This week’s reading and class discussions really got me thinking outside the box; in particular, I really thought about Darren Brown’s field of NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming). Therefore, I went to work and looked him up on Wikipedia. I found that NLP is comprised of tricks to misdirecting the audiences to get a response, which Darren wishes them to provide by the use of subliminal cues. I understood that aspect since this was something we had seen and discussed in class on Monday. However, I wanted to investigate these notions in art, books, and media and how it serves our society. I wanted to figure some of the underlying meaning or messages. This also gave me an idea for my next paper.
I further investigated NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming) in order to understand Hughes. I fell upon a PDF file by JP Mictchell the first author of a publication titled Directed remembering:Subliminal cues alter nonconscious memory strategies. The title could explain what he experimented with and how it relates to the class discussion.
I have attached his speculations below:
“We speculated that recognition performance in a standard item-based forgetting paradigm may be moderated by subliminal cues that trigger the automatic activation of different mnemonic strategies. We report the results of two experiments that supported this prediction. In each experiment, the basic item-based forgetting effect was replicated, but via the subliminal presentation of ‘‘remember’’ and ‘‘forget’’ cues. In addition, cue-dependent differences in memory performance were traced to the operation of a covert rehearsal mechanism during encoding. We consider the implications of these findings for the nonconscious operation of memory processes in everyday life.”
http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~scanlab/papers/2002_unintentionalMemory_Memory.pdf
I really thought about this concept and how it connected with Hughes. I assume that Hughes was giving us subliminal cues as well throughout the book by using art and the artist, poet and the poetary and so on.
But somehow he has achieved his point about the whole notion of power being tied to everything whether it is used as a “nocebo or placebo.” He ties Disease and creativity as placebo effect to various artists and art forms. He states that the artists are abnormal not only in their personalities but also the way they are seen by society.(177) He discusses famous artist like Frida Kahlo and how her congenital spina bifida made her physically and mentally suffer and she used art as placebo to get a relief from her suffering. In a way, she took power over her physical disability and used it as a means to put her name forth in the society; yet, she left subliminal cues in her art to covey her difficult and tragic life, and her relationship with Diego Rivera, her husband. I have also attached a complete biography of Frida Kahlo to futher explain my point.
http://www.fridakahlofans.com/biocomplete.html
Furthermore, I think huges uses the nacebo effect in chapter 10 Sex and Creativity. His speculation and research findings point out that “men and women use sexuality as a means to power rather than sensual pleasure’ meaning that they use any give art form to portray aggressiveness or hostility towards one another rather than for the purpose that is intended in nature.
This made me wonder that in our society men and women use negativity to control each other in some sense. I think that Hughes in some way is pointing out that males or females both use creativity to figure out each other. We think we know one another but we really don’t and oodles of energy is put forth in taking control negatively rather than positively
For example, males use subliminal messaging in various art forms to show that females somehow are powerful. Hughes points out that Muse is a “matriarchal moon goddess… dominant… by male values of reason and logic.” (144) It made me think that men really do feel that women are dominant in some way and that could be the reason why our society use the women a mere object to degrade them in some sense whether it is through porn or adversting. If we take a closer look at the various poems, paintings, music and movies, we find that it might be true to some degree. In a similar sense, most women too believe that men are all about one thing and we all know what that is then couldn’t it be said that they too play the eroticism card to figure out the male “beast”like Picasso had made it appear in his Minotaur and Dead Mare in Front of a Cave (1936).
http://www.superstock.com/stock-photos-images/1158-1583
All of our energy and attention is devoted to figuring each other out that we really forget our purpose as humans sometimes. We too like our male or female icons distress and feel we need to empower over each other consciously or subconsciously by using the “nacebo or placebo” effects by using subliminal cues. Sometimes we forget that we are not mere objects but beings and we all possess both negative and positive aspects. I found a great blog on women rights and people had to say about sex and power and I think this helped me figure out Hughes in chapter 10.
http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/sex_is_power_-_or_is_it
I really liked this book because it really made me think outside the box. It also made me connect with myself on a deeper level and gave me an idea for my next paper.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Blog 10<
The last blog what a journey it has been. From the ancient cultures utilizing shamans to creativity itself. Chapter ten I think was the most interesting. Especially on how it explained the thought process between two genders. Its amazing how womens libido themselves are much larger than mens so they are able to control their sex drive more than males. I also was interested on how hughes described sexuality and how when it comes to it theres always a dominant and submissive partner.
