New book: Artworks of Michael Jackson

[AliCat]

“I love to draw—pencil, ink pen—I love art. When I go on tour and visit museums in Holland, Germany or England—you know those huge paintings?—I’m just amazed. You don’t think a painter could do something like that. I can look at a piece of sculpture or a painting and totally lose myself in it. Standing there watching it and becoming part of the scene. It can draw tears, it can touch you so much. See, that’s where I think the actor or performer should be—to touch that truth inside of the person. Touch that reality so much that they become a part of what you’re doing and you can take them anywhere you want to. You’re happy, they’re happy. Whatever the human emotions, they’re right there with you. I love realism. I don’t like plastics. Deep down inside we’re all the same. We all have the same emotions and that’s why a film like E.T. touches everybody. Who doesn’t want to fly like Peter Pan? Who doesn’t want to fly with some magic creature from outer space and be friends with him? Steven went straight to the heart. He knows—when in doubt, go for the heart…”

Michael Jackson

 

[ivy]

Ivy, anyone accusing or suggesting Michael traced any artwork that has been reproduced in this book is simply ill informed about art and seeks to damage Michael's reputation for their reasons.

that discussion happened years ago on non-mj forums so it got nothing to do with this book to start with. I don't think their goal was to "damage MJ's reputation". They were merely trying differentiate authentic items from the fake ones. myosotis is right. the starting point of that discussion was the people who were faking artworks and claiming it was MJ and selling them at auction sites. The argument against those people were that they didn't actually draw but trace the pieces. As a counter argument some people showed examples of authentic MJ artwork that was traced. As I said I don't know if it's true or not. I'm not knowledgeable in art to say either way.

Tracing does not allow for depth/nuances. There are those who will trace an image and then add depth/nuances to the results to hide from the fact an image was traced. Even then, it is quite simple to locate the original image that was traced as the dimensions of the original image and the resulting traced image will be an exact match. There is no crime in referencing a photograph and attempting to replicate that image. That is not tracing.

Actually they had a photo of MLK and put MJ's MLK portrait on it and it was an exact match - hence their claims of tracing. I'll try to find the picture.

edited to add: here it is. I couldn't link back to the original site so I copied it from there.

By the way, who would those people be who are accusing Michael of tracing? Ridiculous.

As I said, this was several years ago in regards to determining the authenticity of the artwork being sold as MJ's artwork at auction sites and eBay. It was a discussion on a non-MJ site.

I again want to repeat, I personally cannot tell either way how these pieces were done. Plus I don't see tracing / referencing etc. as a negative thing. Morinen was talking about time commitment required and I mentioned it as a possibility to speed things up. Furthermore it could be a learning tool. Finally I'm pretty sure even if the portraits were traced, not everyone can make them look this good and realistic. So that's still a talent.

 

[krikzil]

I've been sketching since childhood. Tracing can be used as a learning tool to help with proportion and has a long history in the art world. It still requires skill and talent for the finished work to appear realistic. If in doubt, give it a try.

 

[Tygger]

that discussion happened years ago on non-mj forums so it got nothing to do with this book to start with.

Oh? You say it has nothing to do with this book of reproductions and then refer to a portrait of MLK, Jr. that appears in the book.

I don't think their goal was to "damage MJ's reputation". They were merely trying differentiate authentic items from the fake ones. myosotis is right. the starting point of that discussion was the people who were faking artworks and claiming it was MJ and selling them at auction sites. The argument against those people were that they didn't actually draw but trace the pieces. As a counter argument some people showed examples of authentic MJ artwork that was traced. As I said I don't know if it's true or not. I'm not knowledgeable in art to say either way.

What I stated and what Myosotis is referring to - and it seems you are referring to - are two distinctly different things so you may want to re-read what I posted and compare it to what Myosotis - and it seems you as well - posted instead of swiftly and incorrectly declaring a right/wrong favor when such an action has no appropriate place here.

I clear stated: “anyone accusing or suggesting Michael traced any artwork that has been reproduced in this book is simply ill informed about art and seeks to damage Michael's reputation for their reasons.” That is a distinctly different situation than others who traced artwork in an attempt to present it falsely as Michael’s artwork.

