July 28, 2012
You don’t have to be a realist to be a cartoonist

I am about to tackle something that is potentially very controversial in the art world.  But, someone needs to have the balls to say it.  There is a huge misconception about cartooning out there that’s been bothering me a lot.  Conventional wisdom dictates that cartoonists have to know anatomy like the backs of their hands in order for their work to progress and improve in quality.  People say things like, “Applying accepted principles of proper anatomy, perspective, backgrounds, line and clean color palettes to your comics, is the only way for one’s cartooning to improve.”  What a load of art school bunk this is!  Cartooning and life-based art are two completely different disciplines of creativity with completely different functions.  I think it’s high time that they are treated as such.

As someone who started making comics as an infant, years before I could talk or even think about accepted principles of anything, I find this mentality deeply frustrating and counterproductive. In some ways, this predominant aesthetic school seems to contribute to the rather distressing trend of homogenization and the imposition of society’s “perfection” ideals on all forms of art.  Cartooning has never been about perfection, but rather about someone telling a story and playing with media.  Good cartooning is all about expression and moments in time.  Cave painters of bygone millennia and children seem to know this innately.  Why do we as artists, insist on conflating life-based drawing with cartooning?

Here's How I Create My Comics

Here’s How I Create My Comics

As a multidisciplinary artist, I would never tell artists to stop improving their work or avoid studying art in a cross-disciplinary fashion.  The more an artist knows about art in general, the more creative doors will open.  To deprive one’s self of such rich learning opportunities is foolish. Nonetheless, cartooning and life drawing are two somewhat unrelated specialties, in spite of what the majority of art teachers lead students to believe. These two disciplines can exist independently and deserve to be treated as such. The basis of cartooning and life drawing is not as similar as commonly assumed.

Most students of art history are well aware of Goya’s influence in modern comic art, as well as Japanese and Egyptian court art.  However, this is a very limited view of what cartooning actually is. Cartooning, caricature and comic art have also been heavily influenced by primitive cave art, naive folk art, lubki panels, Tijuana Bibles and illustrations for children’s books.  These creative movements were not particularly famous for their anatomical precision or elitism. The styles of art are best known for their ability to capture a mood and/or cause amusement. Most importantly, these types of art tell a story. Punch magazine, which first used “cartoon” in the English language to describe something other than a full-size study for life drawing, when one of the staff artists sarcastically tacked it on sub-par drawings that just so happened to be funny.  This is a far cry from the critical expectations calling out for cleaner lines, perfect anatomy and shading.

For me, too much of modern cartooning reminds me of plastic dolls that move like computerized marionettes. Even some of the more streamlined pieces out there, seem like repetitive stained glass panels that remind me of an especially dull Sunday school service at an old church. Some cartoonists can pull off this type of aesthetic beautifully without sucking the joy out of it.  Too many people trying to emulate this type of technical perfection, the lack of graphic design sensibility, caricature skills and breadth of life experience to make such a technical style work in an innovative fashion.  One of my favorite comic artists, Jules Fieffer pretty much dispensed with anatomical realism and focused almost exclusively on expression.  Some of his best works are plagued with anatomical awkwardness, technical errors and “obvious” problems, but man, look at these cartoon works of art practically dance out of the canvas: Example 1, Example 2, Example 3.  Basil Wolverton, an absolutely fantastic cartoonist that Fieffer found rather distasteful, made some of the most hilariously drawn caricatures of all time by pretty much throwing all rules of anatomical and aesthetic decency out the window as he channeled his inner thirteen year old.  Sergio Aragones, another favorite of mine, is best known for insanely busy and rushed doodles that are also incredibly fun to look at.  Sergio, owes more to the study pantomime and profiteering off cheating students than life drawing, for his dynamic compositions and excellence as a comic artist.  Seriously.