It was also interesting how someone pointed out earlier in the blogs before mine of "how sexuality can be used to so concretely represent the creative process and even how it is a part of it." It ckind of sparked my interest in Hughes.
It was also interesting how someone pointed out earlier in the blogs before mine of "how sexuality can be used to so concretely represent the creative process and even how it is a part of it." It ckind of sparked my interest in Hughes.
Blog 10
Last night, I was watching an episode of Bones and the case that they were working on reminded me of the Hughes readings that we had to do this week. A little girl was dying of Mesothelioma and was confined to a hospital bed most of the time due to her dilapidated state, so she took up painting (very Matisse like indeed). This was enough of a connection to start a blog conversation about, in that the sickness that claimed her ability to go about her daily life gave her the opportunity to discover a hidden talent that she had (oh, did I mention that the art she created looked a lot like Matisse too? Coincidence, I think not…), but it went even further. The flowers she drew resembled the look and shape of the cancer cells in her bones that were destroying her life. While I understand that this is just a television show, it got me to thinking about the idea that we are subconsciously aware of our beings and dimensions on a level that our normal reality does not understand. I found this to be an interesting connection to what we have been learning and got to understand better that the our minds are more in sync with our bodies than we are consciously aware of.
Other than that when I read these few chapters in Hughes, I could not help but relate them to someone in my life who, for as long as I have known her, has been afflicted with mental illness. My mother is a manic depressive who also suffers from paranoid delusions. And what it talks about in Hughes about the connection between sickness and creativity, on certain levels, makes sense to me. My memories of my mother from childhood are a mixed bag of emotions and events that were as much of an emotional rollercoaster as her condition was to her. In the blink of an eye she could go from telling the most fantastical tales of adventure and pirates and fairies and thieves and sword-fighting with dragons to utter panic and depression. She could come up with the most intricuit details of made-up lands and people and their lives… all these things contributed greatly to my overactive imagination and total disillusionment with reality that has been a part of my life since then… but I digress. I wanted to tell this story because I see how this is plausible. Living constantly in an altered state as she did created a whole other world and understanding of life for her kids, but also ended up in her not being the most reliable or safest of parents to be left in the charge of. In the book it talks about the creative effects that Depression can have on people, and while I have seen it in numerous people, that when they are sad or down they feel the floodgates of creativity open up and some of their best works show through during this period… the point I want to say is that it is not always that glamorous. In my experience, it was always her manic times (and the bouts of paranoia) that moved her to the most creative actions. Her depression was always destructive and unproductive… usually amounting to nothing more than her staying in her room, sleeping for hours on end and eating an abundance of ice cream and watching fletch lives over and over. I digress again.
What I want to say here is that, while this book is interesting, I find it to be a bit biased towards the positive aspects of mental/physical/emotional illness. I read this and almost felt as if I was being left out and in the need of some ailment in order to improve my creativity and intrigue and that is not necessarily how it is. I see where he is coming from, and I understand that he is trying to show the different ways in which creativity presents itself, but it is by no means across the board that these illnesses or conditions can help you attain a creative status. I think that natural underlying ability still has to play a vital role in the process.
Hannah
Other than that when I read these few chapters in Hughes, I could not help but relate them to someone in my life who, for as long as I have known her, has been afflicted with mental illness. My mother is a manic depressive who also suffers from paranoid delusions. And what it talks about in Hughes about the connection between sickness and creativity, on certain levels, makes sense to me. My memories of my mother from childhood are a mixed bag of emotions and events that were as much of an emotional rollercoaster as her condition was to her. In the blink of an eye she could go from telling the most fantastical tales of adventure and pirates and fairies and thieves and sword-fighting with dragons to utter panic and depression. She could come up with the most intricuit details of made-up lands and people and their lives… all these things contributed greatly to my overactive imagination and total disillusionment with reality that has been a part of my life since then… but I digress. I wanted to tell this story because I see how this is plausible. Living constantly in an altered state as she did created a whole other world and understanding of life for her kids, but also ended up in her not being the most reliable or safest of parents to be left in the charge of. In the book it talks about the creative effects that Depression can have on people, and while I have seen it in numerous people, that when they are sad or down they feel the floodgates of creativity open up and some of their best works show through during this period… the point I want to say is that it is not always that glamorous. In my experience, it was always her manic times (and the bouts of paranoia) that moved her to the most creative actions. Her depression was always destructive and unproductive… usually amounting to nothing more than her staying in her room, sleeping for hours on end and eating an abundance of ice cream and watching fletch lives over and over. I digress again.
