• Home Page
  • About this website
  • Biography
  • Dr. B's Notes
  • Contact
Richard S. Beam

39  Critics, Reviewers and Concepts!  Oh, My!

8/26/2015

0 Comments

 
Bonnie and I are members of the local art museum here in Omaha (the Joslyn Art Museum, if you really want the details).  It is a “smallish” museum (at least compared to the Art Institute of Chicago which we both grew up visiting every so often) but it has a rather nice, diverse collection with an interesting variety of pieces.  While admission to it is actually free, like many museums, it frequently (usually) has special exhibits, which do have an admission fee, and membership includes these admissions, discounts at the gift shop and the little cafe, as well as invitations to various special events.  All things considered, I’m happy we have become members and I suggest that everyone take advantage of his/her local art museums.  I think they are neat and being a member means that you don’t have to feel like you have to see everything at once and you can go back whenever you want to, even if you don’t have time to do the whole thing. 

Anyway, not too long ago we went to the opening of a new exhibit (one which was put together locally) of examples of recent art selected from artists in the Omaha/Lincoln area.  Before the official gallery opening, there was a discussion by members of the jury about how they went about selecting the pieces to be included in this exhibit.  I’m not sorry to have attended the opening, or this discussion, but I was reminded of my rather low tolerance for most critics and much criticism.  NOTE: I am making a clear distinction between a “critic” and a “reviewer.”  This distinction is, I believe, significant and important. 

A “reviewer,” as I am using the term, is simply expressing her/his opinion about a work, be it a work of theatre, poetry, movie, story, visual art, etc.  This often does (I think generally should) include some mention of what it is about the work under discussion which the reviewer finds interesting, exciting, moving, etc.  On the other hand, it is clearly an expression of OPINION.  It often might include some comparison to another work (especially in the case of a theatrical or musical performance, for example) such as, “I like the version of the song ‘The City of New Orleans’ that I heard Steve Goodman (the author/composer) perform live on ‘The Midnight Special’ radio program on WFMT in Chicago better than the one which Arlo Guthrie made famous, because I think Goodman’s version really captured the rhythm of a train and ‘works’ with the song better.”  Or, “I like the Kenneth Branagh movie of Hamlet because it’s the complete, uncut, play, but I enjoy the David Tennant/ RSC version more because I think it captures the sense of Hamlet’s ‘sane madness’ the best of any version I’ve seen.”

“Criticism” often does much the same sort of thing, although it often tends to be more “academic” and/or retrospective.  That is, many people (myself included) think of a “review” as an immediate reaction, while “criticism” implies a period of reflection and study, often involving some degree of research.  “Critics,” all too often, however, seem to have a proclivity for not expressing their opinions as opinions, but declaiming them as JUDGEMENTS.  “So and so is an important artist because she/he deals with the counter-cultural aspects of existence through the influence of non-traditional materials.”  OR, “This is a profound play (book, movie) dealing with psycho/social aspects of personality which the modern world struggles to understand.”  OR, “I hate to see Shakespeare’s plays performed because I get so much more out of them when I read them.” to quote one of my not altogether appreciated English professors from my undergraduate days.

I confess that I really dislike (“hate” may be too strong, as it implies that I care enough to invest that much emotion) this sort of “critic” and this sort of “criticism.”  It particularly bothers me because a lot of artists (seemingly especially visual artists) feel that they need to use the language of “criticism” to explain their art, so you find this sort of stuff all too often being posted near various works in museums, although I’ve seen an awful lot of it in theatre’s penchant for having a “concept” in production and, especially in design.  My primary objection to this sort of thing is that it seems that far too much of the time it seems to simply be a form of intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual) masturbation designed to impress other critics (and, perhaps, other artists).  I don’t find that much (if any) of it really helps me appreciate a work more.  I’ve never been afraid to assert that I have a right to my own opinion and a willingness to express it.  Nor, do I think others shouldn’t feel the same way.  A piece (of any sort) either “works” for you, or it doesn’t, and a lot of gobbledey-gook doesn’t make much difference.

