Imagination and Primacy of Consciousness?


anthony

Recommended Posts

These are composers Rand admired as portraying an exalted sense of life, especially Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff. And Hitler listened to this stuff on the sly, similar to what Gail Wynand did in private visits to his personal art stash in The Fountainhead.

Did Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler share a common sense of life?

It's either that, or her formulation about art and sense of life needs a hell of a lot of work.

I would love to see the reaction if you posted these comments on SOLO.

Back in the 1960's, Look Magazine ran a photo spread on Rand, along with an unflattering article. This article elicited my all-time favorite response, in the form of a letter to the editor, by an O'ist: "If you insist on behaving like cockroaches, be prepared to be treated like cockroaches." (I could be wrong about the magazine involved. A number of major magazines of the time published snarky articles about Rand. I used to have copies of them -- the fruit of spending more time in the University of Arizona library than in classes -- but I lost them years ago.)

I suspect that your remarks would place you somewhere below cockroaches on the O'ist food chain. :lol:

George,

LOL...

There's nothing like inconvenient facts, is there?

I have a theory of my own about sense of life that I literally stumbled across years ago from introspection wedded to my early Rand-chops. I called it a "sense of identity." And I believe it is useful in thinking about art.

I presented it in one of my articles on addiction. The reason I came up with it is because when I was developing an alcohol problem years ago, I noticed that I no longer could imagine my future without drinking a cold one. I mean this literally. It was impossible to imagine me without beer. It was like trying to imagine living without breathing. It became part of who I imagined when I thought about myself.

I think art becomes attached to our sense of identity like that. And that is one of the reasons people get so pissed when you reject the art they hold dear. It's like rejecting them. I don't care how many times people try to imagine Roark saying, "But I don't think of you" in response to vicious attacks, rejection hurts. It hurts all of us when it happens.

I have a theory of art I am developing, but it is too green to present so far. Basically, it involves this sense of identity, but it also involves story. Notice that all artworks come with one or more stories attached that are outside the work. This story comes from the public, not the artist. I believe this is a huge part of how a work is perceived--i.e., why a work will be perceived in one manner by one person and in another by someone else.

For instance, opera makes one person dizzy with strong emotion and makes another think of howling dogs. The story they bring to opera--not just a "sense of life"--determines how they will react right from the starting gate.This story involves their personal context, the culture at large, and a host of other inputs.

Then there is the trance-like part of art. I believe if art does not put you into some kind of trance, it is not doing its job (or you have a story that does not wed with the artwork).

Of course, I also hold that technical proficiency is extremely important as a value in itself. And it can (and often does) become part of the story the public brings.

Those are some of the highlights, but like I said, this is still too green to present as a formal theory.

(I'm working on it, though.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For the record, here is the passage I wrote about about sense of identity in my article on addiction:

The subconscious and sense of identity

There is one major part of the subconscious that is affected by addiction. It is almost a sense of life issue, but runs parallel to it -- a merging of the addictive substance with the person's sense of identity. According to Rand ("Philosophy and a Sense of Life," in The Romantic Manifesto), a sense of life is "a pre-conceptual equivalent of metaphysics, an emotional subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and existence." A sense of identity is similar, but it is a pre-conceptual equivalent of the axiom of identity at the personal level, an emotional subconsciously integrated appraisal of who and what a person is in relation to life and existence. I know I just coined this term, but the basic conceptual idea is Ayn Rand's. These levels are about the deepest ones where a mental event can be perceived.

To illustrate, let us go back to what addiction feels like, the thirst experiment. Thirst is much more than an emotion; it is a basic survival drive. When a living organism needs liquid, thirst arises and lets the mind know about it so that water will be sought. It sets an immediate survival goal. That is how this drive generates an emotion at a very basic level for all conscious beings. For humans, regardless of what a person is doing, regardless of how high-level the conceptual activity is, the "I'm uncomfortable -- must seek water" emotion butts in.

When a person reflects on his nature in terms of sense of identity, he finds it inconceivable to live a lifetime without consuming liquids. Drinking liquids is an essential part of who he is.

This sense of identity level is where the idea of an addictive substance gets lodged into the subconscious.