What I want to say here is that, while this book is interesting, I find it to be a bit biased towards the positive aspects of mental/physical/emotional illness. I read this and almost felt as if I was being left out and in the need of some ailment in order to improve my creativity and intrigue and that is not necessarily how it is. I see where he is coming from, and I understand that he is trying to show the different ways in which creativity presents itself, but it is by no means across the board that these illnesses or conditions can help you attain a creative status. I think that natural underlying ability still has to play a vital role in the process.
Hannah
blog ten
Where is the Surgeon General's warning for searching for creativity? (To answer my own question, obviously nowhere; the package is always different so where would Dr. Gupta put it?)
Essentially (what I'm attempting--and probably failing--to do is comically illustrate that), it is amazing how closely related illness and creativity really are. I was pleased to see that Hughes included the great Frida Kahlo in his assessment of mental and physical handicap and their effects on her profound and mysterious creations. It is noteworthy that Hughes includes mental incarceration or fragmentation (in depression, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and others) as well as physical limitation (paralysis, blindness, deafness, etc.) in his discussion of creativity. I'm sure many of us have heard of blind people who seem to naturally increase their senses of smell or hearing; we're used to the idea of losing something but gaining something else. But to look at it from the standpoint of analyzing or understanding an artist, the effects of a limitation or limitations on creativity are fascinating. Although it is unfortunate that these artists are afflicted by illness of some kind and must suffer, it appears that there is uniform consent that (at one time in their lives) they appreciated their lot and embraced it (as evidence by its manifestation in their created works). The part that is scary (and related to my bad joke at the beginning of my blog) is that Hughes suggests that the spirit of creativity may, itself, be a madness that, when turned inward, manifests itself in the form of illness (be it physical or mental).
Chapter ten was an enjoyable chapter for me, as I saw many interersting insights into how the sexes think, create, approach situations, etc. I think gender roles are always a fascinating topic and the idea that sex is the act that leads to the ultimate form of creation--procreation--is absolutely spot on. It also explains (possibly) why women have been oppressed for many years and why the realms of education and religion were exclusively for men. They were trying to catch up :) It is also very interesting to consider, however, that women we associate with sex or sexuality, were often times puppets of men but simultaneously controlled those men in other ways. Hughes points out this give and take idea of sexuality when he talks about aggressive possession on page 141. Basically, he cites various sources, all of whom suggest that sex is so powerful and provocative because it is a bit dangerous in the sense that someone has to sort of "win" over the other; there is a dominant partner and a submissive partner. I think it's an interesting comparison that Hughes makes when he points out the similarities between sexual relationships and creatives (and their creations). This is especially apparent in his metaphor about childbirth and the birth of a new (man-made, as opposed to man-and-woman-made) creation. Other times throughout this book I had a similar idea pop into my head, so I think Hughes relays this concept extremely well when he points out how sexuality can be used to so concretely represent the creative process and even how it is a part of it.
Essentially (what I'm attempting--and probably failing--to do is comically illustrate that), it is amazing how closely related illness and creativity really are. I was pleased to see that Hughes included the great Frida Kahlo in his assessment of mental and physical handicap and their effects on her profound and mysterious creations. It is noteworthy that Hughes includes mental incarceration or fragmentation (in depression, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and others) as well as physical limitation (paralysis, blindness, deafness, etc.) in his discussion of creativity. I'm sure many of us have heard of blind people who seem to naturally increase their senses of smell or hearing; we're used to the idea of losing something but gaining something else. But to look at it from the standpoint of analyzing or understanding an artist, the effects of a limitation or limitations on creativity are fascinating. Although it is unfortunate that these artists are afflicted by illness of some kind and must suffer, it appears that there is uniform consent that (at one time in their lives) they appreciated their lot and embraced it (as evidence by its manifestation in their created works). The part that is scary (and related to my bad joke at the beginning of my blog) is that Hughes suggests that the spirit of creativity may, itself, be a madness that, when turned inward, manifests itself in the form of illness (be it physical or mental).