As a scholar, I find it perfectly easy to acknowledge that Tennessee Williams wrote a number of highly important plays.  Probably A Streetcar Named Desire is at the top of most people’s list of his “greatest” plays.  I’ve never really cared for it.  I love The Glass Menagerie, but I’ve never really cared for Streetcar, or most of his other plays.  I’ll admit they tend to be well crafted, the characters have a sense of “roundness” and completeness which I admire, but they tend to be what I would call “unpleasant” people caught in “unpleasant” situations and I don’t particularly enjoy spending my time with them.  Glass Menagerie isn’t exactly about the happiest people or situations, but I find that I have a kind of sympathy for those characters and, perhaps, a greater understanding of their situation, so I find the occasional chance to re-experience that play is much more attractive to me than most of Williams’ other ones.  TO ME!  NOTE: I’m not suggesting that anyone has to agree with me, just that this is how I react to these works.

I believe that it was Goethe who suggested that criticism (I’m using the term pretty loosely here because it gets used loosely) should be based on three ideas: 1.) What was (were) the artist(s) trying to do?; 2.) How well did he/they do it?; and, 3.) Was it worth doing?  Goethe was, I believe, specifically discussing theatre criticism, but I think the ideas apply pretty well to all art.  I think that good art should be pretty much self-explanatory.  That is, it shouldn’t require the intervention of an “expert” to tell us (the viewer/purchaser/reader/consumer) what any particular work of art is “about” or what the artist was attempting.  Nor should they have the right to belittle those of us who think that a big part of an artist’s job is to make his/her point clear to us, rather than forcing US have to try to understand THEM. 

Ideas are subtle and most art seems to be at least somewhat subject to interpretation, so people can (should?) disagree to an extent about what is being attempted, and/or the level which has been achieved.  It is also true that a degree of experience with any art form can assist one in making more discerning judgments and seeing subtler details, but it shouldn’t require a fancy degree (or a doctoral dissertation) to figure out (more or less) what an artist has attempted to communicate.  Yes, I am old fashioned enough to believe that art has something to do with communication.  But, I don’t think that is quite the same as saying that it has to have a specific “message” which is fixed for all audiences at all times.  Sometimes just trying to express a mood or a feeling can be not only valid, but worthwhile. 

There’s a work at the Joslyn of which I’m very fond which is a repeating, digital video showing the life cycle of a tree through the year.  One can watch the buds form into blooms, the flowers fall, leaves appear, mature into full form, blow around in the wind, and eventually change color and fall to the ground revealing the tree’s bare branches and then, the process starts all over again.  This is done in full color and takes a bit of time (about a minute and a half, I think) to complete.  I have no absolute idea of what the artist was trying to “say” with this piece, but I can say that (to me) it communicates a mood relating to the repetition of the natural life cycle, a hope for the future, a desire to enjoy the life I have rather than worry too much about what is coming or what’s been.  It’s hard to put my response into specific words (it often is with art, I think), but it makes me happy and thoughtful at the same time, AND THAT’S ENOUGH FOR ME!  I think that’s at least a part of what this artist wanted people to experience when they encountered her work.  Might someone else “get” something else from the work?  Sure!  And that’s okay, too.  But, that’s pretty much what I think the artist was trying to do.  I am rigid enough to suggest that I think that a valid response to any work of art should in some way reflect the subject matter, medium chosen, etc….  That is, one should probably at least try to give the work a chance, but not everything is really going to work for every audience, and it does no good to blame the audience for not “getting it,” or to belittle their intelligence (or sensitivity) for not having the same response you do (which suggests that yours is the only “correct” response) which I find absurd!

Obviously, in the case of this video, I think the artist has done something pretty well.  I’ve seen it on two, or three occasions and I look forward to seeing it again.  It should also be obvious that I think it was worth doing because I think it’s had an influence on me, I want to see it again and I remember the feeling I have when watching it with thoughtful pleasure.  I have no idea how others would react to this piece.  But I really don’t care.  I like it!  It makes me happy, makes me think, makes me feel.  I think that’s what all art is supposed to be about.

All too often what we call “criticism” is about having someone tell us what we are “supposed” to think about something, how we are “supposed” to feel about it.  The obvious conclusion is that, if we don’t feel this way, the fault is with us.  I think that’s a load of “bull*/&#.”  There’s no reason why we all have to think and feel the same way about anything and the biggest mistake we can make is to accept being made to feel somehow inadequate because we don’t always agree with what the “experts” tell us about how we are “supposed” to react.  They MAY have more academic knowledge and experience than we do, but we still have our own emotional reactions (which might change as we acquire more experiences, etc).

