Documentation of the Researchlabs (February 2017)

Rietveld Academy Researchlab “Neuropower”.

Rietveld Martina performance Reverse5Rietveld Martina performance ReverseRietveld Martina performance Reverse3

”Rivers, Reverse” video performance by Martina Gudmundson

Rietveld Hansje performance actor

OPERATOR #4  by Hansje Hofland, the performative part.


The jury (from right to left): Edith van der Heijde, Eye experimental film distributor, Mark-Paul Meyer, Eye film senior curator, Claartje Opdam, Eye exhibition project manager.

rietveld film staraudience rietveld2audience rietveld


Anna Abrahams, EYE programmer introduces the Researchlabs. On the screen: Moral Retreat Centre by Elizaveta Federmesser.

Towards a Seamless Cognitive Cinema by Nicholas Avedisian-Cohen (UvA Mediastudies Master student)

Review of Neuropower, EYE on Art ResearchLab, 28 February 2017

Neuropower, composed by students of Gerrit Rietveld Academie, thoughtfully inaugurated the recent EYE on Art Research Lab. This opening program included ten original student film-pieces (screened over 75 minutes) and offered remarkable insight into new collective curatorial practices.

By way of introduction artist-curators conceded the theme “neuropower” might appear an overly vague curatorial framework.[1] The denotation offered in the program notes was not especially sharpening – “Neuropower referring to the brain as one of the most complex phenomena on our planet and its enigmatic power of control versus the loss of control” (EYE on Art 3). Nonetheless, the program managed to beautifully sequence original works that collectively traced the philosophical contours that its overarching artistic construct evoked.

The challenge in any such evocation lies in harmonizing individually conceived works by artist-curators as a singular experience. Checefsky (109) examined pertinent tension between the artist and curator role, often falling back on sociological clichés that somewhat broadly (and perhaps disingenuously) cast artists as art market outsiders. His narration of the dynamic between the artist-as-curator in his own practice emphasizes individual erasure within historical intertextuality (ibid). In Neuropower, a different kind of effacement occurs whereby interpretive works collectively cohere under a singular elusive abstraction. One notices for instance, in each of the pieces displayed, varying depictions of water – rivers, pools, bathtubs, puddles, as well as symbolic allusions to streams through camera work and editing. This repeated trope has an immersive effect, reverberating philosophies of cognition – John Searle’s philosophical tract against machine-consciousness, in the water pipes of his “Chinese Room argument” (422), springs to mind. [2]  This allusion is further elaborated mid-program with the live video performance Rivers, Reverse where artist-curator Martina Gudmondson ambidextrously draws on plotter paper ‘river’ and ‘reverse’ in English, French, and Arabic  – a live-enacted film projection at once of language learning and the merging of left and right lobes of the brain. This notion of water-flow as mysteriously akin to thought-flow remains prominent. One notices the French ‘reve’ formed when ‘reverse’ is being written, casting back to the hallucinatory, emotive, and dreamlike film Escape from Eden that precedes the live visual demo. Inscription as enacted mental phenomenon reemerges again as a gripping trope in LE MACAOUR, with indexical drawn-on-film figures over a lone recorded figure in a bathtub.

This intertextuality operates on a more profound and holistic level than what Checefsky describes in his practice as artist-curator re-appropriating lost texts (102-104). One is encouraged to read these Neuropower pieces as synaptic relays, sites and processes building towards a larger understanding of the unfolding, one-off, supra-textual experience. To take the biological metaphor further, viewers encounter the boundedness of each piece like a membrane, porous but identifiable. The same actors/artists/curators reappear in different films, assembling a hovering meta-text that ingratiates viewers as well. [3] The opening film AEIOUY underscores the viewer-brain as pattern-recognition machine by scrambling transcribed banal dialogue. This naturally guides further engagement, heightening sensitivity to macro-textual patterns throughout.