Chapter ten was an enjoyable chapter for me, as I saw many interersting insights into how the sexes think, create, approach situations, etc. I think gender roles are always a fascinating topic and the idea that sex is the act that leads to the ultimate form of creation--procreation--is absolutely spot on. It also explains (possibly) why women have been oppressed for many years and why the realms of education and religion were exclusively for men. They were trying to catch up :) It is also very interesting to consider, however, that women we associate with sex or sexuality, were often times puppets of men but simultaneously controlled those men in other ways. Hughes points out this give and take idea of sexuality when he talks about aggressive possession on page 141. Basically, he cites various sources, all of whom suggest that sex is so powerful and provocative because it is a bit dangerous in the sense that someone has to sort of "win" over the other; there is a dominant partner and a submissive partner. I think it's an interesting comparison that Hughes makes when he points out the similarities between sexual relationships and creatives (and their creations). This is especially apparent in his metaphor about childbirth and the birth of a new (man-made, as opposed to man-and-woman-made) creation. Other times throughout this book I had a similar idea pop into my head, so I think Hughes relays this concept extremely well when he points out how sexuality can be used to so concretely represent the creative process and even how it is a part of it.
The picture painted by frida Kahlo with all the nails in her body waa very good description of pain. I almost felt it for her just looking at the picture.
"Sight is by far the most important of our senses". I agree with that because I have all five senses and it does seem that sight is the most important. I do not think a blind person or all blind people agree with this because they say that when you loose one sense you gain more with another sense. I also think it depends on whethter someone was born blind or born with sight and then became blind during their life.
Deafness, hearing is a sense that is something sometimes I wish I did not have, I guess I should not say that being lucky with all five senses but sometimes there are things I do not want to hear. Mostly when I am working being a bartender it is almost our job to listen and even though we do not want to hear we listen anyway.
When the chapter talked about aids and Jarmens work "blue" about the blue screen and the audience just hears music reminded me of the movie "Philidelphia". When Tom Hanks was in his studio and denzel was outside his door listening while tom just listened for about 156 minutes to this very sad Opera music as loud as he could.
Depression seems to be all over the place, every ad on TV, Depression hurts, depression effects you an everyone around you. Depression is caused by so many different things, I think it is very sad if someone does not have an outlet for depression, I do not mean medication, I mean someone to talk to or something to occupy the mind. I have a family member who has chronic fatigue, the doctor put them on so much medication, even lithium, it made them out of their mind, I mean mood swings like you would not believe. Chronic fatigue is not only depression but pain along with it. They even tried getting of the medication and seemed to be alot better.
Alcoholism I see it at work all of the time, very sad, very lonely, I feel sorry for them so like I said before wish sometimes I was deaf but some people need to be heard..."outlet"
"Sight is by far the most important of our senses". I agree with that because I have all five senses and it does seem that sight is the most important. I do not think a blind person or all blind people agree with this because they say that when you loose one sense you gain more with another sense. I also think it depends on whethter someone was born blind or born with sight and then became blind during their life.
Deafness, hearing is a sense that is something sometimes I wish I did not have, I guess I should not say that being lucky with all five senses but sometimes there are things I do not want to hear. Mostly when I am working being a bartender it is almost our job to listen and even though we do not want to hear we listen anyway.
When the chapter talked about aids and Jarmens work "blue" about the blue screen and the audience just hears music reminded me of the movie "Philidelphia". When Tom Hanks was in his studio and denzel was outside his door listening while tom just listened for about 156 minutes to this very sad Opera music as loud as he could.
Depression seems to be all over the place, every ad on TV, Depression hurts, depression effects you an everyone around you. Depression is caused by so many different things, I think it is very sad if someone does not have an outlet for depression, I do not mean medication, I mean someone to talk to or something to occupy the mind. I have a family member who has chronic fatigue, the doctor put them on so much medication, even lithium, it made them out of their mind, I mean mood swings like you would not believe. Chronic fatigue is not only depression but pain along with it. They even tried getting of the medication and seemed to be alot better.