The notion of this sort of “criticism” has (in the fairly recent past) spilled over into the theatre with the notion of “concept.”  We now have to have a “concept” for every production and every designed aspect of it.  To me, this has often lead to a lot of baloney in attempting to explain the reason why we are doing something which may, or may not actually be based on the ideas of the script, but which has been chosen to show that we can be “creative” and create a unique “interpretation.”  Now, I have nothing against creativity or uniqueness, but I believe that interpretations and productions should always serve the script, not be added on top of it to prove that the production team can be clever.

If it comes right down to it, every design I’ve ever done, play I’ve directed, etc. had one (and only one) ultimate “concept.”  That was to create a valid (meaning true to the author’s intent as I understood it) interpretation of this play, for this audience, with this production team, cast and crew, in this facility, at this time.  Just that can be enough of a challenge.  Sure, my colleagues and I often could come up with “critical” explanations, especially when we changed period, or the like, but they were, in fact, often made up after the fact.  Sometimes, we just wished to try out an idea which we thought might be interesting to us and the audience given the circumstances of that particular production. 

Steve Ayers, Susan Brown-Strauss and I did a "post-apocalyptic, Shakespeare meets Mad Max," production of Romeo and Juliet at one point because “… it would translate the play into terms which would be more transparent and comprehensible for modern audiences.” or some such.  The fact is that we just were all rather bored with the idea of doing yet another pink and blue, Renaissance period production and this idea gave us a chance to try something different and see if we could make it work (although we DID feel that the basic story is timeless enough that it should still make sense). 

I still remember that production and I think it was at least reasonably effective for our Cullowhee audience.  It’s worth noting that we didn’t change Shakespeare’s script (although we did, as I remember it, cut the Prologue).  We mostly just made visual accommodations to a different period: the set was composed of “bombed out” buildings and rubble; the apothecary became a drug dealer; the priest was a sort of witch-doctor shaman; the families became (essentially) rival gangs feuding over territory in a bombed out city “ruled” by a “boss” who was portrayed as powerful enough to be feared by both “families.”  Costumes were made to look like they had been scavenged from what might have survived an apocalyptic event (the Duke’s “armor” made from CD’s had an almost chain mail quality and just blazed in the light).  All things considered, it was a fun show to do at that point in our lives and just MIGHT have made some people think again before rejecting Shakespeare as being just another “old, dead, white guy” with nothing to say to modern people.  I hope that was the case anyway.

I guess what all of this boils down to is the idea that I think what artists are supposed to do is have, or find, the means to express ideas in some sort of form. Those forms can include literature, music, dance, theatre, motion pictures, a variety of other visual media (still and motion), etc.  Note that generally in the Theatre the basic ideas are first defined by the playwright and we, the theatre artists, create some of the means of expressing them to the audience! 

Still, in the long run, I believe that what’s truly good lasts and influences others.  Why?  Not because some “expert” says it is great, or important, but because it communicates something which, over time, a reasonable number of people respond to.  It changes them.  It makes them better.  It lets them feel! 

Does everyone have to like everything?  NO!  One can acknowledge the influence, or importance, or significance of something without finding it of personal value.  The all too often made mistake is thinking that because something can be considered to be of value, everyone has to “like” it or respond equally strongly to it.  To me, that’s the absolute dullest form of conformity, but it seems to be what some “critics” would advocate.

I’m not afraid to suggest that “I don’t know a lot about Art, but I know what I like.”  Call me a fool, if you’d like to, but I have no problem accepting that what moves you emotionally may not be what moves me – and that’s okay!

LLAP

0 Comments

38 Acting 1

8/12/2015

0 Comments

 
A few days ago I ran across this excerpt which I copied from an “Editor’s Note” in the February, 2013 issue of Stage Directions magazine.  It’s by Jacob Coakley.