I believe that art--and art languages--also gets lodged into the subconscious in this manner, but through a storyline.

Here's an example of what I mean. It's a popular story in the conducting world.

A bona fide American Indian was taken to an orchestra concert where they were playing Brahms. This was his first contact with a symphony. At the end, they took him backstage to see the conductor. The conductor asked, "Well, what did you think of the music? Did you like it?"

The Indian answered, "I didn't understand the music, but I really liked the dance."

:)

The people who understood Brahms as music culture took one story to the concert with them--the story they thought and lived. The American Indian took a different story. Each sincerely appreciated the same concert in vastly different manners.

And there is more. Both stories were intimately bound up with their respective senses of identity.

As an aside, I also hold there are intrinsic elements in art that correspond closely to the way we think and feel. This makes it easy to learn the art forms that use those particular elements and more difficult to learn art forms that have less correspondence. But that is another discussion.

My main point is that art is a conglomeration of different elements and perspectives (which I am fleshing out over time), not simply works made by an artist, whether a work is a "selective recreation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments"--i.e., Rand's definition, or otherwise. As is everything else in my developing perspective on philosophy, human nature is my fundamental guide.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multi-poster response:

Now, if you don't think a viewer or reader can interpret the sense of life of a creator - why use the above scuptures as example?

The first is an obvious illustration of - and you don't have to use Rand's nomenclature, but it fits perfectly - a malevolent universe premise.

The contorted anguish and fear we see on his face could well be a mirror of the condition of the world, today. ("the world's out to get me, what am I to do, everything's falling apart, those religions, the government, my job, damn taxes ...my family").

Masterful talent and craft in the statue, but the rest is the stuff of nightmares.

So why can't one 'psychologize' about the artist, and conclude that this is his sense of life too?

So how would you prove or verify that you've accurately identified the artist's sense of life in the above, and that others here, who have quite different interpretations of the artwork than you do, have erred in their attempts at identifying it? Wouldn't we need to ask the artist to tell us about his sense of life, and his intentions and interpretations of his own work, rather than just asserting that we've each identified his sense of life?

My point is, do you disapprove of Rand's nomenclature, or of her judgementalism? Fundamentally, I think she got it right.

Our emotional response to art, can partially be reached through cognition - which only heightens the emotion, as far as I'm concerned.

I don't disapprove of the concept of "sense of life." I think it can play a significant role in the creation and appreciation of art. What I take issue with is the certainty with which Rand and many of her fans claim to know such deeply personal and complex things about others based on quite limited and often ambiguous information.

Point out precisely where the deterministic element is in any of these.

Let's go with the third example that I posted. It's a study of a Bacchante (notice the vine leaves in her hair), a priestess of wild intoxication and mindless trances, who has been possessed by the spirit of Dionysus to surrender to her purely wild, physical nature. If anything could be interpreted as a symbol of determinism, it would be such a creature who has no control over herself. Plus she's into brutal sacrifice and anthropophagy. Very malevolent, anti-reason, anti-mind, and all of that.

Rand's concepts are excellent tools for examining art.

I agree that Rand's concepts can be excellent tools for examining art, but they're just not very good for supporting claims that one knows another's sense of life.

Did Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler share a common sense of life?

Have you seen these nudes by Hitler?

nude3.jpg

nude4.jpg

What does it reveal about his sense of life that his "metaphysical value-judgments" would lead him to "selectively re-create" a female form so similar to Rand's?

I don't get it; what's the problem with 'sense of life'?

As far as I knew, everyone instantaneously absorbs the 'feeling' of any created object (or the general demeanour of a person).

I think it is a lightening-fast assessment of generalized percepts from the object, that connect directly to one's consciousness.

Recognition rather than cognition, and inductive rather than deductive. It's like a glimpse into the artwork's 'soul', thence to the artist's.

What about when several people look at the same work of art and each has a very different 'instantaneous feeling,' a different interpretation of which sense of life the artwork projects, and a different conclusion of what the artwork means? Such disagreements are very common, including among those who are the most knowledgeable of the arts. How would we determine which of the differing opinions is the correct identification of the artist's soul and sense of life?

