Dossier

week #1

I´m really glad to see the menu you have prepared for us. If reading is like eating as you say, then this is French style small portions of quality food rather than big portions of fast food. It is also a good feeling to see that what you have selected seems to pick up in many ways from where we left off in Stevens class, like the idea of the laughter that shatters, connects to the notion of the trickster (“The Lucky Find” and “Trickster Arts and Works of Artus,” Trickster Makes This World: Mischief, Myth, and Art by Lewis Hyde, pp. 128-150, 252-280.) that we were looking at in last semester.

Foucault's Preface texts are also addressing similar thoughts but in a different way, as we were reading, like horizontal vs. vertical, De Landa´s De- and re-stratification and BwO, -the necessity to brake things up, find new angles and perspectives... the change meeting. I´m glad you are taking the path of the “philo-surrealism” rather than word soup of last decades -isms.

 I´m reading a book called PLANNING IN ICELAND, from the settlement to present times as research for my work and came across some stuff that linked in my mind to this weeks reading.

The book is full of so wonderfully simple diagrams, here are two, from a chapter named Geometry of Power, laws of

 forms that shape Settlement.

The Watchtower

When reading Panopticism I recalled this coverage from 60 minutes – here is a link. This is an overwhelmingly “sophisticated” form of Bentham´s idea.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7382308n

See the Joint Operation Center (in a secret location) … the 3 billon dollars central tower to watch over New York, it is just like in Bentham´s design – completely invisible for the observed (see 14,20min)

It is an old dream come true, here is a passage from Foucault p. 214 (3. The state-control of the mechanisms of discipline.) “And, in order to be exercised, this power had to be given the instrument of permanent, exhaustive, omnipresent surveillance, capable of making all visible, as long as is could it self remain invisible. It had to be like a faceless gaze that transformed the whole social body into a field of perception: thousands of eyes posted everywhere, mobile attentions ever on the alert, a long, hierarchized network”

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I watched the Banksy film, (Exit through the giftshop)I think for the third time, and this time I fell into the pit my self. I have a few of these Banksy tenners with princess Diana, somebody (maybe Banksy himself?) used them to pay for beer at our Sirkus Bar at the Frieze in 2008, I found them amongst other bills afterwards, when counting the income. But last night when I was watching the film, I found myself googling, trying to find out how much they are worth, funny, there is no way to know which of the ones being sold online are real, and really how can I know if mine are real Banksy currency. I had been sucked into Banksy masquerade, like the people paying high amounts for Mr. Brainwash works Art.

I have been thinking a lot about language lately, partly because so much of the work we are doing in these classes relies so heavily on the use of language, and not everyday usage, but intensely specialized, with personal styles of each writher. It takes me a super long time to read some of those texts, looking up in dictionaries words and concept, not because I don´t understand them, I just have some need to connect them better, and then I look them up in Icelandic, because I also feel the need to be able to think and speak the things I/we are taking in and learning in my “brain-native” tongue. Both in your introduction and Foucault's Preface language, grammar, words and their specific meaning and origins are both at the core and the basis... I think this is my favorite quote from the Preface text (at least today) “That passage from Borges kept me laughing a long time, though not without a certain uneasiness that I found hard to shake off. Perhaps because there arose in its wake the suspicion that there is a worse kind of disorder than that of the incongruous, the linking together of things that are inappropriate; I mean the disorder in which fragments of a large number of possible order glitter separately in the dimension, without law or geometry, of the heteroclite; and that word should be taken inits most literal, etymological sense: in such a state, things are ´laid´, ´placed´, ´arranged´in sites so very different from one another that it is impossible to find a place of residence for them, to define a common locus, beneath them all.”

Here is a link to amazing radio show, interview with neurologist Jill Bolte Taylor. She woke up with a headache. A blood vessel then burst inside her left hemisphere, and silenced all the brain chatter in her head. She was left with no language. No memories. Just sensory intake, and an all-encompassing feeling of joy.

http://www.radiolab.org/2010/aug/09/a-world-without-words/

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

From Jen .. to read book Nicole Krauss "Man Walks Into a Room".