 “The secret of acting is sincerity.  If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” —George Burns


I first heard that quote from an acting teacher in college.  He thought it was hysterical; I thought it was heretical.  At that point I was every inch a callow youth of 19 years.  Everything was measured in how authentic it was, how real, how vital, how emotional.  And I had an overabundance of emotion—I wanted to be an actor, for goodness’ sake.  Why would you need to fake sincerity?  I thought.  If you have it, you have it.  If you don’t—get off the stage.

But as I’ve moved through the years, I’ve come to appreciate the wisdom in that phrase.  Anyone who’s been in a show that’s run for more than two weekends (opening and closing) knows that a show can become a slog.  It can become repetitive.  It can become work.  And no one has the emotional stamina to truly feel all the emotions in Oedipus Rex night after night after night.  It’ll make you go a little crazy.  After all, there’s a reason it’s called acting, and not being.  You need the skill to act; you need the skill to represent a very convincing simulacrum of emotion, without actually falling prey to the same despair that causes people to stab out their eyes.

The important part is that the audience feel it.  If a play—the actors, set, lights, all of it—does a good job of representing the worst of us, the audience will happily feel the most wrenching of emotions and thank us for the opportunity.  That catharsis is why people go to the theatre.


I think that all too often, we theatre people tend to respond the way Mr. Coakley did to the idea that theatre is about “faking it.”  After all, such ideas constitute heresy, especially since Stanislavski taught us about emotion memory and the like. 

Of course, I wonder how many of us have actually read Stanislavski’s words about his ideas and have dealt with the fact that his “System” seemed to change a bit over his lifetime and that he really never intended it to be a way of training beginners, let alone beginners in another country than the Russia he was in while he was developing it.

When I was doing my doctoral course work, I did a major paper on Stanislavski for a course and read just about everything he had written (in the translations available at the time) as well as a number of things about his work.  Since the paper dealt with his work as a director, my focus wasn’t really on his words about acting, but I did read them, nonetheless.

Based on that reading (and some subsequent review) I think a good deal of what is taught as “Stanislavski’s System” is simply wrong.  I think (it’s what he certainly seems to say) he was trying to figure out a process for already competent actors to improve their competence, to be able to maintain a higher standard of excellence throughout a lengthy run and over a longer period of time, and that most of the aspects of the “System” were intended to help the performer to get a firm grasp on how the character might think and feel so that these can be performed at a higher level of simulated reality.

Of course, the playwright has already told us what the character does.  The actor’s job, then, is mostly making sure that what the playwright requires the character to do makes sense to the audience as what that character would do in that situation.  I think that may well be what Olivier (whom many people think probably knew something about acting) was driving at when he commented that you should “Have a very good reason for everything you do.”  I think what he meant was that for an actor to maintain sanity and be effective, she/he must have a completely worked out sense of the character being portrayed to the point that she/he understands not only what the character does at all times, but why she/he does that.

To me, that implies an importance to a thorough, careful analysis of the character, so that one can, in a sense, portray, or “become,” the character.  Note: I said “in a sense.”  Olivier also said “Acting is illusion, as much illusion as magic is, and not so much a matter of being real.”  I think that he meant here that the emphasis shouldn’t be on “being real,” but on creating the illusion of being so.  As Coakley said, “…no one has the emotional stamina to truly feel all the emotions in Oedipus Rex night after night after night.”  He’s right, you know.  Even just creating an illusion of such emotions can be pretty draining.

There’s also the fact that, no matter how hard we may try to really believe down on a basic, in-your-gut level, most of the time the audience won’t believe us anyway.  And why should they, when we make a point of calling attention to the fact that theatre is “Let’s pretend?”  After all, we take a curtain call at the end of the performance to show that Hamlet, Claudius, Gertrude, Ophelia, Laertes and Polonius really aren’t dead, but don’t you want to recognize the great job the actors playing them did?  Why is it that it’s become commonplace for advertisers to point out that the people in their ads are “Real people.  Not actors.”?  I don’t think it’s because they actually believe that we viewers don’t think that actors are, actually, people.  It’s because it’s an actors’ job to convince us that something which isn’t real, seems to be.