A prescient aspect of Neuropower is the reconfiguration of traditional viewership. Stéphanie-Emmanuelle Louis, historicizing the curatorial career of Dominique Païni at Cinémathèque Française, offers a relevant aside on cinema as “conquered” (327) art newly consigned to the museum. Showcasing Neuropower within the EYE museum further codifies this, but the program itself gently pushes against such confines, echoing Païni’s advocacy for “adapted spaces” and establishment of “gallery-theatres” (ibid). Neuropower is engrossed with the mental phenomenon of virtuality, self-reflexively referring back to the physical viewing space. The program is prefaced by appeal to a virtual video installation, Moral Retreat Centre, only remotely accessible as a Facebook page that viewers are encouraged to access by mobile phone app. This prologue “installation” (EYE on Art 2) coyly appeals to viewers to clear the mind, empty of it weighty morality, and enter the program to potentially “reinvent their inner software” (ibid). Awareness of our virtual space finally resurfaces in the closing piece. Hansje Hofland’s Operator #4 beautifully re-enacts a virtual becoming, depicting utopian/dystopian brain-in-vat tele-controlled matrix dream world, which abruptly ends with a live-projection of the audience onto the screen they are watching – the final un-puncturable silence of the program. This enacts an endless entering/exiting of spectatorship, articulated as exploratory mode of human thought. Neuropower thus literally achieves the repositioning of viewership that concerned Richter and motivated her CDZA project (Richter n.p.). Neuropower, however, more specifically appeals to moving image spectatorship, striving for an immediacy that manipulates cinematic forms and conventions in exciting ways. The considered juxtaposition and sequencing of its autonomous moving-image events realizes the enthralling possibility of thinking cinema through programming that Louis theorized (328). Compared to the prosaic program that followed – the more literal-minded and quotidian topic On Migration Neuropower aims for and reaches a curatorial practice of significant philosophical depth and poetic imagination.


  1. Initial encounter with the term brought to mind generic sales-speak, reminiscent of the type of name used to market energy drinks or nutritional supplements.
  2. Searle proposes a thought experiment of an elaborate system of water pipes functioning as neural simulation network meant to demonstrate that the artificial appearance of knowledge of language like Chinese can be generated for an outside observer in an entirely illusory manner. The notion of this mental demonstration also seems to have inspired another film in the program, Rivers, Reverse. That neurological power is very tangibly a model of hydroelectric power on a different scale is an association I had previously never actually fully considered before this program.
  3. Thus even conceptually weak parts of the program, such as the film RAI, are buoyed and imbued with meaning and resonance. The film preceding RAI, Gaspard Combes’ Fill Up, embodies the very temporal bizarreness of how thoughts are pieced together, explaining by strange mimesis the indexical mechanics of mind. The same concept of mimesis recurs in a surprisingly different way in ZU HILFE ZU HILFE, a longer piece following it five films later. Some works in the program are without opening title, though each piece has closing credits and was punctured by concluding applause. These audience-introduced breaks actually felt transgressive, such was the immersive unitary feeling of the whole program.


Checefsky, Bruce. “Erasure: Curator as Artist.” The Artist as Curator. Ed. Celina Jeffery. Bristol: Intellect, 2015. 97-112.

“EYE on Art Program Manual.” February 28th 2017.

Louis, Stéphanie-Emmanuelle. “Exhibiting/Editing: Dominique Païni and Programming at the Cinémathèque Française at the Turn of the Centenary.” Preserving and Exhibiting Media Art: Challenges and Perspectives. Eds. Julia Noordegraaf et al. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013. 326-330.

“Moral Retreat Centre, Facebook.” Elizaveta Federmesser. Accessed March 2, 2017.       

Richter, Dorothee. “Artists and Curators as Authors: Competitors, Collaborators, or        Team-workers?” 19 (June 2013): n.p. Accessed March 2, 2017.

Searle, John R. “Minds, Brains, and Programs.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3.03 (1980): 417-424.

St. Joost Academy Researchlab “On Migration”.

st.joost miriam introduction

Introduction by Miriam Bestebreurtje, head of Master Programmes at AKV|StJoost.

st.joost students on stage

The students:Aubane Berthommé, Rik Schutte, Eric Patel, Mark Alvar Peck, Daan Muller, Daleen Bloemers, Vivian Bax.

st.joost lecture eric pateldsc02603dsc02588dsc02586

Eric Patel’s lecture, Stream Studies.