Links:

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

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

http://l-whitaker1013-cts.blogspot.com/2011/10/lecture-one-panopticism.html

Modern day use of a Panopticon Building - A US prison

'Institutional gaze'

Foucault describes the Panopticon as the ideal mechanism for the functioning of disciplinary power. The Prisoners can't see each other but think they are constantly being watched.

The experience of the Panopticon -Internalises in the individual the conscious state that he is always being watched

Orwell used to live here

Everybody together now

Dossier

week #2

Very hectic week, Erling my is opening a big solo show tomorrow in Kling and Bang so I have been assisting him. I´ve also been doing a little work for the Reykjavik Art Museum in relation to the exhibition that opens today with the works of Santiago Sierra.

Sierra is a super interesting artist to look into at same time reading Marx. Sierra addresses in his art the same core of things as Marx.

About his aims and his work Sierra has said, “What I do is refuse to deny the principles that underlie the creation of an object of luxury: from the watchman who sits next to a Monet for eight hours a day, to the doorman who controls who comes in, to the source of the funds used to buy the collection. I try to include all this, and therein lies the little commotion about remuneration that my pieces have caused.” [2] More specific to his questioning of art institutions and capitalism, he said “At the Kunstwerke in Berlin they criticized me because I had people sitting for four hours a day, but they didn’t realize that a little further up the hallway the guard spends eight hours a day on his feet...any of the people who make those criticisms have never worked in their lives; if they think it’s a horror to sit hidden in a cardboard box for four hours, they don’t know what work is...And of course extreme labor relations shed much more light on how the labor system actually works.” [2] Sierra has a displayed interest in visibility and invisibility. He explains the result of his work that pursues these interests, saying “The museum watchman I paid to live for 365 hours behind a wall at P.S.1 in New York told me that no one had ever been so interested in him and that he had never met so many people. I realized that hiding something is a very effective working technique. The forgotten people want to communicate...”

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

http://channel.tate.org.uk/media/33799701001

“Joseph Beuys once claimed that there was clean money and dirty money. We should only take the former. I don’t believe that: there’s only dirty money. As an artist I take dirty money. I’m paid to create luxury goods for art collectors. We all have dirty hands.”

When reading Marx and his ideas of the human labor and the fetishism of commodities examples that undermine the idea of human labor as valid measurement unit came to mind. Like fish that is fished here in Icelandic sea, immediately frozen onboard the fishing ships, then shipped to China by air (cheap labor) for processing, than back to Iceland to get some stamp of origin, and from there to shops like WholeFoods and sold there for high prizes as pure or even organic food. Does this make any sense?

How does Marx define the commodity: post quotes on your dossier.

Commodity= object/service with use-value created by human labor, it is a labor-product with exchange-value created by want/need. “...Whether […], they spring form the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.” p.2

What are the different kinds of value?

Value is on one hand use-value and the other exchange-value

Exchange-value comes in to being when and object or service with use-value is traded as commodity.

“As use values, commodities are, above all, of different qualities, but as exchange values they are merely different quantities, and consequently do not contain an atom of use value.”p.4

Links:

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

http://georgiamayspears.blogspot.com/2012/02/karl-marx-hegel-and-communism.html (quotes below)

- Marx believed that you could explain everything about a society by analysing the way economic forces in shape social, religious, legal, political processes.

- In his time, Marx achieved a fusion of;

1. Hegelian Philosophy (philosophy of history and dialects)

2. British Empiricism (especially economics of Smith)

3. French Revolutionary Politics, especially Socialist Politics (man is born free but everywhere in chains)

Marx: 'man is the productive animal'

Aristotle: 'rational man'

Plato: 'political man'

Kant: 'moral animal'

Teleological: This is the meaning that history is going somewhere.

Hegel

- Hegel believed that history had a purpose

- Not only this, but he also believed that spirit is the guide

- History will finish when spirit will achieve full-self knowledge

Thesis = A proposition

Anthesis = A counter proposition - contradiction

Synthesis = Combination of refuting of 1 proposition

Dossier

week #4 ( The CITY and Child )

Readings:

“The Painter of Modern Life”, Charles Baudelaire;

Roger Shattuck, introduction to “The Banquet Years”;

It is amazing to read The Banquet years text, it could as well have been written about the last decades, our present. It was spine-chilling reading at moments, drawing parallels between the now and then. These quotes below could very well be a description of the atmosphere dominant in large part of the world in the years preceding the financial crisis.

