Previous: the greenhouse effect (32)

Next: the smile of the buddha (3)

sean scully interview

Post #661 • November 16, 2005, 7:48 AM • 52 Comments

ArtInfo interviews Sean Scully.

Comment

1.

oldpro

November 16, 2005, 12:55 PM

Except for the odd fact that here is an utterly modernist painter saying "modernism has collapsed" everyone should read this. He pretty much knows what he is talking about, and he refers directly to the latter-day surrealism problem I have been talking about in recent posts.

I will be away for 4 days, in NYC, the land of art surfeit, so you dirve by shooters can take pot shots at will.

2.

Marc Country

November 16, 2005, 2:45 PM

Yeah, it seems like he's still somewhat trying to "apologize" to the "conceptualists"... Scully's a Modernist painter, balls to bones, but despite his success, he still knows it's a dirty word.
Obviously, although Sean and others perhaps see a need to eschew the name, modernism has carried on as it has since the beginning, generating the best work of our time (although it has had to, for the most part, carry on in the shadows).

3.

that guy

November 16, 2005, 4:04 PM

Scully regarding new figuration:

"The scale is reduced, the colors are drab, the paint looks as if it's been put on with the greatest degree of effort by a very ill person. The people in the paintings are often very ill or dysfunctional. "

Pretty accurate and it echos what has been the experience of several blog regulars.

4.

ordinarily strange

November 16, 2005, 4:11 PM

re: The art world has expanded. And the opportunism and the cynicism in the art world has expanded with the market. Now it's just an extraordinary machine. I guess I always wanted to make art for almost religious reasons, in the way that Matisse did. He said, 'I have a religious feeling toward life.' Not that he was religious. I feel the same way. I want to make art for spiritual reasons, and I want to make something deeply moving.

and i think this comment may interest certain individuals...

I am wondering if a small part of the reason that art has somewhat lost some of its sacredness is found in schools (for example) that promise potential artists and designers these "great careers" in a short amount of time. The education and training becomes a brief survey of the masters and the hard work and "religiousness" of art becomes a piece that needs to be finished, ready to package, deliver, and sell by the end of the term or quarter.

In history– the masters as Scully says were in fact devoted to their craft, and in making disciples that in turn become masters of their craft. However, today that devoutness has disappeared somewhat, and what we see is a cookie cutter movement... at least here in Miami.
What went wrong?

5.

Marc Country

November 16, 2005, 5:11 PM

What went wrong?

Well, about a century ago, the avant-garde was on such a tear, that they left alot of people behind, including art viewers and art critics.

Most of the art viewers still haven't caught up to this day, which is why something like cubism (by today's account a "traditional" art form, a hundred years old, the stuff of our grandparents generation) still leaves a lot of people baffled... it's still too advanced for many eyes.

The art critics, on the other hand, well, they are for the most part as baffled as anyone else, but they have an attachment to art, and hence a pride about their abilities to know shit from shinola. So, they adjust their criteria... if this stuff that baffles them is "great", then bafflement must signify greatness.

The rest is art history... many that get hailed as the next 'big thing' are, in part, hailed on account of how close their stuff comes to the condition of non-art. The more baffling the better... This is now such an academic prosciption that it has finally achieved the level of a great joke... everyone knows HOW to get the grant, the fame, etc... just reference the "in" topics, make sure to use some "new" media (as if Film were any more "new" than cubism... believe me, there were a lot of strange folks doing bizarre things in paris society a hundred years ago.. they just didn't know what they were doing then, we now cal performance art)

Oh well... I'll now let you all take a whack at my generalizations.

6.

Marc Country

November 16, 2005, 5:12 PM

oops... colda sworn I closed that tag... sorry Franklin

7.

Franklin

November 16, 2005, 5:23 PM

With contributions like that, I can let a few unclosed tags slide. I'll get it.

Wasn't you anyway, Marc.

8.

ordinarily strange

November 16, 2005, 5:27 PM

Marc,

I would be nervous to ask what you feel about graphic art and digital media.
Give me a few minutes to chew on what you said– have six or seventeen drinks and i'll come back with a rebuttal of sorts. i like where this is going.

in the meanwhile– i feel that academically– yes a large part of it is a joke. BUT.. then you have those few who in fact, despite their lacking surroundings, somehow develop a passion for their craft or art and do some pretty good work outside of those four walls.
O ye of little faith.


