forbid certain types of art, for example.

Furthermore, there's an implied spoon-feeding of art in that sentiment that strikes me as too authoritarian. Again, we force education on children (many of whom would rather have dental surgery than sit through their lessons) because we understand that without it they will be at a significant disadvantage as adults. Forcing art on children as part of their education is a defensible action, but I can't connect that idea through to adulthood. If someone is more interested in sports or science or whatever than art, that should be their choice. If they wish to live as free from art as humanly possible, who is anyone else to object?

Which brings me to another aspect of that poster that bugs me: the assertion that people who want it are being denied access to art. As an art dealer, one of hundreds in this city, whose exhibition are 100% free to the public, I find this absurd. You can argue that only certain types of art are exhibited in galleries (the type that sells), but you'd actually find as many examples of art that don't sell (and most recently, due to the economy, often more art that doesn't sell than does sell in the art galleries) with just a little exploration of the more edgy spaces. But if you dismiss the art that's free for the viewing in galleries (because it's too commercial or whatever), then the argument shifts from being solely about "art" to actually suggesting one type of art deserves state support over other types of art: the type that you won't find in commercial galleries or non-profit spaces without entrance fees (which again, in New York, where a very wide spectrum of work gets exhibited, isn't as much as you might think).

So that leaves open the question: if art is readily available for viewing in commercial and non-profit (non fee charging) spaces, what the hell is the point of that poster? It can't be arguing that art should be inexpensive enough for everyone to own some. There's no workable solution to that I've ever heard, short of unlimited multiples, which is hardly something you can insist upon without interfering with an artist's personal freedom. So what is the point?

I suspect the point isn't to ensure each man, woman, and child can either view or take home a work of art, as much as it is to argue that each person who wants to live as an artist can be supported by the state to do so regardless of whether or not anyone else on the planet cares what they output. That's the only clarification of their point that makes any sense. And that's a point of view I entirely reject.

Red-meat admission: OK, so I don't actually believe exactly what's written above...I do feel that the state has a very important role in supporting the arts and ensuring access via funded arts centers spread throughout the country. Not everyone lives in New York, and not everyone out there who is an artist has the money to move here. Still, I wanted to deconstruct the oversimplified sentiment of that poster because I don't believe it will lead to any meaningful change. Any real solution will have to address the points I raise above: how to actually frame the issue so it doesn't seem so absurd or ignore obvious realities; how to balance the importance of art with the chosen (and entirely OK) indifference about it by some citizens; how exactly the state should support the arts; and how exactly the arts community is failing to get more people interested in the arts (the most sure-fire way to ensure support).

Labels:

26 Comments:

Anonymous Gam said...

in the realm of red meat admissions - in order to be fair to Mr Morris:


Well you must understand that by art, I do not mean only pictures and sculpture, nor only these and architecture, that is beautiful building properly ornamented; these are only a portion of art, which comprises, as I understand the word a great deal more; beauty produced by the labour of man both mental and bodily,

the expression of the interest man takes in the life of man upon the earth with all its surroundings,


in other words the human pleasure of life is what I mean by art.
W, Morris -Art and Labour

i don't think this negates your argumentation Ed, I think it just helps clarify Morris's position a little more.

10/13/2010 12:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Galleries might be free but I get the vibe in too many of them that I'm unwelcome and they'd rather I not be there. So I tend to just go to museums. I've gotta think that there are plenty of other members of the public who feel the same. Also, for me at least, part of it is a feeling that it's not fair to the gallery to go in if you know you don't have the money to buy anything.

10/13/2010 02:23:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

Anon 2:23 - Nonsense, you are projecting your own insecurities onto the gallery.

I've found that the staff at most of the NYC galleries are very nice and assuming they aren't obviously busy they have always been willing to answer questions. Maybe it's my worn $69 Reeboks that give off that understated air of old money -- but I doubt they really know.

10/13/2010 03:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

That might be partly true George. But I think some of it has to do with an unpleasant first experience years ago. I wanted to buy an artist's book and the person was unbelievably rude. You can say I'm just projecting but you weren't there- the person was a total bitch. That was a rare example where I actually had money to spend and I still got treated like shit. HaHa! So yeah, that bad first experience is in the back of my mind whenever I step foot in a gallery. Maybe I'm still a bit shell shocked. I know not all galleries are like that- maybe most aren't. And I'm sure part of it is projecting insecurities. But there really are a lot of incredibly rude working at galleries who have a huge disdain for the general public.

10/13/2010 03:25:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

Davis: To advocate effectively for public support for the arts, the public must actually believe that art is a public good.