Personally, I prefer working on comics and abstracts over realism. I dislike doing photorealistic work. I love simplified and unusual images than don’t exist in the real world. I love favoring expressions over precision.  Visual novelty inspires me. This is not because I’m lazy or incompetent.  On the contrary, I am actually a fairly competent painter.  Here’s some of my life-drawing based work:

Digital Color Map Drawn FreehandDigital Color Map Drawn Freehand
MassingMassing

Mass Overlaid On Scan of Cardboard Drawing to Make Sure The Proportions are RightMass Overlaid On Scan of Cardboard Drawing to Make Sure The Proportions are Right
Still Deciding Where Everything Goes Before I Add DetailStill Deciding Where Everything Goes Before I Add Detail
Final Painting Cropped and FinishedFinal Painting Cropped and Finished

I enjoy my art more when it looks loose, sloppy, alive and not at all like real life. I find great delight in subverting the rules of anatomical function, even though I am perfectly capable of creating competent life drawings. In fact, my goal is to forget the rules and pretend that I am a naive artist who is still drawing like a five-year-old who knows nothing of perspective, shading, line or any of that stuff I’m supposed to be abstracting. I just want to have fun goofing with media as with the painting below:

Example of my art.

Example of my art.

While learning sound principles of anatomy and formal abstraction can make for better types work in certain disciplines of cartooning, they are not necessary, as evidenced by many popular comic strips and cartoons. Likewise, storytelling, attention to emotional nuance and humor can make for better life drawing oriented illustration, but it is not necessary to pull off an excellently drafted piece. Why? Because each is a different art form with completely different functions, even if they can benefit from multidisciplinary cross-pollination.

9:22pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZNK34yQJ1Dtq
Filed under: art crossposted comics cartoonist commentary 
November 24, 2011
Buy Nothing

Everything in Fine, Keep Shopping.I had a bit of unpleasantness yesterday with some chap on a friend’s Google+ stream (which I feel horrible about.)  The catalyst of the argument was precipitated by a disagreement over Buy Nothing Day.  I will share the thoughts I shared on the thread, and my observations about this person’s reaction to them.

I am in participating in Buy Nothing Day. After Thanksgiving Sales are just a vat of deceptive advertising and manipulation of consumers. It really bothers me that stores can advertise a huge special on some coveted item (that’s more often than not pure hype,) yet only stock four of the darn thing.  Unfortunately, most don’t realize as the vague fine print usually only talks about “limited quantities”.  People camp out and sometimes even resort to violence for the sake of the prized item.  An honest business should not treat its customers like this.

I am not a liberal. I am conservative to the point that I find Republicanism to be offensive in its belief that consumerism is more important than actual conservative values such as family unity, thrift, honesty, quality, savings and helping fellow Americans.  Buy Nothing Day is a fantastic idea. Thanksgiving weekend should be about gratitude and family, not getting the best deal on foreign crap made by slave labor and sold by corporate welfare queens on a huge shopping day. You can thank Franklin Delano Roosevelt for that.

In addition to Buy Nothing Day, I am also supporting Small Business Saturday. I am very grateful to American small businesses for their contribution in our communities and for being the true engines of our economy. These businesses are the ones that deserve my dollars. I am not supporting semi-nationalized (and often foreign) corporations that only drain our economic resources and rob Americans of their prosperity with government-sponsored sweetheart deals, just because they sell goods cheap.  That’s an affront to conservatism.

Part of the reason I often feel compelled to buy at thrift stores, especially when certain durable goods are no longer made in a country I wish to support, is that those appliances and goods will last for decades as opposed to just a few years, if that long. Consumerism as we know it today, is what has deprived me of the choice to buy these quality (and often) American-made products. I want my choice back, so I will do my part to make it happen.  Cheap is no substitute for good values, and it is certainly not a reason to betray my fellow Americans.  I will pay more for an item if I know that there is honesty behind it and will cost me and my country less in the long-run.  Buy Nothing Day is not the admission that our only meaningful choices are choices about consumption. On the contrary, it’s about the admission that consumption itself is about choices.

Businesses do notice sales drops. That’s why retailers often discount their merchandise and lay off staff when they feel like the holiday season is going to be a profits stinker. Sometimes the panic among shareholders cause cuts in staff and prices, in an effort to attract more customers and retain profit earnings. Unfortunately, this often ends up backfiring and causing businesses to self-destruct. I’ve seen this time and time again.