Actually they had a photo of MLK and put MJ's MLK portrait on it and it was an exact match - hence their claims of tracing. I'll try to find the picture.

edited to add: here it is. I couldn't link back to the original site so I copied it from there.

sigh

Do you remember the comments from Strong stating he presented Michael with specialized paper for his drawings? Do you remember the size of the resulting portrait of MLK, Jr. that Winfrey famously held after Michael’s passing?

I truly hope you will not respond/suggest Strong gave Michael large pieces of specialized tracing paper that would allow Michael to create portraits on BOTH sides of the paper.

I also hope you are not gullible enough to truly believe a computerized imposition of Michael’s MLK, Jr. portrait that was obviously manipulated because it was scaled down (among other possible manipulations) to match an unspecified sized of a photo of MLK, Jr. somehow proved Michael traced that photo.

As I said, this was several years ago in regards to determining the authenticity of the artwork being sold as MJ's artwork at auction sites and eBay. It was a discussion on a non-MJ site.

You originally stated it was suggested Michael traced the photos.

I don't know if it's true or not but some people said many of the MJ- Strong pieces (especially the portraits) are actually traced and/or referenced from actual photographs etc. If true, it might have made it easier / quicker.

I again want to repeat, I personally cannot tell either way how these pieces were done. Plus I don't see tracing / referencing etc. as a negative thing. Morinen was talking about time commitment required and I mentioned it as a possibility to speed things up. Furthermore it could be a learning tool. Finally I'm pretty sure even if the portraits were traced, not everyone can make them look this good and realistic. So that's still a talent.

There is no evidence that Michael traced any of these portraits and I do not understand the continuance to suggest such on a MJ forum.

 

[ivy]

Oh? You say it has nothing to do with this book of reproductions and then refer to a portrait of MLK, Jr. that appears in the book.

as I said origins of such discussion predates this book.

You originally stated it was suggested Michael traced the photos.

yes. perhaps I wasn't clear. there were some questionable art being discussed. some said "those questionable art can't be MJ because it's traced". Other people said "MJ used tracing in authenticated artwork too". then there was a discussion about if it was traced or referenced. Hence my initial post of "traced and/or referenced".

There is no evidence that Michael traced any of these portraits and I do not understand the continuance to suggest such on a MJ forum.

From my initial post to the second post, I continuously said I don't know or cannot tell if such claims are true or not. So kindly stop acting like, I'm treating anything as evidence or proof. I'm not and I repeatedly said so. I merely mentioned a past discussion without making any conclusion about validity of the claims. Secondly my initial brief comment was in reference to patience, time needed and teaching techniques used. You are the person who is turning this into a negative thing and big thing with your questions . How can you reply to it by asking a bunch of questions and then can't understand why the topic is continuing to be discussed? You cannot really reply to a person, ask a series of questions and then complain if they reply to you.

 

[Tygger]

as I said origins of such discussion predates this book.

As I said, suggestions of Michael tracing portraits and others tracing Michael’s artwork in an attempt to present it falsely as Michael’s artwork are two very distinctly different things.

yes. perhaps I wasn't clear.

It was clear enough for I and others to refute the suggestion Michael traced any portraits that have been reproduced in this book.

As for the remainder of your post: it is quite clear you attempted to prove my assertion that Michael did not trace any portraits that have been reproduced in this book as somehow incorrect AFTER I responded to your ill informed suggestion. You did so without much concern as to how such a negative suggestion reflects on the reputation of the man this forum is for.

 

[HIStory]

Interesting. I had no problem with understanding what Ivy said (and not to mistake it with something she did not say) even when my first language is not English.

 

[myosotis]

When working from photographs, portrait artists can use two techniques to get the initial proportions right; marking the photo and the drawing into 'grids', and using a projected image. It would be possible to project a photographic image on to one or both sides of a large piece of paper, and this may have been done here. This would account for the correspondence in outline and placement of major features. However, close comparison of the drawing and photograph shows many differences in content, most notably the entire pattern of light and shade. There are also differences in the eyebrows, top of the ear, the eye 'inset' on the left hand side of the drawing (as you look at it), the eyelid on the right, the right nostril, and aspects of the lips. I don't think the features were traced in detail, and I am sure the shading is all freehand and by eye.

 

[ivy]

As for the remainder of your post: it is quite clear you attempted to prove my assertion that Michael did not trace any portraits that have been reproduced in this book as somehow incorrect AFTER I responded to your ill informed suggestion. You did so without much concern as to how such a negative suggestion reflects on the reputation of the man this forum is for.