If everybody else in society seems to understand and expect that acting is not believing, why do we keep trying to insist that it should be?  Especially after Coleridge made a point of talking about theatre as requiring “the willing suspension of disbelief”?  Making the pretense of acting appear to be real is hard enough.  We don’t need to complicate the issue even further (and possibly endanger our psyches in the process).  My former colleague, Terrence Mann is quoted as having said that “Movies make one famous, Television makes one rich, and Theatre makes one good.”  I think that makes a lot of sense.

More people see movies than live theatre and your performance in a movie can survive for a long time.  Thus it is easier to achieve fame from movies than from doing live theatre.  Television can make you a lot of money, but it, all too often, works so fast and changes so often that, while one can get rich by doing it, there’s often not enough time to develop a character much beyond the surface and, on occasion, the characters are rather “typed” to be pretty close to the actor cast (or the actor is cast because of a reputation for playing that type of character).  Theatre, on the other hand, as Sherlock Holmes said in the West End Horror “…is a singular calling, a noble art but a dreary profession….”  It requires an almost fanatic dedication to doing the same thing over and over again, knowing what the result is going to be before you start, yet pretending that you don’t; and having to convince the audience of this, ridiculous, idea.  If you can do that over an extended period of time, to a variety of audiences, you have a real skill which is a large part of what we might call “good.”

Still, it IS a noble art, and as J. M. Barrie said, “Nothing is really work unless you would rather be doing something else.”  For those of us who are, or have been a part of the theatre, we understand that its challenges are what push us to be (as Terry says) “good.”  The worst thing about acting, to me, is that the best performers make it look easy.  This leads “civilians” to think that it is easy, but those of us in the “business” know that it is accomplished through great effort and tremendous dedication, often with sacrifices that many people would not tolerate.  It is (at least it can be) a “dreary profession.”  It doesn’t always pay that well, it requires long hours, is incredibly insecure, is tough on personal relationships, etc.  It’s an incurable disease which, once caught, can drive one most of his/her life. 

On the other hand, when it “works;” when everything in the production comes together and it all fits; there is nothing like it.  There’s a satisfaction which may not come too often, but it makes you want to get it again, so you keep chasing it.  I understand, I’ve been there….

LLAP

0 Comments

37  Some Pictures of RSB (for the heck of it)

8/6/2015

0 Comments

 
I decided that I would post a few pictures of my self just because I can.  I suppose that it's possible that there could be a reader, or two, who might care to see them, but I don't know.  After all, it's MY blog, I can post whatever I want.
Picture
This was taken while I was Chair of the Faculty at Western.  I always liked wearing a coat and tie for classroom teaching and meetings, probably because that's what my father did.  Back "in the day" it was considered "proper" dress for a professional person.  I guess I never outgrew it....
Picture
I put this in just because I like wearing my Apple polo shirt.  I don't think I ever wore it to work (I didn't think I should advertise for, or against, stuff on the job), but I've liked Apple stuff of all sorts since the late 1970's.  My collection of Apple coffee mugs numbers thirteen pieces -- all different!
Picture
I'm at the Biltmore House in this one.  Bonnie and I have been passholders there for a number of years and have enjoyed visiting the house and grounds a lot at all different times of the year.  I included this because I'm wearing my leather Mickey "bomber" jacket (it was Christmastime and cold).  Once upon a time there were Disney stores in malls which actually had stuff for adults and I got this many years ago when my daughters (who were little kids at the time) insisted that I should.  I admit, I've never regretted it and I still wear it.
Picture
I just got this tee shirt the other day at the zoo here in Omaha.  AS some know, I'm a "cat person" so the appeal is partially due to the tiger in the picture.  On the other hand, I've always suspected that I was never viewed as a "happy" person as I didn't make a big deal out of always smiling at people, so I thought the message was reasonably appropriate.
Picture
This was taken in the old shop next to the Niggli on my birthday a good many years ago.  As I remember it, my wife, Bonnie, showed up with the cupcakes, but I was surprised by Sarah, Ren, Joe and Scott (as I remember it) which accounts for the hat and mask.  I keep it around to keep me from getting too serious.


LLAP
0 Comments

36 A New School Year

8/1/2015

2 Comments

 
It’s that time again!  The school year is about to begin.  Here in the Omaha area, schools will open around August 10-12 (there are several districts in “ the Metro”).  That seems pretty early to me, but classes at WCU begin only a week later, so the usual “start of the year” faculty meetings will be starting about the 12th, I would guess.  Another year, another new start and another group of new students to wonder about, care for, wish good things for, and, occasionally, have to worry about.