“Upper-class leisure – the result not of shorter working hours but of no working hours at all for property holders – produced a life of pompous display, frivolity, hypocrisy, cultivated taste, and relaxed morals.”

“The untaxed rich lived in shameless luxury and systematically brutalized le peuple with venal journalism, inspiring promises of progress and expanding empire, an cheap absinthe.”

“Politics … found a surprisingly stable balance between corruption, passionate conviction, and low comedy.”

“Artist sensed that their generation promised both an end and a beginning.”

"It is this theatrical aspect of life, the light-opera atmosphere, which gave la belle époque its particular flavor. … living had become increasingly a special kind of performance presided over by fashion, innovation, an taste. History provides its own reasons for the gaiety of the era: economic prosperity....”

I found The Banquet years provided me with a background story of Dada (and the Avant-garde) in details I did not know off, like Rodolphe Salis cabaret, (1881) Chat Noir, “No one had tried such a “democratic” enterprise before, and the snobs loved it”. It seems to have been a continuous period of a genuine Carnival state, “Chat noir burst out if its old quarters and paraded in costume through the streets with a mounted escort to occupy and entire building in the Rue Victor-Massé. The inaugural banquet and festivities included among the guest …(lots of famous artists names)... and eleven deputies, two Paris mayors, and tree respected septuagenarians...” ( I have to read this again and link it more to my experience of running Klink and BanK artist base and the carnivalesque being of that place)

I loved the hoax of the paintings painted by Lolo the donkey, exhibited at the Salon des Indépendants, praised by critics and sold for 400 francs, maybe there is no coincidence that Banksy produced his film starring Mr. Brainwash exactly one hundred years later.

It was also very interesting to read about movement of Anarchism from Lyon to Paris, and about the bombers and their attitude, sounds frighteningly familiar.

One last quote, “It is almost as if the war had to come in order to put an end to an extravaganza that could not have sustained itself at this level.”

The flâneur is included with other types, notably the dandy, but he (for he is a “he”) is much more theoretically important. Where the dandy is indifferent, the flâneur is the “passionate spectator.” Note how visuality is embraced as a form of knowledge. This is crucial. (T)

One is not a flâneur in the country - ( in nature ????)

Page 9. - the Painter of Modern Life – “To be away from home and yet to feel oneself everywhere at home; to see the world, to be at the centre of the world, and yet to remain hidden from the world, – such are a few of the slightest pleasures of those independent, passionate, impartial natures which the tongue can but clumsily define.” …

Ibid

“Thus she lover of universal life enters into the crowd as though ir were an immense reservoir ef elecrical energy. Or we might liken him to a mirror as vast as the crowd itself; […]

`I´with an insatiable appetite for the `non-I´, at every instant rendering and explaning it in pictures more living the life itself, which is always unstable and fugitive.”

This last sentense reminds me of Cezanne 'The landscape thinks itself in me,' he said, 'and I am its consciousness.'"

The I/it machine - but here it is the city not nature, this question – is it possible to be Flaneur in nature is something to think about for me. Seems that a lot of the art that we are looking at in both classes are doing that, - looking at nature in a new way. So maybe art is going in circle.....

From Stevens class lecture 04 Cezanne

“As we've already seen in my reading of the Still Life with Ginger Jar and Eggplants, there's a record of multiple viewpoints fused in the single image. What Cézanne inscribes in this record is a bodily sense of being multiple, which is an idea that the phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty elaborates in his essay "Cézanne's Doubt." He writes: "The task before [Cézanne] was, first to forget all he had ever learned from science and, second through these sciences to recapture the structure of the landscape as an emerging organism. To do this, all the partial views one catches sight of must be welded together; all that the eye's versatility disperses must be reunited; one must, as [Joachim] Gasquet put it, 'join the wandering hands of nature.' 'A minute of the world is going by which must be painted in its full reality.' His meditation would suddenly be consummated: 'I have my motif,' Cézanne would say, and he would explain that the landscape had to be centered neither too high nor too low, caught alive in a net which would let nothing escape. Then he began to paint all parts of the painting at the same time, using patches of color to surround his original sketch of the geological skeleton. The picture took on fullness and density; it grew in structure and balance; it came to maturity all at once. 'The landscape thinks itself in me,' he said, 'and I am its consciousness.'"(page 17) Is the environment a multiple projection by Cézanne or is Cézanne a projection of the environment? He answers in this phrase, "the landscape thinks itself in me." No statement could be clearer in proposing that neither projection alone meets the painter's ambition. Cézanne wanted to express a plurality of selves—his self and the selves of nature's objects joined together in a hybrid subjectivity. But this subjectivity isn't one of fragmentation. The ambition is harmony, flow, the self-organization of this subjectivity into a meshwork of interweaving matter and energy.”