Migrating Between Artist and Curator by Zsombor Bobák (UvA mediastudies Master student)
Review of On Migration, Eye on Art ResearchLab, 28 February 2017

The premise of the EYE on Art Research Lab is “…to provide scope for a new generation of curators and artists to hone their skills”. The program of the Research Lab is constructed by art academies and universities across The Netherlands. What is clearly visible from the program that took place on 28 February, is that the boundaries between the role of the artist and the curator is blurred. But what does that mean with regards to the actual program? Does this overlap between artistic and curatorial positions strengthen the exhibition of objects, or does it rather leave the audience on its own with an unstable framework?

While many of the presented works served as food for thought, the overall curated program remained obscure and poorly constructed. Bruce Checefsky argues in “Erasure: Curator as Artist” that “The exhibition space is a narrative space; the curated exhibition is the story” (100). Checefsky pens here a fundamental point about exhibiting: the exhibition space is to be filled with a story, and this story is written through the process of curation. The segment titled “On Migration” by the students of the St. Joost Academie, for instance, failed to assemble a powerful narrative despite the prominence and the urgency of their chosen theme. In this segment specifically, the curatorial choices made by the artists successfully opened up the topic of migration by excavating certain abstractions in the underlying mechanism of the phenomenon, however the presented narrative remained immensely fragmented and the individual voices of the separate works overpowered each other and did not make a claim. While letting the works speak for themselves is certainly a practice that has liberating effects and that challenges traditional museological and curatorial positions, in the case of such an acute, permeating, and grave occurrence like that of migration, a more solid, overarching curatorial argument would have made a stronger program.

This issue of a weakly constructed narrative in the case of “On Migration” reflects on the blurred boundaries between artistic and curatorial positions. Checefsky argues: “The artist as curator faces a dilemma of identity when organizing an exhibition, a struggle to become the specialist; curator as artist lacks certain credibility among artists” (110). Checesfky poignantly pinpoints that the dimming of such positions will result in tensions. In my view, these tensions could allow for the re-configuration of dominant stances in the discourse of exhibiting, but that requires a tight collaboration between artists, curators, and audiences, as the three main protagonists. This is in line with what Dorothee Richter states in “Artists and Curators as Authors: Competitors, Collaborators, or Team-workers?”: “…artists and curators are involved in a power-shaped constellation. Only through shared content-related interests, political articulation, and joint positioning strategies can concerns be formulated that shift hierarchical arrangements into the background” (16).  Even though Richter leaves the audience out of the equation she still formulates a crucial point about power and the different positions different protagonists take. With regards to “On Migration”, a more significant curatorial influence was needed for the program to attain a more demonstrative shape.

Nevertheless, promising curatorial decisions also took place. Daan Muller’s Cycling weaved through the entire show not only reflecting on the work’s very nature and on a particular aspect of migration where emotional hardships meet physical ones, but also provided a spine to the program. The rendering of the displayed works tended from abstraction towards realism, ending with Marko Peck’s Defining Nationhood where the impossibility of borders separating nations reveals itself through land and cityscapes. The block focused on abstract notions of migration and ephemeral, often emotional attributes of the issue, such as the effects of discrimination as shown in Their Gaze, or the feeling of moving but not reaching a destination as portrayed in I wish I was an Air-dancer. The floating nature of these affections came through very vividly and emerged as the organizing force of the show. In this vein, the program seemed to be edited, just like a film, a curatorial/artistic method that Stéphanie-Emmanuelle Louis discusses in her essay. As such, the program gained a cinematic feel in itself that I found to be its biggest strength.

In conclusion, the program of “On Migration” as part of the EYE on Art Research Lab blurred the boundaries between artistic and curatorial positions, but rather than challenging rigid notions and power relations in the discourse of exhibiting, it took a fragmented and confusing shape. It effectively conveyed certain aspects of migration and it had an edited, montage-like feel to it that elevated the experience, but it lacked an overarching narrative and a curatorial statement that would have made for a more powerful program. Artistic and curatorial position can be brought closer to each other with a productive effect, but that requires a higher extent in the exchange of expertise.


Checefsky, Bruce. “Erasure: Curator as Artist.” The Artist as Curator. Ed. Celina Jeffery. Bristol: Intellect,

  1. 97-112.

Cycling. Dir. Daan Muller. St. Joost Academie, 2017.