It is immoral for government to prop up bad businesses that self-destruct, even if it costs jobs in the short run.   At least unemployed or exploited people are willing to protest and stop being politically apathetic.  The TEA Party and OWS are perfect examples of this. Adversity provides the possibility that people will have better jobs and a better economy in the long run, because business will be forced to listen to their customers and workers. The original unions and labor reforms were not formed by the complacent.  This might seem a cruel sentiment, but sometimes people need to be shaken out of their haze and awakened to the reality of an inexcusable situation.

The person who I debated, apparently was angered by my opinion.  He opposed to “Buy Nothing Day” because the action seemed like an empty token.  I disagreed.  Businesses live and die because of Black Friday.  It can portend the rest of the holiday shopping season.  This day is huge enough that a progressive President felt it necessary to change a holiday’s date as a gift to large corporations.

Because I expressed these thoughts, my antagonist on Google+ assumed that just because I retired at 38 and am not liberal, I earned what I have by taking advantage of surplus labor. He seemed to be under the impression that I was in favor of corporate exploitation and accused me of being a raging “self-justifying asshole,” because of said prosperity.  He was so angry, his attacks consisted mostly of personal digs.  Now, that doesn’t bother me because I realized that this person was just expressing his beliefs.  He is entitled to do so by constitutional right. What did bother me is the fact that he assumed that being well off automatically means that someone earned it by exploiting others.

I dug myself out of the worst poverty possible. I paid a huge price. I destroyed my body to the point of disability, left my family and loved ones for weeks at a time on work-related touring, had to put up with a lot of business politics and suffered through 16-20 hour workdays (often without pay) as a self-employed person. Yet, I also know that some lazy people earn prosperity simply by mooching off inheritance interest or taking advantage of corporate welfare. How one earns wealth can be so variable in morality and mode and, it is often unfair.

With these disparities in mind and this man’s irate reaction, I ran into the following article. I don’t necessarily agree with every point in it, but it’s food for thought.

Original Article

12:29am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZNK34yCLOk0P
Filed under: tumblrize commentary editorial 
June 30, 2011
Reader Response: Separation of Church and State in Regards to Gay Marriage

(Here at VAS Littlecrow, we publish art and writings that help stimulate thoughts that reflect a diversity of opinions and encourage healthy debate.  If you have a detailed response to any of the art or opinion pieces on this site, please let me know via the comments section or by email.  The following post is a rebuttal to A Comprehensive Conservative Defense of Gay Marriage piece from an atheist perspective.  It is written by The Idealist and is reposted by permission.)

I recently got into a discussion with Vas Littlecrow about her “comprehensive conservative defense of gay marriage.”  We started off rocky as I condemned her approach as bigoted and sensationalist.  While I stand by those claims, I do not in any way make them about her personal character, only about the rhetoric she used.  We have since come to an understanding and she requested I write a response to her argument.  While this is not a point for point rebuttal, I do feel it addresses the main contentions between our arguments.  The link to her original argument is directly below.  Please read her article first as mine deals largely with the issue she brings to the table.

Separation of Church and State in Regards to Gay Marriage

The concept of “separation of church and state” as we understand it today comes from a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in the state of Connecticut written by Thomas Jefferson.  This letter was a response to their concerns that their religious liberties were not seen as rights, but privileges given to them from government.  In his letter, Jefferson replies

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.[1]