I am an artist. Art is not a public good.

Davis doesn't have any solutions because he is unwittingly advocating a continuation of the problem. Robust public support is part of what makes a vibrant arts scene, he says. But there is an obvious chain of causality that runs from Colen's inclusion in the 2006 Whitney Biennial to his 2010 show at Gagosian. The latter is not aberration of the fortunate track of the two-track economy - it is a direct result of public arts policy that Davis would like to see magnified.

10/13/2010 06:38:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The public is no better a patron for the arts than the church. Ultimately, arts funding is tending to be more and more an obligation of the audience which engages it. I don't see this as ever changing in fact this lack of public funding will only grow with time. It would be nice to believe that more public support would strengthen and enhance the arts, but the question of who to support will be a lasting reprecussion of the culture wars.

On a final note, I totally beleive in the notion that the assholes on the top of the foodchain (Koons, Hirst, Colen etc) make life more difficult for the rest of us at the bottom. Charlatans and showmen will always run the artworld, how could the public even give a damn about such a perverse and self-absorbed world; even I don't want to fund art unless I can tell exactly where the money is going. As Frankilin indicated we don't need to birth anymore Col(o)ns.

10/13/2010 08:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Bernard Klevickas said...

Franklin,
You have me confused. I remember that Biennial and seeing D. Colen's piece (with no idea who's piece it was, and then who the hell D. Colen was). My first reaction: OOOKKay? Do I not get something here. Then I tried to look for reasons of why a big fake rock with some graffiti was in the show. A bit of anger (in all honesty) flashed through me, with the feeling of: so this is what some well connected kid has to do, followed by why this "thing" over any other "thing" to be displayed. I guess the only reconciliation I eventually came to was that somehow it hit a moment in time that worked for enough influential people and/or the curators to be included. The artworld has circles of groupthink and it worked for that artist. Now knowing Colen's work from that (perhaps idiosyncratic) perspective I can see the deadpan, dunder-headedness of the current show, but I do not see how Dan Colen is somehow an example robust public art support. I see an inside track artist propped up by a powerful dealer. Am I missing something here too?

10/13/2010 09:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

The Whitney Museum enjoys tax exemption as a nonprofit, tax-exempt donations (which often benefit the tax returns of the donors), and an undiscoverable (at least to me) quantity of state and federal monies. That's all public art support as well. Indirectly or directly, if not both, you and I are underwriting the circles of groupthink.

10/13/2010 10:09:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

LOL, I see we can have assholes at the bottom too.

10/13/2010 11:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Bernard Klevickas said...

Franklin,
Yes, you are right, and I was missing your point.
I see a problem, or perhaps a paradox which I may not be particularly suitable to articulate (OK, enough with the big words). Its MY Museum, it's YOUR Museum it is supported by ALL of us, so how or who gets to decide what goes into it? Should there be an objective criterion? Should the free market decide? Or by popular vote?
WE are underwriting groupthink, is there a better solution?

10/13/2010 11:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Bernard Klevickas said...

I like the Ben Davis article and agree with it.
My take on the poster image seems somewhat the opposite of Edward's.
Art is on top in big letters then Education then Freedom but the order the smaller text suggests is the reverse; that Freedom is most important but once achieved education must come right behind and then art. Art is left vague (purposely I'm sure). It does not say owning art or even appreciating art. A translation of it could be: I want freedom then education, but not more than freedom, then I want art, but not more than I want education.
If we accept that everyone has equal potential then to suggest that these things are not wanted for a few suggests that this should be granted to everyone.
I for one believe an art educated public (ie. progressive) is better than a free, but uneducated un-artful public (ie. conservative) or an artfully educated minority (ie. currently).

10/14/2010 12:19:00 AM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

How or who gets to decide what goes into [the museum]? Should there be an objective criterion? Should the free market decide? Or by popular vote?
WE are underwriting groupthink, is there a better solution?


Good questions. Reasonable people could differ widely on them. But because of a lack of reasonable people, challenging the assumptions of the art world tends to result in stony silence, or George. One could make a case for the elimination of tax exemption for museums that show work by living artists, which eliminate a lot of unfairness and unaccountability, though it would eliminate some good as well.

10/14/2010 09:40:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

History shows us Franklin that even groupthink had a genesis and if you want to change things, all you need do it take a page from the previous books: i.e., inspire one wealthy patron to open a different type of museum that shows the way toward a better tomorrow.