Defining Nationhood. Dir. Marko Peck. St. Joost Academie, 2017.

“EYE on Art – Research Lab.” EYE Film Museum. Amsterdam. 28 Feb. 2017.

I wish I was an Air-dancer. Dir. Daleen Bloemers. St. Joost Academie, 2017.

Louis, Stéphanie-Emmanuelle. “Exhibiting/Editing: Dominique Païni and Programming at the Cinémathèque Française at the Turn of the Centenary.” Preserving and Exhibiting Media Art: Challenges and Perspectives. Eds. Julia Noordegraaf et al. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013. 326-330.

“On Migration.” EYE Film Museum. Amsterdam. 28 Feb. 2017.

Richter, Dorothee. “Artists and Curators as Authors: Competitors, Collaborators, or Team-workers?” Ed.

Michael Birchall. 19 (2013): 1-18. June 2013. Web. 27 Feb. 2017.

Their Gaze. Dir. Aubane Berthommé. St. Joost Academie, 2017.

Sandberg Institute Researchlab “para-real”.

sandberg studentssandberg shristiesandberg lucsandberg benedikt

The students: Shristie Budhia/Amelia Clark Productions, Luc Windaus, Benedikt Wöppel.


Judith Leysner, teacher at Sandberg.

producer with two researchlab posters

Poster of para-real (on the right) + poster of Trance and Moving Image + Eye producer, Anna Dabrowska.

Curating the Self by Vincent Baptist (UvA Mediastudies Master student)

Review of Para-Real, Eye on Art ResearchLab, 28 February 2017

This review covers the third curated programme that took place during the EYE on Art Research Labs on 28 February 2017, in which several students of the Amsterdam-based Sandberg Institute showcased a series of video works. With “Para-Real: The Future is Present” as the overarching title of their programme, the Sandberg students’ aim was (or appeared to be) to visualize, narrate and pinpoint, through several experimental films, certain prevalent tendencies in contemporary life that alienate and render artificially relationships, communication and societal processes. These can therefore potentially be envisioned or conceived as current signs and precursors of a rapidly approaching future. In this regard, the Sandberg programme description on the EYE on Art weblog talks about the collapsing of boundaries between the real and the artificial, and how fictional visions of the future could help to understand these current developments. Yet, apart from using speculative fiction to make sense of the present, the Sandberg students also inscribed and revealed themselves, as artists and curators, in the screened works.

Nevertheless, the film programme initially started with an introductory announcement from Judith Leysner, coordinator of the Sandberg Fine Arts Department. In my opinion, this already caused some confusion with regard to the curatorial status of the presented programme: didn’t the students curate this programme themselves, or is Leysner the actual curator (as indicated in the programme booklet as well), who showcases the works of her artistic adepts? Despite this initial dilemma surrounding curatorial identity, however, Leysner certainly did not cast herself into the possible role of an authoritarian meta-artist, like Harald Szeemann did during his self-centered exhibition at Documenta 5 in 1972, for instance (Richter). Regardless of this issue, it still remains fruitful to make certain observations and evaluations with regard to the curatorial roles and works of the Sandberg students.

Venus in Scorpio, the first screened work, was created by a female student under the moniker of ‘Amelia Clark Productions’. Considering the fact that this work prominently deals with the younger generations’ continuous self-construction through digital media by which “they’re simultaneously turning into flattened images of themselves”, as the programme booklet describes, it is striking that the film’s creator uses an artificial moniker herself to sign her work. In this way, the artist behind this work seems to fall prey to the same “heightened state of selfawareness” that is affecting the film’s protagonists. Venus can thus be seen as an investigation and self-critique of the artist’s own attitudes towards relationships, and her speculations about future developments of human interaction. Yet, even though Venus investigates tendencies of detached human behaviour, Putnam does also note that artists’ “frequent preoccupation with the self” (qtd. in Checefsky 109) is useful in breaking down the impersonal character of art exhibitions.

After the screening of the Sandberg programme, the artist who created Venus mentioned that this project was initially conceived and produced as a Vimeo-web series. This leads to another insight with regard to the curation and screening of this work. By curating Venus as one long, uninterrupted film, the screening at EYE could be understood as a sort of test to see to what extent the separate web episodes are actually able to materialize into a continuous, overarching narrative. Or to paraphrase Dominique Païni: the various parts of the web series are layed end to end in order to generate dramatic purposes (qtd. in Louis 326).