Jefferson believed that a person’s choice of religion should not be regulated by the government.  He also qualifies this concept with the idea that government powers reach actions only, and not opinions.  Some could argue that this line is simply reiterating the previous and later ideas that government has no right to regulate religion.  It does not.  It limits the legitimate powers of government to actions so that it cannot punish thoughts, or create laws against thoughts or opinions.  This is not to say government is limited in what you do as a result of those thoughts. This states the opposite.  The government cannot make you chose Christianity over Islam.  It can however punish you for killing people in the name of your faith.  It can punish you for doing anything that it deems illegal regardless of your religious practice.  The Supreme Court elaborated on this idea in 1990 with the Employment Division v. Smith[2] case.  A religion neutral law is enforceable under the constitution regardless of how it affects specific religions.  It was a very main point of the founders to hinder the creation of a single “Church of America” similar to that of the Church of England.  It was seen as a secondary tool of the king to rule his subjects in a religious manner as well as a secular one.  After gaining independence from Great Britain, the founders wanted to create an entirely new form of government that was run by its citizens, and not tyrants from on high.  The connected power of Church and State that the King of England wielded was an effective one, one that the founders never intended for the “powers that be” of America to wield.  They split the powers apart and granted one to the people (religion) and one to the government (legislation).The idea that our government then requires atheists to run it, and religion to be stripped away entirely is preposterous. Religion, to those that follow one, is a lens through which they see the world.  It filters incoming signals from “reality” to the observer and laces their thoughts, beliefs, actions, and cognition about the world around them.  Religion is not the only lens, of course, and atheists are not immune to this bias.  Everyone has a bias towards something and away from other things.  It is the conflict of ideas created by our founder’s framework for government that forces legislation to continue.  Without the religious bias tempering the atheist’s, and vice versa, many people would feel victimized and marginalized by the government they voted for, something completely antithesis to what the founders wanted.  Their creation was not meant to follow their own Deistic beliefs but to mold and shape itself to the majority’s beliefs.  No secularist with any amount of historical instruction on the birth of America will claim that the country was created as an atheist nation.  Nor should Christian’s claim that it was born a christian nation.  The fact of the matter is, it was created secular, meaning personal views about religion or the lack thereof were to be excluded entirely.  They should be a non-issue, and never asked of those that run for, or already are in office.The founders were also great philosophers and clearly borrowed much of their ideas from philosophers past.  In fact, our current government is a creation of mixed philosophies by John Locke, Thomas Hobbs, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.  The founders were also very weary of Alexis de Tocqueville’s “tyranny of the majority,” which is why they created the separation of powers between the branches of government devised by John Locke.  It is this modification to the constitutional republic system that allows America to be uninfluenced by faith or religion.  While the majority may be christian, it is the safeguards against the tyranny of the majority along with the establishment clause that does not allow for a religious doctrine to become the law of the land, unless that law serves a secular purpose. Two examples are easy parallels to explain this concept: murder and marriage.

Murder
Murder has long been prohibited in religions all across the world.  The Ten Commandments are usually the first source an American will point out as an abolition of murder and murderous intent.  Murder in the bible is considered sinful by god and so he commanded his chosen people to abstain from any form of murder.  He wrote this rule among nine others on two stone tablets and gave them to Moses to take to the people.  This is why Christians are told not to murder, because it is sinful, and sin distances you from god (or sends you to hell / purgatory depending on the denomination).The prohibition of murder in society however also has a valid secular purpose as well.  If you ask anyone on the street if murder is immoral and wrong, chances are 99.99% of them will say yes.  These people include the religious and the non-religious alike.  It does not take a deity to come to the conclusion that suffering caused by murder should be avoided.  If murder was not illegal, those suffering from antisocial personality disorder, a snap in judgment, or just plain disregard for human suffering, would cause a lot of problems in society.  This is part of the reason the social contract exists between a people and their government; it is to protect them from themselves and others that may wish them harm.  So while murder may have religious reasons to be illegal, there exists secular ones as well which give our government the authority to make such laws against murder.MarriageMarriage started as a secular endeavor in human affairs.  Historically, women were subjugated to a lower status than men and were considered property by them.  Marriage as we understand the union today began in ancient Greece.  It arose as a solution to inheritance through the patriarchal line.  If a man died before he could bear a son, his daughter was forced to marry the closest male relative to ensure the family inheritance.  This process was unaffected by the woman’s marital status before her father’s death. [3] Religious institutions were not involved in the construct until 110 CE when bishop Ignatius of Antioch wrote bishop Polycarp of Smyrna exclaiming, “[I]t becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust.[4]” Even then the process was secular, though approved by the church. No ceremony was held, no vows before god to remain faithful, etc.  To be unfaithful in this era was to blaspheme against your husband and against god, and the secular law required your beheading because of its close ties to the religious law of the land.  Until the Council of Trent, a priest wasn’t even required.[5] This is what marked the beginning of marriage as a religious institution, but it has remained secular according to the governments that have fallen and been replaced over the years.