10/14/2010 09:43:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

Imagine the museum as a point located within a circle of influence that influences what it is able to exhibit. Attach a set of strings, whose tension is proportional to their funding. With four sources, corporate, government, private and public (admissions) it will look like an X, with each leg of the X pulling the museums programs in their own direction.

What obviously becomes important here is that there is some sort of balance between the various funding sources. Each source has its own kind of influence and politics and all are responsible to the public who can choose to attend the exhibitions or not AND this affects future funding. There is no free lunch, anyone donating to public museums is doing it in their own self interest as well as in the public interest

The Metropolitan Museum in NYC is partly publicly funded by the city of New York. Without a doubt it is one of the greatest museums in the world. In addition to the gate, it generates tourist revenue for New York City far in excess of its funding.

But wait, maybe we just don't want 'state' influence in our art, so lets cut that string making the diagram a Y. Clearly this creates a new problem as the tension is now between the Corporate and private donors which must make up the difference and therefore expand their influence. This won't rectify any of the perceived curatorial problems.

While there is no doubt that the influence of both money and power shapes the upper regions of the art world, most of what is being described here about how this actually occurs is just speculation with no basis in fact. I doubt that Franklin has seen much of Dan Colen's work which puts him at a disadvantage in making any assessment of its quality. Further, I would ask why was Dan Colon chosen to be in the 2006 Biennial in the first place? I don't suppose it was that his paintings stood out from the crowd?

10/14/2010 12:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Bernard Klevickas said...

George,
I agree with almost all you write in your recent comment except for the last paragraph.

What are the facts? Do you know any better than Franklin or I? It's seems an impenetrable system from my vantage point. You seem to imply that Colen was selected for the Biennial based on his paintings (the piece in the show was a sculpture). You do not appear to have the facts also.

10/14/2010 02:50:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

@Bernard. Well yes, I think I do. I've been in two Biennials, politically each one happened in a slightly different way, but bottom line, the curators made a decision based upon my work. When I referred to Dan Colen's 'paintings' in my comment I wasn't referring directly to the works he had in the Biennial but to the general interest his work was generating at the time.

Colen had the support of Saatchi and others prior to being chosen by the Whitney curators and obviously this type of visibility favored his selection. Regardless, the point I am trying to make here is that Dan Colen wasn't arbitrarily picked for the fast track, there was something in his work and in his attitude which caught the attention of a number of curators. This all started happening when Colen was in his mid-twenties which is unusually young and indicates to me that Dan Colen is on a trajectory to be one of the major art stars of the 21st century.

It is, in fact, always about the artworks.

10/14/2010 03:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Bernard Klevickas said...

An example of an uneducated art viewer:
Provocative Image of Christ Sets Off a Debate Punctuated With a Crowbar

10/14/2010 04:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

All you need do it take a page from the previous books: i.e., inspire one wealthy patron to open a different type of museum that shows the way toward a better tomorrow.

Right. I'll get to work on that.

I have reasonable career goals that hinge on finding viewers who are sympathetic to my work, or at least not antipathetic, some of whom operate in the public sphere and most who don't. If I win the ear of someone with enough money to singlehandedly open a museum, I'll work on them, but to my knowledge the last collector to do such a thing was Isabella Stewart Gardner. In the meantime, artists who are not supported by the groupthink cited by Bernard are being forced to underwrite their own exclusion. If you think this is fair, make a case for it.

But wait, maybe we just don't want 'state' influence in our art, so lets cut that string making the diagram a Y. ... This won't rectify any of the perceived curatorial problems.

Museums carry an imprimatur that has an effect on artists' prices. Collectors naturally want museum-worthy work, and galleries can charge more for it. If it were understood that museums are just as much of an expression of private interests as any private collection, as opposed to a vaunted public good, that imprimatur would wane. Fashions would drive the market even harder, but like the fashion world itself, they would cycle out and be allowed to die instead of becoming enshrined as shared cultural patrimony. A far greater variety of work would be seen, correctly, as worthy of attention.

I would ask why was Dan Colon chosen to be in the 2006 Biennial in the first place? I don't suppose it was that his paintings stood out from the crowd?

I wasn't there when Chrissie Iles and Philippe Vergne made that decision, and I doubt that George was either. But I have no reason to assume that it was because his work was far and away better than everything else that they didn't select. It was likely because it fit into the curators' ideas about art at the time, and similar reasons that are ultimately ideological and social. Officialdom is a social system, not a visual one.

10/14/2010 04:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

All you need do it take a page from the previous books: i.e., inspire one wealthy patron to open a different type of museum that shows the way toward a better tomorrow.