Païni’s interpretation of programming as akin to editing can, to some extent, be recognized in the screening of the edited Venus-series itself (Louis 326). Then again, the Venus-project extends Païni’s suggested analogy between film and programming to contemporary video-streaming websites. A similar thing can be said about Benedikt Wöppel’s I Found Pills and Ate Them, the last work screened during the Sandberg programme. Wöppel’s video series is conceived as a self-generated flow of dystopian YouTube-videos, including the automated ‘loading screens’ of the video platform as transitions to move from one narrative to another. Wöppel can thus be considered a curator in the sense that he uses the YouTube-interface to structure and select a personal playlist or stream of videos for the audience. Even though an online video platform is deployed for curatorial means, one still can recognize Païni’s “collage programming” (Louis 326).

Luc Windaus, the second Sandberg student, didn’t stretch Païni’s analogy of editing to a digital platform though, but rather pointed it in a different direction. In the process of mixing up early documentaries with animated sci-fi films, Windaus showed a cacophony of superimposed images and different format ratios. Here, editing becomes the means to show the artist’s own “write-and-erase practice”. Like the other two videos, Windaus’ work revealed ‘the self behind the screen’, not by means of an online platform, but by curating his own inspiration and working processes as an artist.


Checefsky, Bruce. “Erasure: Curator as Artist.” The Artist as Curator. Ed. Celina Jeffery. Bristol

and Chicago: Intellect, 2015. 97-112.

“EYE on Art: Year 2016/17.” EYE on Art. 2016. EYE Film Institute Netherlands. 2 March 2017.


Louis, Stéphanie-Emmanuelle. “Exhibiting/Editing: Dominique Païni and Programming at the

Cinématheque Française at the Turn of the Centenary.” Preserving and Exhibiting Media Art: Challenges and Perspectives. Eds. Julia Noordegraaf et al. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2013. 326-30.

Richter, Dorothee. “Artists and Curators as Authors – Competitors, Collaborators, or Team-

workers?” 19 (2013): n. pag. 2 March 2017. < competitors-collaborators-or-team-workers.html#.WLkavRLhCfT>.

Royal Academy of Art Researchlab “Trance and Moving Image”.


Patterns of light, dance performance by Silvana Gordon, Hannah Reede, Sophie Schwartz, sound by Ellen van den Assem.


Introduction by Ariane Toussaint.


Piano performance by Trance, motion, extasis, silence, film by Ariane Toussaint.


Rafael drawing

“Unleash the dream weapon“, Ink on kozo paper, 1m x 10m, installation by Cyrill Rafael Vasilyev and “A foot in the fence”, textile installation by Luc Windaus.

A Sensory and Thoughtful Exploration by Leonie Woodfin (UvA mediastudies Master student)

Review of Trance and the Moving Image, Eye on Art ResearchLab, 28 February 2017

Students from Koninklijke Academie van Beeldende Kunsten presented eight of their own works alongside Nathaniel Dorsky’s Pneuma, in their Trance and the Moving Image program for the 2017 EYE on Art ResearchLab. The overarching theme (‘trance’) was researched by students and explored using a variety of mediums of presentation including dance, poetry, live piano accompaniment, as well as digital and analogue (16mm) projection. In this way, a model of ‘multiple intelligences’ was employed in verbal and non-verbal terms through their curated program, in an attempt to persuade audiences to “let go” of preconceptions about moving images and let their senses guide their experience. The artists served a dual role as curators in the process.

In reviewing this program as part of the wider Eye on Art series, a certain adherence to the objectives of the program must also be acknowledged. Laura Marks’ definition of programming, as an ongoing exhibition or series which audiences rely upon to “see what’s new in a particular medium, genre, or identity category” (36) is useful here, as well as Peter Bosma’s observation that all curation occurs amidst a network of “actors and aspects” (9). The ‘free reign’ given to art academies like KABK through the ResearchLab initiative gives students from ten academies the opportunity to showcase their work and gain valuable real world experience, while EYE, in return, has a direct line to understanding current artistic developments from around the Netherlands. This is a way to keep their watchful “eye” on art, so to say, whilst also bringing attention to new talent through the use of their facilities and collection.