Also for the record, I agree entirely with Ayn Rand's analysis of "sense of life" and its role in artistic creation and appreciation.

If Rand's analysis of "sense of life" includes the following (as opposed to her statements and judgments which contradict the following), I'm more inclined to agree with it:

"In the light of what I've said, it is of course impossible to name the sense of life of fictional characters. You
might
name the sense of life or your closest friend – though I doubt it. You may, after some years, know approximately the sense of life of the person you love, but nobody beyond that...

...Speaking of one's inability to know another's sense of life, now might be a good time to make a request: Please don't send me records or recommend music. You have no way of knowing my sense of life, although you have a better way of knowing mine than I have of knowing yours, since you've read my books, and my sense of life is on every page. You would have some grasp of it- but I hate to think how little. I hate the painful embarrassment I feel when somebody sends me music they know I'd love – and my reaction is the opposite: it's impossible music. I feel completely misunderstood, yet the person's intentions were good...So please don't try it. It's no reflection on you or on me. It's simply that sense of life is very private." (Ayn Rand Answers, 186)

Of course, Rand's having said the above didn't stop her from claiming to know others' senses of life, including fictional characters and people whom she knew very little about. She seems to have wanted to reserve for herself the right to claim to know others' senses of life, while informing everyone else that they couldn't do the same.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before it becomes one more 'Rand's ideas of art' debate, I would still like to pursue the initial genesis of an artwork, because the more I consider it, the more feasible that the artist's consciousness almost transcends existence.

The 'almost' is used advisably. I realise that he or she has drawn from reality, first and foremost, BUT, the long period of inner digestion, and slow-brewing, transforms the reality into something many generations removed from the original.

That's 'imagination' to my mind.

Then of course, comes the skill and technique to translate his inner vision back to reality.

I've seen this process up close, in artists I know,- jazz muso/composers, painters, and a sculptor; and in my own (attempted) fiction writing, as well as my photography, to a lesser degree.

Tony

Tony,

Sorry that your thread has been hijacked a bit. I'd like to think about "the initial genesis of an artwork" some more on my own and maybe come back to discussing it later.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, Rand's having said the above didn't stop her from claiming to know others' senses of life, including fictional characters and people whom she knew very little about. She seems to have wanted to reserve for herself the right to claim to know others' senses of life, while informing everyone else that they couldn't do the same.

J

All I've time for is a very general response about Ayn Rand's theories.

I think she did a terrific job of identification, and partially succeeded in "objectifying" art.

It goes down to a certain point, though, which imo, varies from one person to another - and at different stages of a person's life and development.

No art-lover is going to try to argue that the viewing of art is not deeply personal, individual, and subjective. Complexity - and ambiguity - mostly add value to any art, if one can still discover clarity.

At the other end, a producer (like Jonathan) is driven to push every boundary in his imagination in order to create, and ultimately knows it is himself he must satisfy, primarily. I'm sure of that.

(Me and camera are off to the Canary Islands (Spain) in a few hours, which of course I'm thrilled about. See y'all next year.)

A Merry Christmas!

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's go with the third example that I posted. It's a study of a Bacchante (notice the vine leaves in her hair),

As a matter of fact, most of us here did not notice what you claim are vine leaves in her hair; I noticed, for example tree leaves, making the piece a sculpture of a dryad (a wood nymph), and not a bacchante. Nothing especially malevolent about wood nymphs.

There is very often a real gap between what the artist claims about his work -- especially in the way of explanations regarding his intent -- and what the audience actually perceives (and hence, what they respond to) in the absence of such explanations.

If anything could be interpreted as a symbol of determinism, it would be such a creature who has no control over herself. Plus she's into brutal sacrifice and anthropophagy. Very malevolent, anti-reason, anti-mind, and all of that.

Your judgment has nothing to do with the art, per se, and everything to do with the narrative story -- the explanation of the art provided by the artist (or by someone else other than yourself) -- regarding what the art is actually supposed to be. Since your philosophy instructs you not to like women who surrender their intellect in order to enter into a trance, you think -- mistakenly -- that you are judging the actual sculpture. You're not. You're passing judgment on the background narrative.