Right. I'll get to work on that.

I have reasonable career goals that hinge on finding viewers who are sympathetic to my work, or at least not antipathetic, some of whom operate in the public sphere and most who don't. If I win the ear of someone with enough money to singlehandedly open a museum, I'll work on them, but to my knowledge the last collector to do such a thing was Isabella Stewart Gardner. In the meantime, artists who are not supported by the groupthink cited by Bernard are being forced to underwrite their own exclusion. If you think this is fair, make a case for it.

But wait, maybe we just don't want 'state' influence in our art, so lets cut that string making the diagram a Y. ... This won't rectify any of the perceived curatorial problems.

Museums carry an imprimatur that has an effect on artists' prices. Collectors naturally want museum-worthy work, and galleries can charge more for it. If it were understood that museums are just as much of an expression of private interests as any private collection, as opposed to a vaunted public good, that imprimatur would wane. Fashions would drive the market even harder, but like the fashion world itself, they would cycle out and be allowed to die instead of becoming enshrined as shared cultural patrimony. A far greater variety of work would be seen, correctly, as worthy of attention.

I would ask why was Dan Colon chosen to be in the 2006 Biennial in the first place? I don't suppose it was that his paintings stood out from the crowd?

I wasn't there when Chrissie Iles and Philippe Vergne made that decision, and I doubt that George was either. But I have no reason to assume that it was because his work was far and away better than everything else that they didn't select. It was likely because it fit into the curators' ideas about art at the time, and similar reasons that are ultimately ideological and social. Officialdom is a social system, not a visual one.

10/14/2010 04:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

All you need do it take a page from the previous books: i.e., inspire one wealthy patron to open a different type of museum that shows the way toward a better tomorrow.

Right. I'll get to work on that.

I have reasonable career goals that hinge on finding viewers who are sympathetic to my work, or at least not antipathetic, some of whom operate in the public sphere and most who don't. If I win the ear of someone with enough money to singlehandedly open a museum, I'll work on them, but to my knowledge the last collector to do such a thing was Isabella Stewart Gardner. In the meantime, artists who are not supported by the groupthink cited by Bernard are being forced to underwrite their own exclusion. If you think this is fair, make a case for it.

10/14/2010 04:19:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

But wait, maybe we just don't want 'state' influence in our art, so lets cut that string making the diagram a Y. ... This won't rectify any of the perceived curatorial problems.

Museums carry an imprimatur that has an effect on artists' prices. Collectors naturally want museum-worthy work, and galleries can charge more for it. If it were understood that museums are just as much of an expression of private interests as any private collection, as opposed to a vaunted public good, that imprimatur would wane. Fashions would drive the market even harder, but like the fashion world itself, they would cycle out and be allowed to die instead of becoming enshrined as shared cultural patrimony. A far greater variety of work would be seen, correctly, as worthy of attention.

I would ask why was Dan Colon chosen to be in the 2006 Biennial in the first place? I don't suppose it was that his paintings stood out from the crowd?

I wasn't there when Chrissie Iles and Philippe Vergne made that decision, and I doubt that George was either. But I have no reason to assume that it was because his work was far and away better than everything else that they didn't select. It was likely because it fit into the curators' ideas about art at the time, and similar reasons that are ultimately ideological and social. Officialdom is a social system, not a visual one.

10/14/2010 04:20:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

The 'public good' occurs because the museums have artworks which are preserved and there to be seen.

The idea that changing the source of funding will change the quality or variety of work being exhibited makes little sense. Economic constraints will alter the depth of exhibitions as museums dig further into their own collections because it is less costly. (This is what is occurring today in the current recession)

What gets exhibited in the museums is directly related to the curatorial staff and the director of the museum. These people make the curatorial decisions for a varying number of reasons from fashion to the philosophical. I don't expect every museum exhibition to interest me but I don't want to put them out of business for it.

When you cut to the chase Franklin's problem is that he doesn't like the art that the culture is supporting today, and therefore being exhibited by the museums. I suspect there are a lot of other artists who are equally baffled by the current aesthetic directions, and are sympathetic towards his position.

To this I would suggest that you don't understand how art functions in the culture and obviously cannot offer up ANY ALTERNATIVE which the culture can embrace. And that's the problem, because the 'system' including the museums, galleries, and collectors are all on the alert for something new. What do you have to offer? NOTHING.

And therein lies the problem, with nothing to offer as an alternative you are already defeated. You have nothing for the audience, for the culture, to accept or reject. It's a safe position with a predictable and boring outcome.