Alcoholism I see it at work all of the time, very sad, very lonely, I feel sorry for them so like I said before wish sometimes I was deaf but some people need to be heard..."outlet"
blog 10
In chapter 9, Hughes briefly mentions that the loss of one sense can heighten others. This has always fascinated me, and then I wondered how this can relate to creativity. So, I went to the place that answers all my questions: Google (um, where else?) What I found, however, almost directly related to our class and was really quite interesting.
The New Yorker published an article called "The Mind's Eye" in July 2003. The article is about people who become blind later in life. Doctors told these patients to simply forget trying picture things in their mind because it was believed that the brain was not capable of doing such a thing when there was no real stimuli. When we are young, the brain is considered flexible and capable of doing such things, but once we develop, it becomes "inflexible." This, however, is not the case. There have been several accounts of blind people practicing holding and creating images in their minds. It is called "visual imagery" and it is like any other skill we have; it must be practiced and mastered to do it well.
The article overall was really fascinating, but the part that interested me even more was that hallucinations can accompany visual imagery. I guess that would make sense since one would be creating images in the mind, but I think it is more than just images. Now, let me say this: the article did not say anything about an altered state, but it seems to me as if this heightened awareness in the mind is actually just that: an altered state.
The article did touch on my original question. When the visual (or auditory, whichever) part of the brain is no longer being used for that particular sense, it starts using that part for the other senses, and this how another sense becomes heightened. Scientists did not believe it possible to use visual part of the brain after becoming blind. Of course, this appears to be wrong. One CAN still create images in the mind even after becoming blind...and even enter an altered state of consciousness while doing it.
The New Yorker published an article called "The Mind's Eye" in July 2003. The article is about people who become blind later in life. Doctors told these patients to simply forget trying picture things in their mind because it was believed that the brain was not capable of doing such a thing when there was no real stimuli. When we are young, the brain is considered flexible and capable of doing such things, but once we develop, it becomes "inflexible." This, however, is not the case. There have been several accounts of blind people practicing holding and creating images in their minds. It is called "visual imagery" and it is like any other skill we have; it must be practiced and mastered to do it well.
The article overall was really fascinating, but the part that interested me even more was that hallucinations can accompany visual imagery. I guess that would make sense since one would be creating images in the mind, but I think it is more than just images. Now, let me say this: the article did not say anything about an altered state, but it seems to me as if this heightened awareness in the mind is actually just that: an altered state.
The article did touch on my original question. When the visual (or auditory, whichever) part of the brain is no longer being used for that particular sense, it starts using that part for the other senses, and this how another sense becomes heightened. Scientists did not believe it possible to use visual part of the brain after becoming blind. Of course, this appears to be wrong. One CAN still create images in the mind even after becoming blind...and even enter an altered state of consciousness while doing it.
blog 10
Firstly, it was extremely pleasant to be reunited with Derren Brown on Monday. When I was in art school a few years ago, a friend of mine introduced me to him and we were mesmerized by his work. The unfortunate thing is that I had forgotten his name, and have tried on numerous occasions to find clips from this lad to show others. The minute I heard his name in class, it all came back to me. But since this blog is not about what we discussed in class, I will merely attach some of my favorite clips of him below.
As we have been reading about the relationship between creativity, hypnosis, and altered states of consciousness, I began wondering what is it that causes a reaction, or more accurately, a relationship between the viewer and the prescribed art. How are we able to feel anything at all? And why do some cherish one artwork over another? Perhaps, artists have been able to capture a form of subliminal advertising in the work itself. Maybe the concept of “needing” something (much like advertising) is crucial in the marketplace today. What constitutes art to begin with? Comedian Ricky Gervais said on his podcast that perhaps the greatest movement in the art world right now is advertising. It may not be the artwork itself, but the ability to “get away” with it may hold a deeper significant. Take for instance the English artist Damien Hirst. His piece titled, “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Seeing” is merely an enormous tank containing a shark floating in formaldehyde. It is residing in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC until 2010. Is this merely art because he was able to pull it off? Or does our subconscious actually crave a sea cadaver doused in chemicals?