No I didn't. How can I be "proving" anything when I repeatedly say I don't know if such claims are true or not?

First of all this wasn't my suggestion and luckily for me the constitution and freedom of speech and this forum rules gives me the right to discuss anything and everything said in regard to MJ.

Furthermore you are the one who are seeing as negative, not me. I'm the kind of person that can hardly draw stick figures and I already said even if it was traced not everyone can make it look realistic and detailed and that's still talent. So it's not a negative thing for me. As far as I can see no one is seeing it negatively as well, everyone is able to discuss it without getting defensive and accusatory.

Finally I give a lot more strength to Michael's legacy and reputation. Michael already established his legacy, demonstrated his artistic talent in this lifetime. In my opinion it cannot be affected by discussions on this forum or any other forum. It even cannot be affected by heinous criminal accusations as we have seen from examples.

And I don't know why you are so defensive of this book. You don't need to be this melodramatic and make a mountain out of a molehill. Peace out.

 

[noller aurore]

This book was being discussed in a previous thread (Dieter Weisner Channel on Youtube), from page 13 here:
(Artlima seems to be owned by Dieter)

http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/threads/135027-Dieter-Wiesner-Channel-on-YouTube/page13

:ange:bonjour est ce que ce superbe live est sorti ou va sortire en francais ?? merci a vous : hello is what this superb live was released or will sortire in french ?? thank you.

 

[AliCat]

Camera's haven't been around all that long. So we have great works of art to capture history. Many of the great artist's would go to the Louvre in Paris and sketch the great master's, their predecessor's.

Michael answered a question, posed to him by Barbara Walter's, concerning his children following in his footstep's and even Michael himself has answered this question about copying the master's before him. You copy the master's and then make it your own. That's how I look at Michael's sketches. They aren't exactly reproduction's. He just sketched from something that was posed in front of him and made it his own. That's why his works are pretty good. Why we now have a book to purchase of his sketches. He is an artist in every sense of the word, including his paintings...

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, tsk, tsk.

I am not the only one who replied to your original post suggesting Michael traced the portraits. No less than three posters replied against that suggestion but, it was only my reply that you took sections of in an attempt to prove my assertion incorrect.

Your attempt was not successful and you deflected from that failed suggestion to include false characterization of my posts. Interestingly you did not do the same to others who have agreed Michael did not trace the portraits. Ah well.

And I don't know why you are so defensive of this book. You don't need to be this melodramatic and make a mountain out of a molehill. Peace out.

Are you sure? Others have supported this book as well and yet your question only refers to me. What is also interesting is that the discussion moved from the quality book of reproductions that can currently be purchased legally (wink) to your suggestion Michael traced portraits (and your secondary discussion that others traced Michael's artwork) and now you prefer to bring the discussion back to what you incorrectly believe to be defensive views of the book when I was clearly defending Michael against false tracing claims. Your false characterizations of my posts seems very off-topic so it would be best that I not respond.

However, close comparison of the drawing and photograph shows many differences in content, most notably the entire pattern of light and shade. There are also differences in the eyebrows, top of the ear, the eye 'inset' on the left hand side of the drawing (as you look at it), the eyelid on the right, the right nostril, and aspects of the lips. I don't think the features were traced in detail, and I am sure the shading is all freehand and by eye.

Myosotis, I agree there are methods for trace. As you have noted, there are instances where Michael’s drawing are not an exact match to the MLK, Jr. portrait despite a clearly manipulated computerized imposition. If you have a moment, review the photo of Marilyn Monroe and the portrait Michael created. The features are not an exact match. As much as I appreciate Michael’s representation of Monroe, he was not able to capture her full beauty. He should have been able to easily if he traced the photo. Unfortunately, it seems Michael's impressive capture of MLK, Jr. in his resulting portrait is being used against him by a small few.

There is no evidence of Michael tracing portraits, it is quite clear he did not, and it is a bit illogical. You may have noticed it is only being suggested that Michael traced portraits and not objects. You may have also noticed Michael had self-portraits that have not been discussed as traced portraits either.