If the artist had told you, instead, that the sculpture was a likeness of an innocent dryad, or perhaps a likeness of the Goddess Natura, you'd pass a different judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never seen any O'ist discussion of imagination, and that is a little strange.

The fundamentals of Romantic Manifesto are a valuable contribution to understanding art, and bringing aesthetics under the O'ist umbrella, I believe, but Rand did, I think, over-reach on some minor points. Is the Primacy of Existence in creativity not over-reaching, too?

My question is: Isn't artistic creation dependent largely on the Primacy of Consciousness; and if so, what of it?

Tony

In -Atlas Shrugged- Rand describes how Reardon comes up with the Reardon Truss made out of Reardon Metal. That is an example of imagination. Also Rand's discussion of art is implicitly about imagination. The recreation of reality is imagination that does not stray far from reason.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Did Ayn Rand and Adolf Hitler share a common sense of life?"

God bless the trolls. What would we do without them?

Starbuckle,

That's the second strike. And, yes, this is a warning.

I will not be disrespected here. You have the entire Internet to do that crap. But not here.

If you can't understand what I am getting at, that's your problem. So take that problem to wherever you wish. Just don't vomit your kneejerks on me here.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anybody vomtited his kneejerks on me I'd refudiate him instantly and call for a corpseman.

Is that a medic or a mortician? :)

I just learned that "refudiate" was coined by Sarah Palin. Or is that Syrah Palin?

I won't ask about "vomtited."

Edited by Merlin Jetton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a matter of fact, most of us here did not notice what you claim are vine leaves in her hair; I noticed, for example tree leaves, making the piece a sculpture of a dryad (a wood nymph), and not a bacchante. Nothing especially malevolent about wood nymphs.

The fact that you may not notice aspects of a work of art that I notice, or vice versa, and that we are likely to interpret different aspects differently, supports my view that one cannot easily and reliably identify artists' senses of life by looking at their art.

There is very often a real gap between what the artist claims about his work -- especially in the way of explanations regarding his intent -- and what the audience actually perceives (and hence, what they respond to) in the absence of such explanations.

Who is "the audience"? It sounds to me as if you're setting yourself up to be the official spokesman for "the audience," and somehow I and anyone else who might have knowledge or experiences that you lack are excluded from being "the audience." When I notice vine leaves in a sculpture, and you don't, why is my observation not part of "what the audience actually perceives"? Why are only your observations, or lack thereof, representative of what "the audience actually perceives"?

Your judgment has nothing to do with the art, per se, and everything to do with the narrative story -- the explanation of the art provided by the artist (or by someone else other than yourself) -- regarding what the art is actually supposed to be. Since your philosophy instructs you not to like women who surrender their intellect in order to enter into a trance, you think -- mistakenly -- that you are judging the actual sculpture. You're not.

Don't presume to tell me what I've based my judgments on. When looking at art, I'm not limited to your lack of observational powers, experience or knowledge.

You're passing judgment on the background narrative.

So, if you don't recognize the symbolism or narrative of something contained in an artwork, and you need someone to point it out and explain it to you, it is therefore not a part of the art, but "background narrative"? If you needed it explained to you, therefore "the audience" needed it explained to them?

If an artist were to paint, say, the image of an empty cornucopia, and you were aware of the fact that horn-shaped wicker baskets filled with food and flowers have often been used to symbolize abundance and success, would you claim that the official view of "the audience" was that the painting of the empty cornucopia represented scarcity and failure, but if you were not aware of the common historic symbolism of the cornucopia, you'd claim that its symbolism was "background narrative" and that "the audience" officially saw nothing but a meaningless wicker cone when looking at the painting?

Sorry, but no, your limitations and nonchalance when looking at art are not the universal standard for determining which aspects of a work of art are contained within it and which are external "background narrative."

If the artist had told you, instead, that the sculpture was a likeness of an innocent dryad, or perhaps a likeness of the Goddess Natura, you'd pass a different judgment.