10/14/2010 07:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On first glance, I thought it a clever and blunt ad. I would have not given it much more consideration had Mr. Winkleman not disscussed it's argument at length.

10/14/2010 11:17:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

The 'public good' occurs because the museums have artworks which are preserved and there to be seen.

I sympathize with this point in the abstract. But when you apply it to work made in the last five years, preservation is a non-issue and the designation of "public good" upon the work is an absurdity. If art is a public good in general, then someone's works of art are specific instances of public good. Does any artist reading this want to stand up and claim that his art is a public good? Please do so, because I'd like to call you a specific instance of pompous twit.

I don't expect every museum exhibition to interest me but I don't want to put them out of business for it.

I was addressing the problem of museums operating in a fully fair manner, not my interest in their exhibitions.

Franklin's problem is that he doesn't like the art that the culture is supporting today.... I suspect there are a lot of other artists who are equally baffled by the current aesthetic directions, and are sympathetic towards his position. To this I would suggest that you don't understand how art functions in the culture...

In other words, I've made the above points because I have personal deficiencies and bad motives. Go ahead and think that if you like.

[You] obviously cannot offer up ANY ALTERNATIVE which the culture can embrace. ... What do you have to offer? NOTHING. ...nothing to offer... You have nothing for the audience, for the culture, to accept or reject.

Two weeks ago I attended an opening for an exhibition that included my work in Charlottesville, VA. Leaf and Signal: International Lo-Fi Arts Publishing featured artists who are interested in alternative models of art distribution that allow them to connect with viewers with a minimum of intermediaries, and do so at some distance from official mores. The opening was slammed, interest in the art was ferverous, the show has garnered favorable press, and I sold the original art for one of my webcomics, in its entirety, to a prominent human rights lawyer associated with the University of Virginia. Three weeks from today my sixteenth solo exhibition opens at Main Library, Downtown Miami. My latest review just came out in The New Criterion. How about you, George? What do you have to offer?

10/14/2010 11:35:00 PM  
Blogger George said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10/17/2010 08:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Franklin said...

The question of motivation is not irrelevant in this discussion.

The question of motivation is an intellectually dishonest line of argument for reasons you can read about at the appropriate links. Instead of faulting my reasoning, you're faulting my reasons for making the associated assertions. And they are not my reasons, but your reasons, according to "personal feelings of inclusion or exclusion," as if minds of "all artists" (!) worked the same way on the matter and you had intimate knowledge of those minds.

He wants to argue that with less public funding that "art fashions would recycle"...

This is distortion of what I said, right down to the wrongful quotation of words that I didn't say. Any ensuing failure to understand is George's.

Public funding is benign (unless if funds art you don't like, eh?)

Public expenditure, in all cases, is the spending of money that does not belong to the spender. It is thus divorced from accountability and consequences, and axiomatically descends into inefficiency and partisanship. This is often an acceptable trade-off when it comes to inarguable public goods, like the water supply or the road system, because it's apparent when such things are not implemented well or fairly. Art is not an inarguable public good. This would be true whether I liked the art or not. I myself am supported at times by public funding and even so think that it's inherently problematic.

Look deeper and it is apparent that Franklins suggestion that Artist X career path is "a direct result of public arts policy" is a lie and not supported by the facts.

Only someone with minimal first-hand experience with the problem of pricing art could fail to see the connection between public accolades and private sales. Auction houses take care to list museum exhibitions in provenance descriptions for obvious reasons. In general, dealers can make more ambitious claims on behalf of museum-exhibited artists than non-museum-exhibited artists. The dealers I have worked with operate accordingly. I'm surprised that anyone finds this assertion controversial, much less is ready to call me a liar over it.

I was speaking specifically to his history over the last decade of bitching about the art system without ever offering any positive alternative.

Ten years ago I put together an online art magazine without the benefit of a content management system for the express reason of creating an alternative way of publishing art criticism. Two weeks ago I participated in an exhibition of artists who use alternative publishing models to distribute their work. In between ten years ago and two weeks ago, I've explored a wide variety of mainstream and alternative efforts at getting art and art writing in front of an audience; in the unlikely event that anyone wants a comprehensive list of examples, contact me and I'll provide one.

He doesn't really step up to make the case for this particular type of painting as vehemently as he complains about the art he hates.

In the equally unlikely event that someone wants to evaluate the worthiness of this unworthy charge, my writing archive is complete going back to 1999. I confess that I don't see why a discussion of Davis's essay entails a discussion of everything I've written in the last decade.

10/18/2010 09:00:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home