Chapters 9 and 10 have been incredible to say the least. Hughes’ fills virtually every page with beautiful visual sound bytes that resonant long after putting the book down. “Eccentricity is the acceptable face of the creative. Most societies tolerate eccentrics, and even approve of them, in theory.” Perhaps the relationship between mental disturbances, the author, and the reader play a role that is not too unrelated to the German term: schadenfruede (pleasure devised from the misfortunes of others). Many psychologists argue that, for example, when we view a person surer an injury from say, falling off a ladder that we are not actually laughing at the pain the victim must suffer, but rather sheepishly out of the comfort that they are all right. I know this parallel is not completely accurate, but perhaps we are able to relate to characters and circumstances within fictional tales, most notably anti-heros and villains, because we are able to subconsciously or consciously develop a form of sympathy for them. I’ve also noticed within these chapters the differences of mental instabilities and artists/characters relationships (very similar to the chapter on drugs). For example, Hughes’ description of Kafka reads: “Franz Kafka reflected in his writings the mental difficulties and dislocations he felt himself, not only making them vividly clear as individual experiences but managing in the process to create a compelling portrait of instructional sickness.” For anyone who has read Kafka, (most notably The Metamorphosis or The Trial) it is obvious that the inner demons and paranoia that surround the characters come from a internal disturbance rather than an outward experience. It is possible that our individual subconscious thoughts may not be unlike the ones we are reading, but they have yet to surface.
The relativity of money (one of my favorites)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vz_YTNLn6w
The brilliance of cold reading
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btP_vy5cQq4
Drunk, without drinking (fantastic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zryGzTbU49I
As we have been reading about the relationship between creativity, hypnosis, and altered states of consciousness, I began wondering what is it that causes a reaction, or more accurately, a relationship between the viewer and the prescribed art. How are we able to feel anything at all? And why do some cherish one artwork over another? Perhaps, artists have been able to capture a form of subliminal advertising in the work itself. Maybe the concept of “needing” something (much like advertising) is crucial in the marketplace today. What constitutes art to begin with? Comedian Ricky Gervais said on his podcast that perhaps the greatest movement in the art world right now is advertising. It may not be the artwork itself, but the ability to “get away” with it may hold a deeper significant. Take for instance the English artist Damien Hirst. His piece titled, “The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Seeing” is merely an enormous tank containing a shark floating in formaldehyde. It is residing in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC until 2010. Is this merely art because he was able to pull it off? Or does our subconscious actually crave a sea cadaver doused in chemicals?
Chapters 9 and 10 have been incredible to say the least. Hughes’ fills virtually every page with beautiful visual sound bytes that resonant long after putting the book down. “Eccentricity is the acceptable face of the creative. Most societies tolerate eccentrics, and even approve of them, in theory.” Perhaps the relationship between mental disturbances, the author, and the reader play a role that is not too unrelated to the German term: schadenfruede (pleasure devised from the misfortunes of others). Many psychologists argue that, for example, when we view a person surer an injury from say, falling off a ladder that we are not actually laughing at the pain the victim must suffer, but rather sheepishly out of the comfort that they are all right. I know this parallel is not completely accurate, but perhaps we are able to relate to characters and circumstances within fictional tales, most notably anti-heros and villains, because we are able to subconsciously or consciously develop a form of sympathy for them. I’ve also noticed within these chapters the differences of mental instabilities and artists/characters relationships (very similar to the chapter on drugs). For example, Hughes’ description of Kafka reads: “Franz Kafka reflected in his writings the mental difficulties and dislocations he felt himself, not only making them vividly clear as individual experiences but managing in the process to create a compelling portrait of instructional sickness.” For anyone who has read Kafka, (most notably The Metamorphosis or The Trial) it is obvious that the inner demons and paranoia that surround the characters come from a internal disturbance rather than an outward experience. It is possible that our individual subconscious thoughts may not be unlike the ones we are reading, but they have yet to surface.
The relativity of money (one of my favorites)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vz_YTNLn6w
The brilliance of cold reading
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btP_vy5cQq4
Drunk, without drinking (fantastic)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zryGzTbU49I
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)