I'd have a different judgment of his abilities as an artist, much in the same way that I'd have a different judgment of Rand's abilities as an artist if we were to learn that she intended The Fountainhead to be, say, an indictment of egoism.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also Rand's discussion of art is implicitly about imagination. The recreation of reality is imagination that does not stray far from reason.

Since you've criticized Galt's generator as straying too far from reality, does that mean that you think that Atlas Shrugged is therefore not a "recreation of reality" and not a proper example of "imagination"?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that you may not notice aspects of a work of art that I notice, or vice versa, and that we are likely to interpret different aspects differently, supports my view that one cannot easily and reliably identify artists' senses of life by looking at their art.

It does more than that. It means we cannot reliably detect an artist's intentions.

Who is "the audience"?

Unsurprisingly, since I was the one looking at the sculpture and judging it, I am the audience.

It sounds to me as if you're setting yourself up to be the official spokesman for "the audience,"

To the extent that I officially represent myself, yes.

When I notice vine leaves in a sculpture, and you don't, why is my observation not part of "what the audience actually perceives"?

You're a different audience. Additionally, when I notice tree leaves, and you don't, why is my observation not part of "what the audience perceives"?

If an artist were to paint, say, the image of an empty cornucopia, and you were aware of the fact that horn-shaped wicker baskets filled with food and flowers have often been used to symbolize abundance and success, would you claim that the official view of "the audience" was that the painting of the empty cornucopia represented scarcity and failure, but if you were not aware of the common historic symbolism of the cornucopia, you'd claim that its symbolism was "background narrative" and that "the audience" officially saw nothing but a meaningless wicker cone when looking at the painting?

Relevant to the discussion of tree leaves that the artist claims are vine leaves (plus the additional background information that "women who wear vine leaves are Bacchantes; Bacchantes surrender their reason; etc.), I would say that if I saw an image of an empty cornucopia and had all kinds of responses, emotional and intellectual regarding the meaning of an object that I normally see filled with fruit and nuts - - - but the explanatory tag underneath the image, supplied by the artist, asserted that it was not, indeed, an empty cornucopia, but rather a symbolic representation of Gabriel's Trumpet, I would claim one would first have to read the tag in order to respond to the image in a way consistent with the artist's original intentions. If he painted Gabriel's Trumpet in such a way that it could easily be seen as an empty cornucopia as well, it seems the only knowledge I lack when experiencing the art was, in fact, the little explanatory tag supplied by the artist.

I'd have a different judgment of his abilities as an artist,

Possibly. You might also have a different judgment of the work, based on the new information. Your judgment, therefore, would be partly based on this information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're a different audience.

How many "audiences" are there? Why use the term at all when you're actually referring to yourself? Why not say "I perceive or interpret X, Y and Z in a painting" rather than "the audience perceives X, Y and Z"?

Additionally, when I notice tree leaves, and you don't, why is my observation not part of "what the audience perceives"?

When you don't care to look closely enough, and therefore misinterpret vine leaves as tree leaves, do you think that it counts as "perceiving" tree leaves, or as misperceiving vine leaves as tree leaves?

Likewise, if you were to claim that you "perceived" a female character named Gail Wynand in The Fountainhead, it wouldn't really be an example of perceiving a female character named Gail, but probably of your not paying close enough attention to realize that the character was male.

...but the explanatory tag underneath the image, supplied by the artist, asserted that it was not, indeed, an empty cornucopia, but rather a symbolic representation of Gabriel's Trumpet, I would claim one would first have to read the tag in order to respond to the image in a way consistent with the artist's original intentions.

"One" would have to read the tag? By "one," do you mean you? How many more terms are you going to use instead of "I" when talking about yourself? In addition to "one" and "the audience," maybe you could also use "the viewer" and "we" and "everyone"?

If he painted Gabriel's Trumpet in such a way that it could easily be seen as an empty cornucopia as well, it seems the only knowledge I lack when experiencing the art was, in fact, the little explanatory tag supplied by the artist.

That could be the case. But it might also be the case that "one" hasn't paid attention to subtle differences between how the shape of a cornucopia is usually represented and how the artist has rendered the shape of the trumpet.

You might also have a different judgment of the work, based on the new information. Your judgment, therefore, would be partly based on this information.