Baudelaire states that all of the “errors in the field of aesthetics” come from the eighteenth century’s false premise” that “Nature was taken as the ground, source, and type of all possible Good and Beauty.” (31) “We shall see that Nature teaches us nothing, or practically nothing. I admit it compels man to sleep, to eat, to drink, and to arm himself as well as he may against the inclemencies of weather; but it is she too who incites man to murder his brother, to eat him, to lock him up and to torture him...” (30-1)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

preface Edgar Allan Poe The man in crowed 1840

To the few who love me and whom I love — to those who feel rather than to those who think — to the dreamers and those who put faith in dreams as in the only realities — I offer this Book of Truths, not in its character of Truth-Teller, but for the Beauty that abounds in its Truth; constituting it true. To these I present the composition as an Art-Product alone: — let us say as a Romance; or, if I be not urging too lofty a claim, as a Poem.

What I here propound is true: — therefore it cannot die: — or if by any means it be now trodden down so that it die, it will “rise again to the Life Everlasting.”

Nevertheless it is as a Poem only that I wish this work to be judged after I am dead.

E. A. P.

- - - - - - - - - But the child is sort of a discovery of the late 19th century -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0054653

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss childhood. The 20th Century was proclaimed the Century of the Child

Genius for Baudelaire is “...more nor less than childhood recovered at will...” He describes the gaze of the child confronted with something new as “animally ecstatic”!

Another way of putting it is that the “child-man” Baudelaire is celebrating is one for whom “no aspect of life has become stale.” Henry James’ famous advice to the young novelist from his essay “The Art of Fiction,” is none other than, “Be one on whom nothing is lost.” It is the same sentiment — be alive to the moment, don’t let anything slip by.

Dossier

week #5

Shock, Aura and that Great Angel of Critial Theory: Walter Benjamin

I have read Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction few times before, first time I think it was in 1997, then as a part of very "hype" class in Art school on Internet Art. That reading was very fitting at the time, thinking about the net and how the digital world works, where there is no "real" original. Then I read it as part of Cinema studies, and again in a performance course, the with emphasis on the "here and now" of the work of art. This time the reading was more in context of what we have been reading for last few weeks especially Marx, that is the frame he lays out in the preface to the essay. I think it is save to say that this is the first attempt to link together aesthetics with the theories of Marx.
So what I found most interesting this time has to with the shift from cult value to exhibition value he talks about. In Marx terms cult value = use value and exhibition value = exchange value.

I also read Adorno's Letter to Benjamin from 1936

here are some quotes:

I see a sublimated remnant of certain Brechtian motifs—that you now casually transfer the concept of magical aura to the ‘autonomous work of art’ and flatly assign to the latter acounter-revolutionary function. I need not assure you that I am fully aware of the magical element in the bourgeois work of art (particu-larly since I constantly attempt to expose the bourgeois philosophy of idealism, which is associated with the concept of aesthetic autonomy, as mythical in the fullest sense). However, it seems to me that the centreof the autonomous work of art does not itself belong on the side of myth—excuse my topic parlance—but is inherently dialectical; within itself it crosses the magical with the sign of freedom.

that precisely the uttermost consistency in the pursuit of the technical laws of autonomous art changes this art and instead of rendering it into a taboo or fetish, approximates it to the state of freedom, of something that can consciously be produced and made.(in Kantian moral philosophy) acting in accordance with one's moral duty rather than one's desires.