In our current government, marriage is a secular institution that is granted many rights and benefits for those that choose to be members.  If a person is married in America, they are afforded such rights as tax-free transfer of property between spouses, funeral and bereavement leave, joint adoption and foster care, joint tax filing, making spousal medical decisions, and so on[6].  The list is quite large, and none of these things above are considered religious freedoms granted to them by their church.  The religious nature of your marriage does not grant you any of these rights and denies you from others.  An Islamic marriage in America is the same as a christian one, at least according to the government.   While it does not harm your marriage to have a priest, or sheik, or any other holy man say a few words and grant you the blessing of your god, ultimately, it does not affect the status of your marriage.Gay MarriageWhen religion, and religious bias is separated from the government and its institutions, there is no reason why the marriage between two consenting adults (or three, or eight, or however many you choose) should be prohibited.  The problem arises when religious bias of the majority influences the voting process and restricts rights from a minority within the system.  Many, if not all, of the arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature.  “It is a sin against god,” “if we allow gays to marry, what’s next? Polygamy or bestiality?” “marriage is a religious institution,” “what will I tell my kids?” are all arguments that have been made against gay marriage.

The Slippery Slope Argument

The slippery slope argument is flawed in two ways.  The first being the person who is making the argument is biased against multiple person marriages because of their religious beliefs.  The second is the idea that somehow gay is the same as animal.  According to the idea of separation of church and state, religious laws should not be created as secular laws unless they serve a legitimate secular purpose.  There are secular reasons the government may wish to limit the number of persons in a marriage.  There are also clear secular reasons why bestiality should be banned.  This line of reasoning also loses sight of the idea of “consent.”  Multiple persons can consent, animals cannot.  Religion is not required to make “consent” a mandatory requirement for marriage.

Marriage is a religious institution

We have already discussed how marriage neither began as a religious institution, nor remains one today.  The only aspect of marriage that is considered religious is the couple’s choice of holy man or no holy man at all.

It is a sin against god

It may be a sin in your particular religion.  The problem is that it may not be in another’s.  It may be a blessing to be gay in another religion (as it is in the Lakota tribe).[7] The conflict between the two religions is the exact conflict desired to be removed from government discourse. Separation of church and state protects Christianity from the Lakota belief of three genders and homosexuality as a blessing.  It also protects the Lakota from the Christian belief of homosexuality as a sin. That is the beauty of separation of church and state. It is a secondary mechanism along the separation of powers to stop the “tyranny of the majority.”

What will I tell my kids?

What a person tells their child about homosexuality is between the parent(s) and their child(ren).  If these parents can explain heterosexual love, they are already equipped with the tools to explain homosexual love.  If a problem arises between the parent’s religion and homosexuality, then the parent is not forced to tell their child that homosexuality is okay.  That is their religious belief and cannot be infringed by the government.  However, the parent cannot justify their condemnation of homosexuality in legislation because of that religion.  To do so would cross the wall.

In summation, the separation of church and state protects us all from each other’s religions that we disagree with.  I may not agree with your idea of god, and you may not agree with the Lakota, but none of us has the legal authority to deny any of the three of us civil rights granted by the government.  And marriage, as it stands today, is one of those rights.

[1] http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith
[3] “Marriage, a History.” Psychology Today, May 01, 2005
[4] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-polycarp-longer.html [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent
[6]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits
[7]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender#Third_gender_and_the_concept_of_homosexuality

Original Article

10:57am  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZNK34yG5H6uK
Filed under: crossposted vaslittlecrow tumblrize commentary guest post 
November 29, 2010
The World According to Monsanto

Note: I am not personally opposed to GMOs, or more specifically transgenic lifeforms, per se, but rather how they are used.  As a Taino, I am proud of the technological feats of agricultural prowess that pre-Columbian Amerinds were able to achieve in terms of creating high-yielding food crops.  Genetically modified hybrid crops that have naturalized into the ecosystem such as potatoes and corn, have saved countless people from starvation.  I find great delight in many useful hybrid food items such as pluots and Puerto Rico’s very own naturally occurring GMO, the chironja.  Animals such as mules have served mankind well.  With that said, I have a huge problem with government interference in commerce, science and agriculture.  I also have big issues with sloppy workmanship, interference in the peer review process, mislabeling and other deceptive business practices.  This video is an absolutely stunning and convincing example of how these issues have the potential to devastate our food supply and national sovereignty (as in the case of Paraguay.)  Do yourself a favor and watch this video from beginning to end. It’s close to two hours long.