Despite having no “strict format”, guidelines request that “all editions of EYE on Art are introduced by a talk, a piece of music or a brief performance” (Eye, n.p.). Event programs are also published online and distributed in printed form upon entry.

The ‘conflict of identity’ created by artists working as curators (Checefsky) was navigated in this instance by artists preparing their own introductions, and sharing the curatorial frame. The introduction to Trance and the moving image, for example, was by way of a performance. Dancers in Patterns of Light occupied the cinema space and aisles using music, reflective costumes and theatrical lighting in order to create a non-verbal, sensory and meditative foregrounding for the program. Whether or not the intent was to avoid what Checefsky describes as “emptying objects of their intrinsic meaning in order to satisfy the urge to breathe new life into them” (100) or simply create “a charged event and experience” (Wasson 43), the notion of art and artists speaking for themselves, in their own unique vocabulary, was a key thread, carried throughout.

The overall program contained an active juxtaposing of mediums, voices and perspectives ranging from poetry, chanting, live piano to silence. Tess de Graaf relied on visual and audio repetition to explore the theme of trance in her animation Neem Winbank. While in Trail (fig. 1), Kin Mun Chong shifted the site of projection from the screen to the audiences’ eyelids by instructing, through it’s opening text, that it is “best experienced with eyes closed”. The event program was suggestive – “you have to let go of certain attachments to walk this trail. Who knows where it leads to” (EYE on Art) –, but also left its content very much open to sensory interpretation.


Fig. 1. Kin Mun Chong 2017. Trail.

This approach served to emphasise the ways in which verbal and textual modes can be ‘insufficient’ in reflecting and contextualising what Marks refers to as ‘cinematic qualities’ (43). Following this logic, curators arranged their program in a way that was mindful of the elements of performance and film that exist beyond our attempts and abilities to describe and intellectualise them using language. This is not to say language was not used, only that it was one of many tools.

Rather than direct comment from curators, a quote from experimental film-maker Nathaniel Dorsky about how “film itself had the potential to be transformative” was read aloud to tie together the program and introduce the final film, Pneuma. This rhythmic examination of expired and developed (but never ‘used’) film, which gave the audience an extended opportunity to contemplate the materiality and aesthetic detail of the 16mm form has no soundtrack, so as a result, silence filled the space typically reserved for dialogue and music. The audience viewed the film while hearing themselves. A vibrating cellphone, human shuffling, muffled laughter and the swallowing of free beer pierced the cinema. Omission, particularly of ‘narration’, once again appeared as a powerful artistic and curatorial tool for bringing background items and sensory experience into focus. A consistent and effective balance between the “the relatively verbal argument of the curator and the relatively audiovisual argument of the films” (Marks 44) was maintained from end-to-end.


Bosma, Peter.  Film Programming: Curating for Cinemas, Festivals, Archives. New York, Columbia University Press, 2015.

Checefsky, Bruce. “Erasure: Curator as Artist.” The Artist as Curator. Ed. Celina Jeffery. Bristol:

Intellect, 2015. 97–112

Chong, Kin Mun. Trail. 2017.

Dorsky, Nathaniel. Pneuma. 1983.

Graaf, Tess de. Neem Winbank. 2017.

EYE. “EYE on Art.” EYE Film Institute. EYE. 1 March 2017. Accessed 3 March 2017.

< on-art>

EYE on Art. The Research Lab. EYE on Art. 28 February 2017. Accessed 4 March 2017.


Marks, Laura U. “The Ethical Presenter: Or How to Have Good Arguments over Dinner.” The

Moving Image 4.1 (2004): 34–47.

Wasson, Haidee. Museum Movies: The Museum of Modern Art and The Birth of Art Cinema.

Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.


UvA and Piet Zwart Institute Researchlab “Rise and Shine! This Must Be Happiness”.

Claartje jury with photo installation in de ingangWorld Peace, a photographic installation by Paula Winkler.



UvA and Piet Zwart Institute students.



Performances by UvA students.


Naturalmente, a live video installation by Catalina Echavarria.


Fortunewood, an audiovisual installation by Irma Oldenburg.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s