–o strange

9.

Ruthie

November 16, 2005, 5:30 PM

Scully says he wants to make something deeply moving...

I give him an "A" for effort. There is a refined quality to the technique of his paintings, but i have to say that it is not the most moving work i've seen.

modernism has carried on as it has since the beginning, generating the best work of our time (although it has had to, for the most part, carry on in the shadows

I'm not particularly fond of modernist paintings, and not to be argumentative, but i believe maybe they belong in the shadows out of the limelight and free to exist without scrutiny.

In history– the masters as Scully says were in fact devoted to their craft, and in making disciples that in turn become masters of their craft. However, today that devoutness has disappeared somewhat, and what we see is a cookie cutter movement... at least here in Miami.
What went wrong?


Maybe some schools are partially to blame for promising quick options for "great careers" in the art world, but it goes deeper than that. Schools are only offering what the "15 minute" youths of our society are demanding. Young people today, for the most part, have no sense of dedication and commitment to "the craft" and religiosity is reserved for sunday school. The "cookie cutter movement" in art and design as you say, is only one part of the bigger problem patterning itself through the fabric of our goth, punk, mtv, and mcdonalds youth.

If good art and religious dedication are to survive, we need to start instilling those values in the younger generation.

10.

Ruthie

November 16, 2005, 5:35 PM

ordinarily strange, i have to say that your comments are strangely ordinary.

11.

ordinarily strange

November 16, 2005, 5:38 PM

Young people today, for the most part, have no sense of dedication and commitment to "the craft" and religiosity is reserved for sunday school. The "cookie cutter movement" in art and design as you say, is only one part of the bigger problem patterning itself through the fabric of our goth, punk, mtv, and mcdonalds youth.

I think there are many young people who are dedicated... but remember there are also a lot of fogies going to these same places of higher learning...

What I think is that there is no direction. No mentoring. No discipling among artists and the younger generation. The future is in the young and if they have no appreciation of their past– then I fear for the arts.

if this stuff that baffles them is "great", then bafflement must signify greatness.
What "baffles" you Marc?

12.

london suede

November 16, 2005, 5:38 PM

Ordinarily strange: The problem lies in that art has become a piece that needs to be finished, ready to package, deliver, and sell by the end of the term or quarter, as you said. Is this a career in business? Now everything revolves around 'marketing yourself as an artist'; the art world seems so shallow and money driven that we can't even compare the present state of art to that of the past. All those subjective aspects of art and art making are not apparent anymore, and even sounds hypocritical and fake at times when artists try and explain their 'emotions' about their work.

13.

ordinarily strange

November 16, 2005, 5:45 PM

London Suede- (nice name)

I don't believe that an artist needs to explain anything about his/her work. If it's aesthetically pleasing or challenging- if it evokes a response then it stands as art. Good or bad is an opinion.
As far as marketing is concerned– because art today has become another product on an assembly line, many find that it is necessary. As stated– art should speak for itself.

Art including design, digital and traditional media, mixed, and the new media. Film, fashion, photography, etc. (Yes, including graphic design... not advertisements necessarily but design.)**

**for anyone who may have doubted.

14.

Ruthie

November 16, 2005, 5:49 PM

All those subjective aspects of art and art making are not apparent anymore, and even sounds hypocritical and fake at times when artists try and explain their 'emotions' about their work.

In art, all who have done something other than their predecessors have merited the epithet of revoutionary; and it is they alone who are masters ~ Paul Gauguin

The art world seems to be recycling old ideas. I don't see many masters around these days. Maybe it is that focus on money lessening the value of the art itself. Mabe artists are losing themselves, by seeing only the check at the end of the tunnel.

15.

Marc Country

November 16, 2005, 5:51 PM

What "baffles" you Marc?

Well, trying to come to some conclusion as to the purpose of our earthly existence is pretty puzzling... compared to that, all art's pretty easy to understand.

The existence of modernist paintings, which Rothie brings up, is pretty simple: They exist TO BE SCRUTINIZED. The fact that Ruthie thinks they belong "in the shadows", "without scrutiny", attests surely to her personal lack of appreciation, and likely to her persoanl lack of experience. This is not meant as argumentative either, as there is no arguing taste... although there may be room for argument when one discounts something as diverse as "modernist painting" (which ranges from Manet to Scully, and a lot in between) in toto.