If you defend the kitsch film against the ‘quality’ film, no one can be more in agreement with you than I am; but l'art pour l’art is just as much in need of a defence, and the united front which exists against it and which to my knowledge extends from Brecht to the YouthMovement, would be encouragement enough to undertake a rescue.

And at this point, to be sure, the debate turns political quickly enough. For if you render technicization and alienation dialectical very rightly, but not in equal measure the world of objectified subjectivity, the political effect is to credit the proletariat (as the cinema’s subject) directly with an achievement which, according to Lenin, it can realize only through a theory introduced by intellectuals as dialectical subjects, who them-selves belong to the sphere of works of art which you have consigned to Hell. Understand me correctly. I would not want to safeguard the autonomy of the work of art as a prerogative, and I agree with you that the aural element of the work of art is declining—not only because of its technical reproducibility, incidentally, but above all because of the fulfilment of its own ‘autonomous’ formal laws. But the autonomy of the work of art, and there-fore its material form, is not identical with the magical element in it.

The reification of a great work of art is not just loss, any more than the reification of the cinema is all loss. It would be bourgeois reaction to negate the reification of the cinema in the name of the ego, and it would border on anarchism to revoke the reification of a great work of art in the spirit of immediate use-values. ‘Les extrèmes me touchent ’ [Gide], just as they touch you—but only if the dialectic of the undermost is equivalent to the dialectic of the uppermost, rather than the latter simply decaying. Both bear the stigmata of capitalism, both contain elements of change (naturally never and nowhere the middle-term between Schönberg and the American film). Both are torn halves of an integral freedom, to which however they do not add up. It would be romantic to sacrifice one to the other, either as the bourgeois romanticism of the conservation of personality and all that stuff, or as the anarchistic romanticism of blind confidence in the spontaneous power of the proletariat in the historical process—a proletariat which is itself a product of bourgeois society.

Reification = make (something abstract) more concrete or real

proletariat = workers or working-class people, regarded collectively (often used with reference to Marxism

To a certain extent I must accuse your essay of this second romanticism. You have swept art out of the corners of its taboos—but it is as though you feared a consequent inrush of barbarism (who could share your fear more than I?) and protected yourself by raising what you fear to a kind of inverse taboo. The laughter of the audience at a cinema—I discussed this with Max, and he has probably told you about it already—is anything but good and revolutionary; instead, it is full of the worst bourgeois sadism.

I do not find your theory of distraction convincing—if only for the simple reason that in a communist society work will be organized in such a way that people will no longer be so tired and so stultified that they need distraction. On the other hand, certain concepts of capitalist practice, like that of the test, seem to me almost ontologically congealed and taboo-like in function—whereas if anything does have an aural character, it is surely the film which possesses it to an extreme and highly suspect degree.

You under-estimate the tech-nicality of autonomous art and over-estimate that of dependent art;this, in plain terms, would be my main objection. But this objection could only be given effect as a dialectic between extremes which you tear apart. In my estimation, this would involve nothing other than thecomplete liquidation of the Brechtian motifs which have already under-gone an extensive transformation in your study—above all, the liquidation of any appeal to the immediacy of interconnected aesthetic effects, however fashioned, and to the actual consciousness of actual workers, who have absolutely no advantage over the bourgeois except their interest in the revolution, but otherwise bear all the marks of mutilation of the typical bourgeois character. This prescribes our function for us clearly enough—which I certainly do not mean in the sense of an activist conception of ‘intellectuals’. But it cannot mean either that we may only escape the old taboos by entering into new ones—‘tests’, so to speak. The goal of the revolution is the abolition of fear. Therefore we need have no fear of it, not need we ontologize our fear. It is not bourgeous idealism if, in full knowledge and with out mental prohibitions, we maintain our solidarity with the proletaria tin stead of making of our own necessity a virtue of the proletariat, as weare always tempted to do—the proletariat which itself experiences the same necessity and needs us for knowledge as much as we need the pro-letariat to make the revolution. I am convinced that the furtherdevelopment of the aesthetic debate which you have so magnificently inaugurated, depends essentially on a true accounting of the relation-ship of the intellectuals to the working-class.