Michael answered a question, posed to him by Barbara Walter's, concerning his children following in his footstep's and even Michael himself has answered this question about copying the master's before him. You copy the master's and then make it your own. That's how I look at Michael's sketches. They aren't exactly reproduction's. He just sketched from something that was posed in front of him and made it his own.

AliCat, when it is said it is a book of reproductions, it is referring to the fact that fans can own printed reproductions of Michael's original artwork in a quality and affordable book. Purchasing Michael's original artwork can be quite expensive.

 

[myosotis]

Camera's haven't been around all that long. So we have great works of art to capture history. Many of the great artist's would go to the Louvre in Paris and sketch the great master's, their predecessor's.

Michael answered a question, posed to him by Barbara Walter's, concerning his children following in his footstep's and even Michael himself has answered this question about copying the master's before him. You copy the master's and then make it your own. That's how I look at Michael's sketches. They aren't exactly reproduction's. He just sketched from something that was posed in front of him and made it his own. That's why his works are pretty good. Why we now have a book to purchase of his sketches. He is an artist in every sense of the word, including his paintings...

Caravaggio (1571-1610) and Vermeer (1632-1675) are both thought to have used the 'camera obscura' to create projections from which they could paint. They are still both considered to be great artists. (This invention is thought to date back to ancient Chinese civilisation).

It seems possible, indeed plausible, as has been proposed by Hockney and others, that Caravaggio was using some sort of optical equipment. According to this theory, he was using a device to project the image of his subject on to the canvas.

In effect, he pieced his compositions together from a series of vivid fragments thrown by a mirror and/or lens, in other words, a form of camera obscura. His work would then have been a sort of collage of quasi-photographic close ups – which is indeed exactly what it looks like.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/art-features/7887249/How-Caravaggio-saw-in-the-dark.html

For more than a hundred years, it has been suggested that the great 17th-century Dutch master Johannes Vermeer made use of the camera obscura as an aid to painting. The camera obscura was the predecessor of the photographic camera, but without the light-sensitive film or plate. It is well established that in the 18th century some other famous painters employed the device, the best-known being Canaletto, whose own camera obscura survives in the Correr Museum in Venice. The English portrait painter Sir Joshua Reynolds owned a camera; and the device was widely used by landscape artists, both professional and amateur, up until the invention of chemical photography in the 1830s. With Vermeer the question of whether he used optical methods is more controversial.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/vermeer_camera_01.shtml

 

[Tygger]

:ange:bonjour est ce que ce superbe live est sorti ou va sortire en francais ?? merci a vous : hello is what this superb live was released or will sortire in french ?? thank you.

It is available only in German and can be purchased via Amazon Germany.

http://www.amazon.de/Kunstwerke-von...p/3724520905/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

 

[Virre]

But non of those three posters suggested that Ivy claimed anything.. because she didn´t, she just wrote about some rumors years ago, that doesn´t mean you agree with the rumors.

 

[TinnyandOdd]

For God's sake, does everything have to be an argument these days?

Fact: Mike was a talented artist. This book seems to do justice to that talent (which is far more than the estate has done recently) so I'm interested.

 

[Tygger]

But non of those three posters suggested that Ivy claimed anything

Neither did I.

It seems you did not notice I stated - as did others - that Michael did not trace these portraits. Ivy took the time to pull statements from my post to unsuccessfully show how Michael possibly could have traced the MLK, Jr portrait. I debunked Ivy's post and then the conversation took a very familiar turn.

No matter if you noticed or chose not to now. If anything, it has encouraged others to seek and purchase this book as it is one of the best, if not the best, posthumous product available! It contains reproductions of Michael's actual drawings... not his tracings.

 

[ivy]

Neither did I.

funniest post ever !

If anything, it has encouraged others to seek and purchase this book as it is one of the best, if not the best, posthumous product available!

It comes at a great cost though.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, anyone accusing or suggesting Michael traced any artwork that has been reproduced in this book is simply ill informed about art and seeks to damage Michael's reputation for their reasons.

Ivy, this is the original statement. If you (and others) consider yourself to be “anyone accusing or suggesting Michael traced any artwork that has been reproduced in this book” then, as they say, the shoe fits.

It comes at a great cost though.

Depends on your meaning.

 

[ivy]

Ivy, this is the original statement.

everyone read your posts to know your several negative comments / accusations towards my post. While other people were able to discuss the topic without getting personal, you were getting argumentative and personal. It's always funny when someone gets deliberately confrontational and then acts "who, me?"