When I wrote of modernism working 'in the shadows', I was not limiting my definition of modernism to only painting, of course. These limits were placed by Ruthie, who doesn't like any of it... I'm sure there are more informed views to be heard on this.

16.

ordinarily strange

November 16, 2005, 5:57 PM

Marc-
is art something that you should understand or appreciate or both.
because then if it is something to understand- what if there's a misunderstanding?
artist means one thing- someone else interprets another.
It's almost like the Bible. In the end who's right?

*i find children baffling. How do they grow up to be old farts like us. I love thier views on art. So many questions, so many oohs and aahs. Never one class about art history. My younger cousin once told me he thought Picasso was funny (his mom majored in abstract art and tried to explain cubism to an eight-year-old).*

17.

Franklin

November 16, 2005, 6:01 PM

Goddamn it - Ordinarily Strange is Ruthie and the whole fictional crew from yesterday: Spunkee_munkee, Conelius, Spatula_head, whatever. I mean it: cut this shit out, now. I am highly motivated to prevent bogus conversations from appearing on this site. I occasionally go on comment-deleting sprees. I have threatened to force commenters to register. I wrote this CMS. Do not fuck with me.

18.

ordinarily strange

November 16, 2005, 6:03 PM

franklin relax.

We are not the same people. I am ordinarily strange from saturday's blog. I'm a student so the IP address might be the same. However if you want my commenting to stop give me a good reason. I don't think I've said anything that is offensive.

Or are some thinking commenters a threat to your blog?

Ordinarily hurt and strangely upset.

19.

Franklin

November 16, 2005, 6:07 PM

Hm.

Send me an e-mail, Ordinarily.

20.

Ordinarily strange

November 16, 2005, 6:07 PM

You know what Franklin–
Never mind. The use of expletives and such and you threatening me for being someone who was enjoying reading your blog, it really upsetting. In fact I am a student at the institution you teach at. Go figure. Your faculty teaaches us to think and ask questions and you make judgemental and (i might add) immature threats like that– then this is just a blog of bull. I think I've gotten more out of the groups on Myspace. How sad.

Sorry Marc, I was enjoying our conversation. Unfortunately, it's not good enough for Franklin.

a student of art.

21.

Ordinarily strange

November 16, 2005, 6:09 PM

check your mail. i'm going to class.

disappointed.

22.

london suede

November 16, 2005, 6:10 PM

"... everyone knows HOW to get the grant, the fame, etc... just reference the "in" topics, make sure to use some "new" media".

this is what I'm talking about, art seems to come from the outside and not from the inside. Artists (and I'm generalizing) seem to be looking more around them than 'in' them when choosing their projects, it's all a big old merger and aquisition deal between artist and gallery/show/event, set up in power point and bullet pointed.

23.

london suede

November 16, 2005, 6:22 PM

And also, why do we keep on talking about Modernism? I thought we were beyond that... In this day and age of the Cremaster series and Damien Hirst formaldehyde fetish, artists should start talking about their art differently and stop referring to modernism so much. .... its been 150 years since Luncheon on the Grass, lets give it a rest.

24.

Franklin

November 16, 2005, 6:31 PM

Okay, I think I owe Ordinarily an apology, here.

Ordinarily, if you're a student at school, don't send me an e-mail. I don't need to know. And nothing you said above or before is at issue. I had a thread yesterday that went on at length to no good purpose from several posters from the same IP/browser combination as the one you're coming from. I don't mind a few fictional entities here and there but I don't want to encourage a big population of them - I would like people to use their anonymity in good faith and not load the site with bogus material. You were clearly contributing in a legitmate manner. Sorry for trying to achieve peace through superior firepower.

Carry on.

25.

craigfrancis

November 16, 2005, 6:48 PM

everyone knows HOW to get the grant, the fame, etc... just reference the "in" topics, make sure to use some "new" media...

I think saying all one has to do to achieve fame and fortune in the artbiz is to reference the "in" topics is pure horseshit. it's not that simple or easy. I think that the vast majority of artists out there know what the in topics are, and many of them are guilty just as you say

26.

craigfrancis

November 16, 2005, 6:49 PM

ARRGHH

27.

craigfrancis

November 16, 2005, 6:54 PM

everyone knows HOW to get the grant, the fame, etc... just reference the "in" topics, make sure to use some "new" media...

ahem.

as i was saying

i just don't buy that arguement, Marc.