I cannot conclude, however, without telling you that your few sentences about the disintegration of the proletariat as ‘masses’ through revolution are among the profoundest and most

powerful statements of political theory that I have encountered since I read State and Revolution.

Week #6

This is super dense text (again) my printout is all underlined and overwritten, but I can't go and rewrite the whole thing. First thing I had to keep in mind wile reading was that this text is written in 1993 (two years after Jameson's Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991)), and before the real onset of the world-wide-web and the internet.

The text made me realize that I did not grow up in a “real postmodern” environment ( born 1977). I grew up in a small town (1500 people) in the countryside, in a country ruled by right-wing politicians ruling with left-wing politics, - I know very strange. So there was only one TV-station (run by the state) watched in a black and white TV and one radio station (also run by the state) which only played music for old people, except for one hour a week, program called Music for the young people. No TV on Thursdays and no TV during summer. The first Mall opened in 1992, no kidding, and to this day there are only two big Malls. I think my first Cinema experience was around that time, a socially correct scandinavian children film.... But everything changed really rapidly around that time (1990) when a law was passed banning the state monopoly of the media, the floodgates where open, and soon we had many independent TV and radio stations … great time to be a teenager, then the arrival of the VCR, home computers and soon the Internet, cell phones and so on, very fast-paced change.

Anyway here are some notes and thoughts from reading:

Memory – I think it is somewhere in the text (something like this) he who controls the memory of the people has the power. This is so important in todays world. She quotes Jameson on the first page, “ the disappearance of history, the way in which our entire contemporary social system has little by little begun to lose its capacity to retain its own past, has begun to live in a perpetual present and in perpetual change that obliterates traditions.” and she goes on to Baudelaire referring to the photograph, “cheap method of disseminating a loathing for history.” I not really sure if I understand where they are going whit this? Questions like how was our memory preserved before the technology of the photograph and film, how was that better? Of course you can argue that “memories” in films and some photographs are not real, they are not reality, but you can also say that about our own memory inside of our head. F.ex. when me and my brothers recall the same event form our childhood, it is often very different “interpretation”. But Baudelaire also recognizes the potential of the photograph the preserve the past, “archives of our memory” This made me think about the “reality” that we live in today, with this new “archives of our memory” the Internet! Baudelaire seem to be spot on “a new archive of memory which obscures the past in the guise of preserving it” is this not exactly what the Internet is? He who controls the memory of the people has the power. Makes you think of “phenomena” like Wikipedia (where anyone can (try) put their own version of the truth) and Wiki-leaks (where information which is not supposed to be public is published), how search-machines like google control for each of us what search result we get, based on our browsing history, access blockage, firewalls, (like some of you are experiencing in China).

This new “reality” of the Internet also connects to other aspects of this text, like when Baudelaire talks about the “passion of roaming” the “lost“art of strolling””, window shopping for need or passion, - isn't this all now embedded in the browsing of the Internet. The net is just like the Arcades a “Public interior for strolling”.

The disappearance of the body is also an idea discussed in the text, - Dead MacChannel is quoted, “ as the gaze became more “virtually” mobile the spectator became more physically immobile.” and Marx talks about the “annihilation of space by time” and Crary “ the illusion of spatial mobility into the illusion of temporal mobility, for the cinematic observer, the body itself is a fiction, a site for departure and return”. Is this not our reality now? When I meet people here in Iceland now, and they ask, “ I thought you where in school in New York?” I find my self answering, “ Yes, I'm, my body is here but my mind is in New York”.

Ok, lot of other stuff to connect and think about in this text … but enough for now.

But one thing I think is very important, that is political undercurrent in both Benjamin and Baudelaire´s writings, so I will repost here a quote from Adorno from his letter to Benjamin.

“To a certain extent I must accuse your essay of this second romanticism. You have swept art out of the corners of its taboos—but it is as though you feared a consequent inrush of barbarism (who could share your fear more than I?) and protected yourself by raising what you fear to a kind of inverse taboo. The laughter of the audience at a cinema—I discussed this with Max, and he has probably told you about it already—is anything but good and revolutionary; instead, it is full of the worst bourgeois sadism.”

Links from Thyrza

http://www.ubu.com/film/amiralay_sardines.html

http://jpgmag.com/stories/16422