If you find this presentation by Marie-Monique Robin to be of value, I suggest you buy the book, or the dvd to support her work.

Original Article

12:31pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZNK34yC1qbsC
Filed under: tumblrize commentary 
September 24, 2010
Transnationalism

I will never speak at the UN because any organization that sells itself as being a multinational coalition, but ultimately supports transnational interests over national sovereignty in a blanket fashion, is nothing more that an abomination. This is why I don’t support open borders, or unregulated immigration, either.

The Taino side of my ancestral culture was devastated because no one saw the need to have secure borders at the time.  If my ancestors had been more selective about who could enter Puerto Rico (those who are helpful and willing to advance the culture,) and who could stay out (violent criminals and invaders,) Boriken’s Taino civilization would probably still exist. Mexico’s government is obviously engaged in a passive war with the United States, and has forcing their “undesirables” and the poor out in order to make them our problem.  This is why Mexico has opposed border enforcement in recent years.  The United States government enables this atrocious policy of non-enforcement, because corporate interest are too hungry for cheap slave labor.  That and this country is too politically correct to admit to the fact that hidden slavery is a more bigoted industry, than demands for culture assimilation by aspiring immigrants.

Transnationalism goes against every territorial monkey instincts us humans possess.  It’s also the reason cultures go extinct, which ironically, is a “tragedy” many supporters of transnationalism like to bellyache about.  If organizations or individuals are going to support the transnational cause, I’d prefer they be honest about it, and do it for ethical reasons (whether I agree with them or not, as in the case of Doctors without Border, Greenpeace, the Vatican, Oxfam, et cetera.)

Original Article

1:17pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZNK34yC1qm5U
Filed under: tumblrize commentary 
September 23, 2010
Is having a baby a fundamental right?

Making babies, just like having sex (gay, straight or otherwise)  is not a right, nor is it a privilege.  It’s just a biological function.  Are reproduction, or the destruction of a fetus, rights?  Absolutely not.  These are choices about our bodies that have great power over the fate of the prenascent.  These choices must be made with great care.

Should there be any social restrictions, shame, peer pressure or taboos applied to sexual activity?  Of course.  As a rule, societies don’t want to encourage reproduction in individuals who aren’t ready to reproduce, can’t provide for their children or, those who reproduce irresponsibly.  With that said, people do have a choice in whether to accept the “shame” or not.  After it became obvious that I could not reproduce in a safe manner, I chose to be sterilized in spite of social pressures against doing so.   Do people shame me, criticize me, or encourage to adopt because of my decision?  Yes, and it is their right and (depending on their belief system,) their duty to do so.  Do I care?  No, because their opinions are really none of my business, and I lead my lifestyle in a place and in such a way that those social pressures are greatly minimized.

Likewise, had I chosen to get married to another woman (regardless of whether it’s legal or not) and had I chosen to make a baby (either by adoption or with sperm donor,) I would probably live in a place where that’s considered socially acceptable, or I would keep it on the sly for as long as possible.  Just because there are societal expectations, it doesn’t mean that an individual has to accept them; even in places where it is life-threatening to go against the norm.

Is it be ethical to force abortion, celibacy, sterilization or, other type of eugenic reproductive control on anyone who is deemed unfit to make babies?  Absolutely not.  Is it ethical to force intercourse or, pressure people into marriages for the purpose of reproduction.  Again, no.  Is it ethical to make these choices by one’s own volition?  It really depends on one’s personal values.  To paraphrase the words of 1 Corinthians in the Christian Bible: Everything is permissible, but not everything is advisable.

Original Article

1:18pm  |   URL: http://tmblr.co/ZNK34yG5F5-A
Filed under: crossposted vaslittlecrow tumblrize commentary 
Liked posts on Tumblr: More liked posts »