Hirst's Shark and Barney's Cremation are thematically very classical. There's alot more going on than "issues".

Oh, and I apologize for screwing up my earlier comments, dudes.

28.

Franklin

November 16, 2005, 6:55 PM

It's going around today, Craig. I just deleted my own post.

29.

that guy

November 16, 2005, 7:06 PM

yeah and I thought it was monday all week. Something is in the air and it ain't Basel

30.

Franklin

November 16, 2005, 7:24 PM

Ordinarily #4: I am wondering if a small part of the reason that art has somewhat lost some of its sacredness is found in schools (for example) that promise potential artists and designers these "great careers" in a short amount of time.

As a teacher I continually question whether the university is the appropriate setting for the teaching of art. I would just as soon adopt the model at the Aegean Center - no grades, no registration, no degree - just classes, show up if you want. It's not just an art school - it's a cure for art school. I wonder if something like it would fly stateside. However:

Ruthie #9: Schools are only offering what the "15 minute" youths of our society are demanding.

That's a wide brush but there's something to it. Maybe the world is big enough that if you wanted to go to a feeder school for a gallery, you could do that, and if you wanted a school that has Matisse's religious feeling about life, you could have that instead. Anybody have a couple million dollars lying around? WSJ hedge fund guys still in the house?

London #12: Is this a career in business? Now everything revolves around 'marketing yourself as an artist'; the art world seems so shallow and money driven that we can't even compare the present state of art to that of the past.

You know, it has always been a career in business, but the business has changed quite a lot. During the Renaissance artists were in vicious competition with each other, but everybody had shared values about art, those values praised skill, and consequently the business concerns and the artistic concerns were for the most part mutually reinforcing. Now there are heterogenous values, many of which have no use for skill, and so business concerns and artistic concerns tend to diverge.

Ruthie #14: I don't see many masters around these days. Maybe it is that focus on money lessening the value of the art itself. Mabe artists are losing themselves, by seeing only the check at the end of the tunnel.

Masters have to be masters of something. Pluralism has been bad for mastery. I think we're entering a period of minor masters - people who do their little thing supremely well.

London #22: Artists (and I'm generalizing) seem to be looking more around them than 'in' them when choosing their projects...

I tend to get this feeling myself. I often get the sense that they're riffing on memes from Artforum.

31.

Franklin

November 16, 2005, 7:47 PM

It looks like I owe Ruthie an apology too.

And this year's academy award for performing like a jerk goes to... Me! Thank you. I'd like to thank God, my agent, my accountant, and all the little people out there.

Bah. Time to go see if those cookies are still in the refrigerator.

32.

ordinarily strange

November 16, 2005, 8:20 PM

I'm back.
Franklin, how about we start over? No hard feelings and just me learning from some old pros- (no pun intended... old pro)... And maybe even you learning from some neophytes when it comes to new eyes looking at old but classic work.

I'd like to be part of a community– not a closed society.

re: Masters have to be masters of something. Pluralism has been bad for mastery. I think we're entering a period of minor masters - people who do their little thing supremely well.

explain that a little further?

33.

ordinarily strange

November 16, 2005, 8:20 PM

I'm back.
Franklin, how about we start over? No hard feelings and just me learning from some old pros- (no pun intended... old pro)... And maybe even you learning from some neophytes when it comes to new eyes looking at old but classic work.

I'd like to be part of a community– not a closed society.

re: Masters have to be masters of something. Pluralism has been bad for mastery. I think we're entering a period of minor masters - people who do their little thing supremely well.

explain that a little further?

34.

Franklin

November 16, 2005, 8:27 PM

A lot of double posts today. Is the server being pokey?

35.

Franklin

November 16, 2005, 8:33 PM

Oh. Full moon. Of course.

36.

Franklin

November 16, 2005, 9:30 PM

explain that a little further?

Well, what's a master? It's someone who has command of a skill base and what Max Doerner called the full flower of the art - inspiration that transcends mere skill. So if you have our contemporary situation, with hundreds of active influences on the shape of the art in production and no agreed-upon skill base, you're only ever going to find people who have mastered their particular take on art. Hegemonic masters require hegemonic movements, and we don't have one. We have a slew of movements, none of which are primary, and therefore we only have minor masters.