Sure. I don't have a problem with the idea of "outside considerations" playing a part in informing or altering my judgment of an artwork. If someone points out something that I missed in an artwork, or explains that it has a context that I wasn't aware of, it would most certainly change my interpretation and judgment of the artwork.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apropos the Newsweek letters to the editor (April 10, 1961):

Thugs and Hoodlums?

A further explanation of Ayn Rand's philosophy could certainly have been squeezed into the article (BOOKS, March 27). About all you've done is arouse the curiosity of "young intellectuals" who have not yet been indoctrinated into her horribly selfish way of thinking.

Stephen Wagner

>Such a venomous attack on Ayn Rand is an outrage.

Edith Efron

>Your vicious, vile, and obscene tirade against Ayn Rand is a new low, even for you. To have sanctioned such a stream of abusive invective . . . is an act of unprecedented moral depravity. A magazine staffed with irresponsible hoodlums has no place in my home.

Robert A. Hessen

>One who has read the works of Miss Rand and proceeds to write an article of this caliber can only be motivated by villainy. It is the work of a literary thug.

Joseph Klinkov

>This attack on Ayn Rand is a treachery which will not be forgiven. Since you propose to behave like cockroaches, be prepared to be treated as such.

Sylvia Bokor

>Ayn Rand is . . . the greatest individual that has ever lived.

Bonnie Benov

>How appropriate that the article on Ayn Rand went unsigned.

David Garfield)

(Newsweek's comments)

PIC

Rand: Greatest ever?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>This attack on Ayn Rand is a treachery which will not be forgiven. Since you propose to behave like cockroaches, be prepared to be treated as such.

Sylvia Bokor

Ah, I see we owe the "cockroaches" remark to one Sylvia Bokor. I recall being amused by this put-down when I first read it c. 1969. How does one treat a cockroach? Spray it with insecticide? Squash it and then flush it down the toilet? :rolleyes:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Interesting topic... I think it all depends on whether you believe emotion necessitates subjectivism or not.

I don't think rationality is a switch we can flip, it's something we have to practice... I believe emotion comes from primacy of consciousness, but we can be rational about when we let our guards down, perhaps.

Art is, at it's best, the expression or manifestation of emotion... To allow our emotions to be manipulated by art would seem irrational, but like I said, there's probably a time and a place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Of course I'm much taken with the methods and results of artistic creation.

To make some thing out of 'fresh air', so to speak, - to give it form in images, structures, words, and music, is something I have attempted, and moreso have admired in the masters of art.

It was interesting to read here recently a quote by Ayn Rand, saying in part, that "the power to rearrange the combinations of natural elements is the only creative power man possesses."

Great,but. The original source of natural elements is existent in reality, so (superficially) they are available to anyone.

My understanding is that the most important creative process is internalized: for an author, it could start with, for instance - why not...?, what if...? ("it's the industrialists who go on strike for once - Bingo!"); the sculptor visualizes the completed statue, before he picks up his tools; a composer conceives a hint of a melody in his 'internal ear'.

And so it goes.

I have never seen any O'ist discussion of imagination, and that is a little strange.

The fundamentals of Romantic Manifesto are a valuable contribution to understanding art, and bringing aesthetics under the O'ist umbrella, I believe, but Rand did, I think, over-reach on some minor points. Is the Primacy of Existence in creativity not over-reaching, too?

My question is: Isn't artistic creation dependent largely on the Primacy of Consciousness; and if so, what of it?

Tony

Great query about imagination. I don't think that is the same as primacy of consciousness though, I understand that to mean reality doesn't exist, the only thing that exists is our minds. There are a lot of talented artists today but many of them re-arrange stuff, kind of like cut and paste - using photographs, old masterworks, and improvising around that. And some are stick in the mud realists, if they can't see it it's not to be painted. Dali had a wicked imagination. I recently saw his work in St. Petersburg, Florida at the Dali Museum, one painting was a simple still life interior: of sardines on a plate on a table in room with an open door - but in the light of the doorway where tiny humans casting very long shadows.

I think many artists with imagination don't talk about it much - they might take it for granted, or find the process too subjective to clearly talk about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now