Yes, in spite of what many of my former students may have thought, I often did worry about at least some of them a good deal more than most of them probably suspected.  Again, most probably won’t believe it, but I don’t think I ever assigned what is referred to as a “bad” grade, without a considerable degree of sadness.  Not enough sadness, I confess, to make me believe that I should assign a higher grade than I felt was actually earned, but some sadness, nonetheless.

I don’t think I was really very different from at least most of my colleagues in this, however.  I’ve never known anyone who was involved with education who actually enjoyed assigning low grades.  Yes, one could say that there is a minor amount of Sadism which can come out when one is developing tests, especially essay-type tests.  There is a certain gleeful wickedness in devising questions which require the responder to pull together disparate facts and try to explain relationships between them or between events and/or trends in the development of something.  NOTE: I am NOT apologizing for all of those Theatre History and Lit/Crit questions which I put on tests asking people to “compare and/or contrast” two plays; or explain what it would have been like to see this play during the period it was written; or how the theatre of one period is different from and/or similar to that of another period, etc.  You know, the questions which had “no ‘correct’ answer.”  I will admit that I often enjoyed thinking them up, but my intent was always to challenge the student to actually try to make the connections and see the relationships between the various periods, styles, performance modes, and the like; and then express their thinking in a manner which others could understand.  I knew (and still know) that this wasn’t easy, but I think that this was the point; it’s what education is supposed to be and do.  I hope those who have come after me have seen the value of this and have made it a part of their practice. 

I know I was, at least on occasion, criticized for not giving enough “positive reinforcement” to those who tried but didn’t obtain as high a grade as they thought they should.  What I’m not sure I ever explained as clearly as I might have is that the Theatre is a business of RESULTS, not just of efforts.  Robin Williams has told the story that one of his acting teachers once suggested that “Method acting can be like urinating in brown corduroy pants; you feel wonderful, but we see nothing.” 

I would add to that the idea that you (the student) are unlikely to find that many directors (even in education, let alone in the “real” world of commercial theatre) will spend much time giving “that was really good” notes.  Their focus is, almost always, on what ISN’T working.  Based on that, one could suggest that, for a faculty member, it is a part of the job constantly to push for improvement, not just to praise the work done in the past.  It’s only my opinion, of course, but I didn’t feel I was doing my job unless I was trying to make each of my students better at whatever they were doing in relation to that particular class.  My job was to TEACH them, not to build their egos in order to be their “friend.” 

If we could be friends along the way, so much the better, but that was not the point of what I was doing.  I did wish to be a friend to my students.  I wanted them to trust me to be fair, but honest with them, to tell them the truth as I saw it about their work.  Sometimes that led to praise; sometimes it led to some disappointment, on both of our parts.

But, what’s, ultimately, important in the theatre (as an actor, designer, director, scholar, writer, or whatever) is the result, not the effort.  If what you do isn’t effective in terms of communicating to the audience, it really doesn’t matter how hard you tried.  I think that’s what Williams’ teacher was trying to say about “the Method.”  If it helps you, fine, but your task, ultimately, is to communicate to the audience.  If that isn’t accomplished, it really doesn’t matter what you have done, or how hard you have tried.

Anyway, these are some of the things I have been thinking about as the new school year approaches.  I guess that it’s hard to break the habit of thinking about “school” at this time of year, even after one has been “out of it” for over a year.  I wonder if I’ll still think about this sort of thing in five, or ten, more years.  I suspect that I probably will, but that’s for the future to reveal.  In the meantime, I’ll just keep doing what I do, writing these postings and letting the world know what I think, if it cares to listen.

There’s an old Polish expression which I learned about from my daughters: it translates as "Not my circus, not my monkeys."  It means "Not my problem."  The new school year fits into this category for me, but that hasn’t stopped me from thinking about it.  For any of you who are about to start a new school year, you have my best wishes and kindest thoughts.

LLAP

2 Comments

    Just personal comments about things which interest me (and might interest others).

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly