clennell on thu 6 oct 05
We own a $600 Bruce Cochrane teapot. Mind you it was Cdn dollars, so does
that count? Lucky for me, I traded with Bruce. It sits on the mantle in our
livingroom and we've never had tea from it. The t-pot forms a visual
function for us. It is a piece of art. Hell, many of you would think nothing
of having a painting framed for $3-500, but a $600 teapot raises a stir.
Why? You are potters, aren't you? Why don't you surround yourselfs with pots
that inspire you? I think a $600 piece of art is very reasonable.
If we don't value our art form, why do we expect others to?
cheers,
Tony
Tony and Sheila Clennell
Sour Cherry Pottery
4545 King Street
Beamsville, Ontario
CANADA L0R 1B1
http://www.sourcherrypottery.com
http://www.sourcherrypottery.com/current_news/news_letter.html
Sue Cline on thu 6 oct 05
Thanks Tony - again you have nailed it.
I'm a part-time potter with a day job to support my art.
One of my favorite potters, who has become a friend and mentor through the years, makes beautiful miniature and also very large porcelain pots -- bowls, vases, bottles, garden sculptures. Mark Bell is talented, meticulous, well trained, thoughtful, generous, and a very good marketer as well. His work reflects all those attributes. His work is also very expensive for the average-income person. I save all year to purchase one or two his functional forms which are, to me, ART. They speak to me as art. I don't "use" them. I look at them, fondle them and am inspired by them. This goes for some pieces by other clay artists I admire as well.
If he made $600 teapots, I'd be saving for one. But I'd probably never pour tea from it.
Sue Cline
Cincinnati, OH
USA
Potters' Council Member
-----Original Message-----
From: clennell
Sent: Oct 6, 2005 9:12 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: I own the $600 t-pot
We own a $600 Bruce Cochrane teapot. Mind you it was Cdn dollars, so does
that count? Lucky for me, I traded with Bruce. It sits on the mantle in our
livingroom and we've never had tea from it. The t-pot forms a visual
function for us. It is a piece of art. Hell, many of you would think nothing
of having a painting framed for $3-500, but a $600 teapot raises a stir.
Why? You are potters, aren't you? Why don't you surround yourselfs with pots
that inspire you? I think a $600 piece of art is very reasonable.
If we don't value our art form, why do we expect others to?
cheers,
Tony
Tony and Sheila Clennell
Sour Cherry Pottery
4545 King Street
Beamsville, Ontario
CANADA L0R 1B1
http://www.sourcherrypottery.com
http://www.sourcherrypottery.com/current_news/news_letter.html
______________________________________________________________________________
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
Steve Slatin on thu 6 oct 05
Tony --
The teapot question seems to have brought out some
strong feelings here ... let me possibly make things a
little worse.
It's arguable that you don't own a $600 teapot at all.
You own a work of art of indeterminate worth, which
is in the form of a teapot. Any vessel is defined by
its use. A small soup bowl is a tea cup if you use it
for tea, it's a candle holder if you put a candle in
it, it's a change-holder if you keep your change
their, and it's a paint pot if you mix paint in it.
Your Cochrane has never held tea. It may be a work of
art, but it ain't no teapot. And, as for its value,
nothing is more arbitrary than the valuation of a work
of art.
A pencil sketch signed "Picasso" may be worth $50,000
or more (one recently sold for just under $600,000).
If it turns out to be a forgery, it may be worth only
fifty cents. If it later is revealed that the forger
was a 'name' forger (don't laugh, there are big-time
collectors of fakes) like Elmyr de Hory it may be
worth $2-3,000. And there's a difference in the going
rate between de Hory fakes from when he was getting
away with it and afterwards, when he was doing them
just as a giggle for friends. (There's room for
rumination on this -- the value of real fakes vs. the
value of fake fakes ... Pynchon touched on this
question in "The Crying of Lot 49.")
If we insist that pottery is art, we're saying it
shouldn't be used -- as you don't use your Cochrane.
I understand that folks may find that the acceptable
cost of tableware differs, but if we want folks to use
it, they have to be able to buy it in quantities that
make its purchase possible, and $200 plates and $80
soup bowls don't make for an affordable table setting.
I may underprice some of my work, but I view the
biggest challenge in my work as convincing people NOT
to admire the work and leave it untouched, but to use
and enjoy it daily. Some of us on this list may be
willing to use $600 teapots and $300 tea bowls, but my
clients are not. Maybe in SF or NYC there are folks
with sufficient income, but not where I live.
-- Steve Slatin
--- clennell wrote:
> We own a $600 Bruce Cochrane teapot. Mind you it was
> Cdn dollars, so does
> that count? Lucky for me, I traded with Bruce. It
> sits on the mantle in our
> livingroom and we've never had tea from it.
Steve Slatin --
Drove downtown in the rain
9:30 on a Tuesday night
Just to check out the
Late night record shop
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Wayne on thu 6 oct 05
I'm not going to qualify or quantify any of the arguments posted in
this thread. I will leave that for the far more eloquent among us.=20
But a note of simple logic:
There is talk about "use" or "not using". Balderdash!!
Every time I "look" at a pot I own, I am using it. Whether it ever
sees food or tea, or not; it is still being "used". Just for a
different purpose.
Functional? Non functional? BAH!!
If it makes my heart sing, if it makes me smile, it is serving a
purpose, and it is "functioning" to do so.
I can turn around right now, look at a Rhudy, a Voulkos, a Clennell,
a Hendley, a Love, a Phillips, a Farley and more...and my heart
sings, and I smile, and the load of my day is lifted a little.
There can be no higher "use" than that, no matter the design or
intent.
Wayne Seidl
Lee Love on fri 7 oct 05
Short note. Gotta go back to the studio:
Tony, I am glad you are using the rice/granola bowl. It was a thank you=20
for sending Dave and his friend to see me.
On 2005/10/07 13:19:29, clennell wrote:
> We own a $600 Bruce Cochrane teapot. Mind you it was Cdn dollars, so=20
does
> that count? Lucky for me, I traded with Bruce.
*Hehe.* It is the way us "cheapskates" get good pots. ;-)
But yes, a $600.00 tea pot ( especially in Canadian money) is more in=20
"the realm of possibilities" for me than a $2,500.00 one. ;-) I could=20
trade a tsubo for it.
I own an $8,000.00 tsubo: Nuka and Tenmoku. It was a New Years Gift. Got=20
it in the "New Year's Lottery" during my apprenticeship.
My graduation gift (sort of a diploma) is a salt fired blue Matachawn.=20
It's worth about $7,000.00
But I couldn't pay good =EF=BF=A5=EF=BF=A5=EF=BF=A5 or $$$ to buy them to=
day.=E3=80=80=E3=80=80=E3=80=80Someday,=20
I'd like to own a Hamada Matchawan. And a nice Yi ricebowl. For now, I=20
enjoy them at the museum, in catalogs, or in books.
But this has little to do with how I price things. Like I said=20
previsouly, (and it wasn't a statement to specifically support low prices=
):
If you know WHY you make the work, you won't be led by the short-hairs=20
by other people's prices. If you let a tasteless guy with no aesthetic=20
sense (this is what I see Tony's "Rolex Guy" representing), dictate what=20
you make or what you charge, you creative work will suffer. Only the=20
other hand, If you only see yourself as as a producer of goods for mass=20
consumption, you will always be behind the 8-ball.
--=20
Lee Love
in Mashiko, Japan http://mashiko.org
http://seisokuro.blogspot.com/ My Photo Logs
"To the ambitious for whom neither the bounty of life nor the beauty of=20
the world suffice to content,
it comes as penance that life with them is squandered and that they=20
posses neither the benefits nor the beauty of the world.
And if they are unable to perceive what is divine in Nature which is all=20
around them, how will they be able to see
their own divinity, which is sometimes hidden." - Leonardo Da Vinci
david mcbeth on fri 7 oct 05
>
>
>If we insist that pottery is art, we're saying it
>shouldn't be used -- as you don't use your Cochrane.
>I understand that folks may find that the acceptable
>cost of tableware differs, but if we want folks to use
>it, they have to be able to buy it in quantities that
>make its purchase possible, and $200 plates and $80
>soup bowls don't make for an affordable table setting.
>
>
>-- Steve Slatin
>
It shouldn't be used? If I buy a painting because it is a piece of
art that I find appealing and desire to own, most would say I've
bought a piece of art. If I then carefully wrap that painting in a
soft canvas blanket and place it in a storage box which put in the
back of my linen closet does that painting cease to be art because I
am not "using" it? Do I have to serve mashed potatoes and peas out
of the $400 Otto Heino bowl in my kitchen to be using the bowl to
complete its being as a pot. Can't the potential of its use be
sufficient. I bought a set of juice glasses at IKEA a few weeks
back. Out of the six, I've only used one, are the other five not
fulfilling their existence? If I use them once and never again are
the various teabowls, the Dick Lehman tokkuri (which has yet to taste
sake), the Tony Clennell mugs and so on only pots for a short time
and then art again or what happens?
Strong coffee this morning and no classes til after lunch
Dave
--
David McBeth, MFA
Professor of Art
Assistant Director of Honors Programs
330 B Gooch Hall
The University of Tennessee at Martin
Martin, Tennessee 38238
731-881-7416
Steve Slatin on fri 7 oct 05
David --
I see by your sig that you're a perfesser, and I don't
wish to get into a stretch of discussion that may
exceed the length of a good dissertation on this, but,
yes, 'art' is typically not 'used.'
Your example is revealing of traditional prejudices
about art. One, right away, it's a canvas. (You
picked painting, not me.) Now, what can we do with a
piece of canvas about which we know nothing? We can
put it in a light wooden frame and winnow wheat in the
traditional fashion. We can patch a damaged canvas
sail or blue jeans with it, if it's the right weight
and weave, but that's not going to be the case if
there's paint on it. In any event, 'use' of the
canvas as canvas eliminates the usability of the
artwork as artwork. Yup, we both distinguish between
'art' and 'craft' and 'art' is the stuff that isn't
used.
A painting is a final condition. Once the artist is
done, there really isn't anything else that can be
done with it (though there is that hilarious example
of someone erasing a deKooning and presenting the
erased, blank paper as a separate work of 'art').
There isn't really anything the purchaser can do with
it except look at it. And, if you wrap it and put it
in a closet, you aren't doing anything at all with it.
Like your unused glasses, it takes up space and does
nothing, being neither utilitarian nor decorative.
If, in either case, you hold an item for resale (and
do not 'use' it), it's an investment, and not art.
Some stock certificates are fun to look at, but if
they're locked up all the time, what difference does
it make? Might as well wrap them up and put them at
the back of the linen closet.
And if you have a small desk that's much, much too low
to use and you turn those glasses upside down and
place the desk on the glasses, they're shims used to
adjust the height of the desk. Saying they're juice
glasses (or water glasses, whatever) if they've never
been used to hold liquid is about as sensible as
saying life-time celibates are actually parents
becuase they could have been if they'd only gotten
around to it.
From where I'm sitting as I write this I can see a
5-chambered hsun-ok (kyauk-ka form, the so-called
'pumpkin' style), a kamawa-sa (in tamarind-seed
writing, my ex-wife got the manuscript box for it in
the divorce) and a Kengtung Ko-kau-tee with gilded
thayo figures on it. All of these are being used as
decoration, that is to say, as art. There hasn't been
rice in any of the vessels for as long as I've had
them, and the kamawa-sa hasn't been read at least
since the day I bought it.
And forgive me for the utilitarian approach, but if
your Otto Heino bowl has never held anything, then
it's a decorative piece in your life, regardless of
its shape.
Regards -- Steve Slatin
--- david mcbeth wrote:
>
> It shouldn't be used? If I buy a painting because
> it is a piece of
> art that I find appealing and desire to own, most
> would say I've
> bought a piece of art. If I then carefully wrap
> that painting in a
> soft canvas blanket and place it in a storage box
> which put in the
> back of my linen closet does that painting cease to
> be art because I
> am not "using" it? Do I have to serve mashed
> potatoes and peas out
> of the $400 Otto Heino bowl in my kitchen to be
> using the bowl to
> complete its being as a pot. Can't the potential of
> its use be
> sufficient.
Steve Slatin --
Drove downtown in the rain
9:30 on a Tuesday night
Just to check out the
Late night record shop
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Steve Slatin on wed 12 oct 05
Kathy --
Interspersed, below --
--- Kathy Forer wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2005, at 1:20 PM, Steve Slatin wrote:
>
> > And forgive me for the utilitarian approach, but
> if
> > your Otto Heino bowl has never held anything, then
> > it's a decorative piece in your life, regardless
> of
> > its shape.
>
> Couldn't it also be said that a bowl is decorating
> what it's holding?
Well yes, but the example was of a bowl that had never
been used to hold anything. I've no strong opinions
on the artistic relationship of the soup I had for
lunch (tomato) vs. the bowl it was in (John H's
Raspberry over Cassius, giving a dark red with
sparkles). On a good day, they're both high craft.
Incidentally, that Cassius stuff just stain the living
poodle out of everything it touches, I stopped using
it because it transferred so much color to everything
that came after ...
> What's more functional, the bowl or its contents?
>
> ...
Oh, gosh. That's over my pay grade. Probably depends
on the contents, eh?
> Pottery is often made to provide decoration and
> variety to
> subsistence diets. The line between serving a
> purpose and decoration
> is defined by the moment.
>
Interesting thought, and makes me wonder about the
history of pottery decoration. Apropos of which, one
of my theories (this is a 'theory' at below the level
of scientific theory, which is to say, it is
completely unsupported by information of any kind) is
that the prevalence of basket-weave ornamentation in
primative pottery comes from the use of baskets ...
when you haven't got anything to carry stuff in,
baskets are fairly easy to make; then yo can haul
food, etc. around. Now you need to get water, along
with, say, blood oranges and rock cornish game hens
back to your campfire, but it runs out of the bottom
of the basket. Puxa vida, what to do? Well, the
water's running in a river, the river bank is made of
clay, so you flatten out some clay and line the basket
with it; now it holds water. But maybe on a cold
night as you rip apart your game hen and orange,
squatting by the fire, you don't want to drink cold
water ... you push the basket near the fire, and a
spark leaps out. Sacre bleu, the reeds go up in
smoke, and the basket is on fire! You stand up,
muttering "well, that tears it" and go for more water.
When you get back, the basket is ashes but the clay
is fired, the water is warm, the vegetable matter that
fell into the heated water has made a dark, healthful
infusion, and you think ...
Yes ...
The nature of the item is changed by its utilization!
(& to quote the cartoons, I'm such a sneak ...) The
craft of pottery is born! And the tradition of a
basket-weave pattern is established.
> Even the most basic bowl or the cheapest Walmart mug
> decorates what
> it contains.
Well, you seem to be saying that there is NO such
thing as a totally utilitarian piece. I'm not sure I
agree. Not sure I disagree, just haven't thought it
over.
> It has a purpose but the purpose is
> void without the
> stuff inside, therefore "potential." If a
> Staffordshire pudding dish
> or a redware mixing bowl are sitting in a glass
> fronted cupboard or
> on the kitchen table between meals, does that make
> them decorative?
Oh, heck ... now you're practically on the other side.
Wal-Mart junk is decorative, but a Staffordshire
pudding dish isn't? I might swallow one or the other,
but I just can't take both.
> Not really. Function is momentary and transitional,
> potential or
> active. Only a machine works all the time, and some
> kind of physics
> might dispute that.
>
> At several points about twenty years ago buildings
> all over my city,
> possibly to conform to new code, were removing
> antiquated roof
> exhausts, great old stovepipe. Collected in
> dumpsters, the T and Y
> shaped stacks of varying color and patina were as
> much art as
> anything else.
OK, now I'd say you're entirely on my side.
Utilization defines the object.
> Only in their application are they
> active. A body at
> rest has potential energy.
>
> Doesn't the theory of bricolage allow for anything
> to fulfill any
> purpose, for a rubber band or chewing gum to be
> useful materials of
> plumbing? It reduces the band to its essential
> design, a flexible
> strap, gum to elastic filler. They would as well be
> slingshot and
> phytoestrogen.
Well, you're out of my league again. I am but a
humble potter .... I wouldn't know the theory of
bricolage from the works of Augustine in Greek (and I
don't speak Greek) ... doesn't the word mean something
along the line of "if your only tool is a hammer every
problem seems like a nail?" Like a prisoner using a
spoon as a shovel to dig out of prison?
>
> The inherent design of a painting is flat, flat
> flat. It goes on a
> wall or table support (as an object) but it is the
> merest veil beyond
> a platonic form. Its clearest function is illusion,
> for whatever
> purpose or reason. Murals from Lascaux to Mexico
> appear decorative
> but also serve to inform and communicate socially
> and politically.
>
> By removing painting from the wall and framing it,
> making it
> portable, easel painting becomes icon, -- decorative
> icon, religious
> icon, status icon, -- representation of something
> other than its most
> inherent form, defined flatness.
Fair enough, but the image that the painting is
remains an image ...
> For function, give me apple over bowl, cake to plate
> any day. I can
> always use my hands.
OK, but when you want that infusion you'll be back
here begging for my burnt-basket-clay teapot (less
spout) ... can't brew your Earl Gray in your bare
hands.
>Everything else is chewing gum,
> enhancing and
> facilitating experience or action, but as aides, not
> essentials.
>
> Kathy Forer
> rambling in transit, sic transit gloria mundi
Steve Slatin --
Drove downtown in the rain
9:30 on a Tuesday night
Just to check out the
Late night record shop
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
Kathy Forer on wed 12 oct 05
On Oct 7, 2005, at 1:20 PM, Steve Slatin wrote:
> And forgive me for the utilitarian approach, but if
> your Otto Heino bowl has never held anything, then
> it's a decorative piece in your life, regardless of
> its shape.
Couldn't it also be said that a bowl is decorating what it's holding?
What's more functional, the bowl or its contents?
...
Pottery is often made to provide decoration and variety to
subsistence diets. The line between serving a purpose and decoration
is defined by the moment.
Even the most basic bowl or the cheapest Walmart mug decorates what
it contains. It has a purpose but the purpose is void without the
stuff inside, therefore "potential." If a Staffordshire pudding dish
or a redware mixing bowl are sitting in a glass fronted cupboard or
on the kitchen table between meals, does that make them decorative?
Not really. Function is momentary and transitional, potential or
active. Only a machine works all the time, and some kind of physics
might dispute that.
At several points about twenty years ago buildings all over my city,
possibly to conform to new code, were removing antiquated roof
exhausts, great old stovepipe. Collected in dumpsters, the T and Y
shaped stacks of varying color and patina were as much art as
anything else. Only in their application are they active. A body at
rest has potential energy.
Doesn't the theory of bricolage allow for anything to fulfill any
purpose, for a rubber band or chewing gum to be useful materials of
plumbing? It reduces the band to its essential design, a flexible
strap, gum to elastic filler. They would as well be slingshot and
phytoestrogen.
The inherent design of a painting is flat, flat flat. It goes on a
wall or table support (as an object) but it is the merest veil beyond
a platonic form. Its clearest function is illusion, for whatever
purpose or reason. Murals from Lascaux to Mexico appear decorative
but also serve to inform and communicate socially and politically.
By removing painting from the wall and framing it, making it
portable, easel painting becomes icon, -- decorative icon, religious
icon, status icon, -- representation of something other than its most
inherent form, defined flatness.
For function, give me apple over bowl, cake to plate any day. I can
always use my hands. Everything else is chewing gum, enhancing and
facilitating experience or action, but as aides, not essentials.
Kathy Forer
rambling in transit, sic transit gloria mundi
Andrzej Koschmidder on wed 12 oct 05
Hi Jeanie,
For my surprise I've get a message from You. I live in Wejherowo, small town
not far from Gdynia/Gdansk in Poland. Try to send the message again to
Kathy. The one thing I like similar tu you is ceramics.
good luck
A.K. Wejherowo, Poland
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeanie Silver"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: I own the $600 t-pot
> Dear Kathy
> Can you speak a little more on the theory of bricollage-Iknow the term in
> reference to some artist's work, like Dubuffet's. but is there a
> philosophical underpinning not generally known? How do I find out more
> about it? Ialways read your posts for their thoughtfullness and humor.
You
> sound wide awake... thanks
> Jeanie in Pa.,USA
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
>
>
Jeanie Silver on wed 12 oct 05
Dear Kathy
Can you speak a little more on the theory of bricollage-Iknow the term in
reference to some artist's work, like Dubuffet's. but is there a
philosophical underpinning not generally known? How do I find out more
about it? Ialways read your posts for their thoughtfullness and humor. You
sound wide awake... thanks
Jeanie in Pa.,USA
Kathy Forer on thu 13 oct 05
Dear Jeanie,
Thank you for the kind words. I'm often awake at 3 AM. 9AM is more of =20=
a challenge. Humor helps fill in the gaps.
A precocious bricoleur, my limited set of percepts and concepts, =20
materials and tools was formed early on and includes a barely =20
rudimentary gloss on Structuralism, movements of philosophical, =20
linguistic, mathematical and anthropological thought on "the inter-=20
relationships between some fundamental elements, upon which higher =20
mental, linguistic, social, cultural etc "structures" are built, =20
through which then meaning is produced within a particular person, =20
system, culture."
Mostly I like the words and put them together in ways that please me, =20=
often mishandling or overworking them in the process.
Claude L=E9vi-Strauss, french anthropologist born 1908, first talked =20
about bricolage as "the creative rearrangement of a given set of =20
elements" and applied the term bricoleur, -- previously and still =20
somewhat known as "someone who works with his hands and uses devious =20
means compared to those of a craftsman," -- to mythical thinkers.
While she is clearly highly educated, Kelly's words are those of a =20
bricoleur whose "mythical reflection can reach brilliant unforeseen =20
results on the intellectual plane." A scientist of the concrete =20
mythological.
"The bricoleur scientist does not move abstractly and hierarchically =20
from axiom to theorem to corollary. Bricoleurs construct theories by =20
arranging and rearranging, by negotiating and renegotiating with a =20
set of well-known materials." EpistemologicalPluralism.html>
Cultural theorist Herv=E9 Varenne
info/levstcld066savamind.html> gives a good introduction to L=E9vi-=20
Strauss's theories as set forth in "La Pensee Sauvage," (known in =20
English as "The Savage Mind," but apparently a pun on a perfumeless, =20
purifying tea made of tripartite wild pansies). Wikipedia, "the free =20
encyclopedia," ever-informative, sets the context for L=E9vi-Strauss's =20=
development of structural anthropology,
Claude_Levi-Strauss>.
I'm trying here, but just can't come up with much of an overview. I =20
refer you to the great medieval mind of the wild wide web.
Of the books, Levi-Strauss's Savage Mind is somewhat more accessible =20
than his later four volume Mythologiques which includes The Raw and =20
the Cooked, often assigned in art classes. See Roland Barthes too.
If you know bricolage as it relates to Dubuffet, -- though there =20
appear to be post-modern complications with his work, -- you know =20
bricolage of materials. Add in Duchamp, Schwitters, Calder, various =20
rap artists, Dada, a craftsman in isolation, CMS systems and Fluxus, =20
you're familiar with making do with what is available.
On Bricolage, Assembling Culture with Whatever Comes to Hand, by Anne-=20=
Marie Boisvert, translated by Timothy Barnard www.horizonzero.ca/textsite/remix.php?is=3D8&file=3D4> speaks more =20
directly to how "art is not created in isolation." Be sure to click =20
on the flash version.
Perhaps someone else can speak more extemporaneously about these =20
potentially unified theories of everything.
Kathy
still in {sic} transit
On Oct 12, 2005, at 2:23 PM, Jeanie Silver wrote:
> Dear Kathy
> Can you speak a little more on the theory of bricollage-Iknow the =20
> term in
> reference to some artist's work, like Dubuffet's. but is there a
> philosophical underpinning not generally known? How do I find out =20
> more
> about it? Ialways read your posts for their thoughtfullness and =20
> humor. You
> sound wide awake... thanks
> Jeanie in Pa.,USA
| |
|