37.

onesock

November 16, 2005, 9:34 PM

As a teacher I continually question whether the university is the appropriate setting for the teaching of art. I would just as soon adopt the model at the Aegean Center - no grades, no registration, no degree - just classes, show up if you want.

I have begun adjuncting at two local schools and have a similiar quandry. The more I interact with the students I find that I value sincere engagement with the process over the actual finished product. I tire over students who constantly worry over their grade rather than the work-I am sure this is a universal problem. I am interested to see how other instructors assess their students' progress.

Artists (and I'm generalizing) seem to be looking more around them than 'in' them when choosing their projects...

It is important to look around us (not only in the art mags, but everywhere) and then within ourselves to determine how we respond to that stimuli. I think art is a conversation, therefore I find it useful to see what everyone is discussing before I join the party to add my 2 cents.

38.

onesock

November 16, 2005, 9:48 PM

,We have a slew of movements, none of which are primary

And this is bad?

This distinction between "minor" or "major" master (or even the idea of "master" itself) is a bogus remnant of the era of an agreed upon canon, which has been deemed suspect by our "pluralistic" society.

39.

Franklin

November 16, 2005, 10:04 PM

I am interested to see how other instructors assess their students' progress.

I have a big range of students in my classes - some are crackerjacks; some, God bless them, are uneducable. I have a system that counts attendance for 60% of their grade and successful homework for the other 40%. It works well enough, but really, I've concluded that all systems fail in some way and the Aegean Center model is the way to go. I'll lose my job if I stop assigning grades, though, so there goes that.

I recommend books by William Glasser, particularly Choice Theory and The Quality School. (There's also a Choice Theory in the Classroom which I haven't yet read.) There's also Nonviolent Communication, which, if you can get past the granola aesthetic, has some extremely helpful ideas. If you want to sour yourself on our educational system for the rest of your life, John Taylor Gatto is your man.

40.

Franklin

November 16, 2005, 10:07 PM

And this is bad?

No, it's just how it is. The canon isn't bogus - it's local to the aesthetic that values it.

41.

onesock

November 16, 2005, 10:09 PM

thanks Franklin, I will check those out. I really do enjoy teaching by the way. I hope my last post doesn't sound like I am a complete sourpus right out of the gates

42.

Wize guy

November 16, 2005, 10:16 PM

Nice back pedaling Franklin. I glad you ate your crow. You and the old boy should eat it more often. Eating your own crow is a humbling experience. You should also try to see yourselves as other see your tightly knit and smug little group. I encouraged my friends Spunkee_munkee, Conelius, Spatula_head, and others to join in this blog so that they might learn something about "Fine Art". You and the likes of the old fart treated them like shit.You guys were very mean and elitist Fart snobs. Shame on you.

43.

onesock

November 16, 2005, 10:21 PM

The crux of the problem is who determines what is in the canon, not the individual components of that canon. The zenith of (western) culture populated by dead white guys kinda thing. But this issue has already been addressed and rectified in various way since the 70s, hence the aforementioned lack of a single overarching movement.

44.

Franklin

November 16, 2005, 11:01 PM

I hope my last post doesn't sound like I am a complete sourpus right out of the gates

Oh, wait until you figure out that art can't be taught. That is a perfect bitch of a day. You want to chat about this, you're welcome to e-mail me.

I think the "who determines what goes in the canon" thing was sweated too hard. Artists have freely pulled from other cultures since the Egyptians. The canons are just there to use.

Wize: From my end, it looked like one person mouthing off to himself. If I was wrong about that, I apologize for hurting anyone's feelings. Let me clarify something for you, though - I don't care how other people see me. And I don't mean that to challenge you - I only mean that I have my own compass. If you're here to learn something, learn that.

45.

dirty sanchez

November 16, 2005, 11:56 PM

NOTE that it's refreshing to hear voices other than the clique that normally trolls this bear's den. (and OP is off and away..! h)

a welcome change of tune in this place.

g'night....

46.

that guy

November 17, 2005, 1:21 AM

wow, oldpro leaves for a few days and the vandals and visigoths close in. Our cultural is slipping faster than I thought. I'll be back when the insults are hurled at crummy paintings and not at our painter programmer blogger friend Franklin. and I thought I went on drunken blogging rants.

47.

Marc Country

November 17, 2005, 2:16 AM

Re: Ordinarily Strange #16:

To carry on the spirituality/aesthetics analogy, I'd say that yes, there is understanding, but, as if to cite scripture, I'll quote (as someone on this blog did back in September) David Smith:

"To understand a work of art, it must be seen and perceived, not worded.
Words can be used to place art historically, to set it in social context, to describe the movements, to relate it to other works, to state individual preferences, and to set the scene all around it.
But the actual understanding of a work of art only comes through the process by which it was created – and that was by perception."

This is the Tao of Art. Maybe Franklin will back me up on that.

I read an art critic once that put it something like, "Cognitiveness, without cognition". That sounds about right to me.

As for the artists intention, "intention" is a logical fallacy. A conclusion about realities that is based on intentions is only fooling itself. That is not to say that an artist doesn't serve him/herself well by indending to do the best work they can, but obviously, in ANY field, best intentions cannot necessarily guarantee best results.

Re: london suede #23
Why are we talking about Modernism?
Well, Sean Scully is the topic of today's post... Oldpro opened up the discussion by noting that, although Scully declares modernism's collapse, he still adheres to its tenets, which raises an interesting question... if it's not interesting to you, then don't comment (do I really need to write this?) Think harder, suede.

Franklin, I for one don't blame you for flying off the handle.. it does seem like there are many posts from few people these days... fuckin' WSJ readers, no doubt.
(Dislosure: Ok, fine, 'Fun with Anagrams' was me... I promise I'll try to stick to one handle from now on)

48.

Marc Country

November 17, 2005, 2:24 AM

Re: craigfrancis:
Sorry, It seems that you're a bit confused.

First, you call my generalization "horseshit", then you write that "I think that the vast majority of artists out there know what the in topics are, and many of them are guilty just as you say".

Are you arguing with me, or with yourself? Well, whoever you think you're trying to fool, just step back for a moment, and tell me if you can see a trend in contemporary art practice... pretend you're a martian explorer, trying to explain it to your people... how would you characterize it?

Second, it's Cremaster, not Cremation (or was that a joke?)

49.

jor

November 17, 2005, 3:12 AM

Lets remember people, 'a lot' is two words( I had to write it out 1000 times early in grade school).
Scully's painting work in the market two-fold:
1. -they offer hope to bold painters in that the simplicity and objectivity these paintings embody still entice collectors in want of a concrete art.
2. - in America, you can't loose with a stripe, a band, a plinth or anything that resembles a 'post war' aesthetic; from Russia to America with love.

- damn it sucks to be a white male...

50.

craigfrancis

November 17, 2005, 10:14 AM

i posted that comment accidentally, Marc, sorry. sorry also for that lame joke. what i was trying to get at was just that it's far more complicated than just plugging in the "in" topics into a piece to get fame and fortune in the artworld. alot of artists out there are doing that, but it doesn't equal automatic success. to suggest that it does is a cop out.

the vast majority of artists, whether they're landscape painters or cross-dressing video artists, will wallow in obscurity for their entire lives, bleak as that might sound.

51.

craigfrancis

November 17, 2005, 10:34 AM

oh yes. and there is of course a trend in contemporary practice, and it is for sure a tendency for artists to engage in Identity Politics (i know, i know, dirty words). but what's your point, dude? if i were a martian here in the 1860s, i'd notice how everyone began flattening the picture plane. would i surmise that Manet was just painting that way because it was trendy? Because Baudelaire wrote an article about it?

because flattening the picture and fleeting beauty were the "issues" of the day at that time, it doesn't render the work shite.

52.

Bob

November 17, 2005, 12:50 PM

"There is an illustrative quality in some of the figurative paintings being made now. I don't think they are very important paintings. They seem like easy listening to me. And some of the painters seem like book illustrators, but on a grand scale. Fairy story illustrators."

Thank you Sean!

Years ago in another life I moved art in Manhattan. I would deliver Sean Scully's stretchers to him. Made in Florida, delivered to lower Manhattan. They were built to just make it through the door, this after a flight walk up and a few flying Wallenda-type moves. And they are equally impressive. He should show at least one painting free-standing in a space to be viewed from behind. It would go with his "wall" theme.

Subscribe

Twitter @franklin_e

Instagram franklin.e

Offers

Other Projects

Legal

Design and content ©2003-2017 Franklin Einspruch except where otherwise noted