Depends on your meaning.

don't worry, smart people will understand what I meant. And some will choose to ignore the inconvenient reality.

so it's all good.

 

[Tygger]

Familiar yet never tiresome unfortunately....

Ivy, it seems you (and others) do consider yourself as “anyone accusing or suggesting Michael traced any artwork that has been reproduced in this book.” AH!

Anyone who has read my posts saw that I debunked that accusation/suggestion. Anyone holding that accusation/suggestion would find my post to be negative as I debunked their belief. It is your choice to take said debunking personal.

It's always funny when someone gets deliberately confrontational and then acts "who, me?"

Ah, as you did here:

yes. perhaps I wasn't clear. there were some questionable art being discussed. some said "those questionable art can't be MJ because it's traced". Other people said "MJ used tracing in authenticated artwork too". then there was a discussion about if it was traced or referenced. Hence my initial post of "traced and/or referenced".

From my initial post to the second post, I continuously said I don't know or cannot tell if such claims are true or not. So kindly stop acting like, I'm treating anything as evidence or proof. I'm not and I repeatedly said so. I merely mentioned a past discussion without making any conclusion about validity of the claims. Secondly my initial brief comment was in reference to patience, time needed and teaching techniques used. You are the person who is turning this into a negative thing and big thing with your questions . How can you reply to it by asking a bunch of questions and then can't understand why the topic is continuing to be discussed? You cannot really reply to a person, ask a series of questions and then complain if they reply to you.
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...hael-Jackson?p=4122013&viewfull=1#post4122013

Or when you stated you tired of the conversation (as it may not have gone in your preferred direction) here:

No I didn't. How can I be "proving" anything when I repeatedly say I don't know if such claims are true or not?

First of all this wasn't my suggestion and luckily for me the constitution and freedom of speech and this forum rules gives me the right to discuss anything and everything said in regard to MJ.

Furthermore you are the one who are seeing as negative, not me. I'm the kind of person that can hardly draw stick figures and I already said even if it was traced not everyone can make it look realistic and detailed and that's still talent. So it's not a negative thing for me. As far as I can see no one is seeing it negatively as well, everyone is able to discuss it without getting defensive and accusatory.

Finally I give a lot more strength to Michael's legacy and reputation. Michael already established his legacy, demonstrated his artistic talent in this lifetime. In my opinion it cannot be affected by discussions on this forum or any other forum. It even cannot be affected by heinous criminal accusations as we have seen from examples.

And I don't know why you are so defensive of this book. You don't need to be this melodramatic and make a mountain out of a molehill. Peace out.
http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/t...hael-Jackson?p=4122114&viewfull=1#post4122114

don't worry, smart people will understand what I meant. And some will choose to ignore the inconvenient reality.

Very off-topic and rather condescending I should add. Care to identify publicly who you consider to be the "smart people" in your view?

 

[ivy]

It is your choice to take said debunking personal.

No, your posts was personal. As I said you repeatedly called it "your(my) suggestion" in your follow up posts. As Virre said I wrote about a past discussion from another forum and repeatedly said I'm not making any claims about the validity of such discussion. Right now claiming you didn't claim I personally suggested it is hilarious. For once have the guts to acknowledge what you wrote rather than trying to hide your hands. But don't worry your defensiveness is understandable. and with that I'm done.

AFTER I responded to your ill informed suggestion.

your original post suggesting Michael traced the portraits.

your suggestion Michael traced portraits

edited to add:

Very off-topic

No that comment is very on topic for this thread.

Care to identify publicly who you consider to be the "smart people" in your view?

Anyone who can understand what I'm saying with no explanation / follow up posts required. To be blunt, if you are wondering if I called you stupid, the answer is no. I'm pretty sure you understand what I meant but will choose to ignore it because it's inconvenient.

 

[Tygger]

Ivy, I am referring to your posts so there is no reason why I would not use the adjective your.

I have been consistent with my views here. You have wavered back and forth but, it seems you (and others) consider yourself to be “anyone accusing or suggesting Michael traced any artwork that has been reproduced in this book.” If you consider yourself such, why the upset?

Seems it is time for you to stand steadfast in your conviction... or maybe clean the thread.

 

[ivy]

You have wavered back and forth

Nope. My position has been one and the same and is seen from repeating the same thing over and over.

If you consider yourself such

I don't and your false assumption or accusations has no effect on me. I consider myself as a person who can discuss anything said about MJ - good or bad- without the need for pink glasses and getting overly defensive.

It's getting late here so toodles. Let's not do this again.

 

[Tygger]

Nope. My position has been one and the same and is seen from repeating the same thing over and over.

Re-read your posts lest you forget. You stated others made the suggestion and then you waxed less poetically about how Michael was talented even if he may have traced the portraits. Then backtracked, then Michael, "the talented tracer," again. Now backtrack.

I don't and your false assumption or accusations has no effect on me. I consider myself as a person who can discuss anything said about MJ - good or bad- without the need for pink glasses and getting overly defensive.

You have been quite defensive actually for a stance you seem to not hold despite agreeing with it when wavering.

It's getting late here so toodles. Let's not do this again.

I am sure you will read a post from me not in the too distant future, attempt to correct whatever I posted, and continue a back and forth when it seems you cannot successfully correct me as you did here.

Any chance we will get that off-topic, condescending list of smart people in your view? You might want to be crystal clear for the less than smart in your view as to reach the full audience.

 

[ivy]

Actually I forgot to address this

Ivy, I am referring to your posts so there is no reason why I would not use the adjective your.

I strongly recommend that you go back and read what everyone posted. You will see that everyone else discussed the tracing topic in general. You are the one and the only person that referred and still refer to it as "my suggestion" and acted like I believe it and/or try to prove it. To me (and apparently to others as well) it is quite obvious that your posts more than discussion of tracing and was actually deliberate personal attacks.

Now backtrack.

I find myself consistent - my position was and still is I don't know or can say if tracing /referencing claims are true or not and even if true I don't see it as a negative thing or against MJ's talents. I surely wouldn't treat statements with "even if" as backtracking.

Any chance we will get that off-topic, condescending list of smart people in your view?

scroll up and see the edited post. Although I'm tempted to edit my description a little bit.

You might want to be crystal clear for the less than smart in your view as to reach the full audience.

no need. Majority falls under my "smart people" description. In my experience as for the "less than smart" it makes no difference how clear you try to be or how many times you explain. If they didn't get it the first time, they most likely won't get it no matter how much you try.

and now I'm out.

 

[Tygger]

I strongly recommend that you go back and read what everyone posted. You will see that everyone else discussed the tracing topic in general. You are the one and the only person that referred and still refer to it as "my suggestion" and acted like I believe it and/or try to prove it. To me (and apparently to others as well) it is quite obvious that your posts more than discussion of tracing and was actually deliberate personal attacks.

No.

Three others stated Michael did not trace his portraits as did I; there was no generalities. You were the only one who pulled statements only from my post to attempt to show Michael could indeed trace the MLK, Jr. portrait in particular mostly because I said he did not. There is no reason why I would not refer to your posts as your posts.

Repost where I attacked you personally and not were I debunked ridiculous idea. Saying I attacked you personally does not make it so. Should be simple to repost.

scroll up and see the edited post. Although I'm tempted to edit my description a little bit.

no need. Majority falls under my "smart people" description. In my experience as for the "less than smart" it makes no difference how clear you try to be or how many times you explain. If they didn't get it the first time, they most likely won't get it no matter how much you try.

Remember, stand strong in your convictions. Do not hedge as you are in the above quote. Post your off-topic, condescending list. Should be interesting.

and now I'm out.

You stated peace some time ago and continued so it stands to reason you are not out. You derailed this thread. Until the next thread.

 

[Korgnex]

[ivy] derailed this thread. Until the next thread.

Pardon? Did you mean this instead?

I derailed this thread, too. Another one on my long list. Until the next thread I'm looking forward to derail.

The forum could do without you...
Many here have been witnessing you only causing one argument after another. You are looking for conflicts.
In every thread I see your nickname popping up it's always the same unnecessary drama.

 

[myosotis]

http://[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/p5blqTuXg][/URL]

 

[Tygger]

Pardon? Did you mean this instead?





The forum could do without you...
Many here have been witnessing you only causing one argument after another. You are looking for conflicts.
In every thread I see your nickname popping up it's always the same unnecessary drama.

Off-topic, rude, and a personal attack all in one.

Michael's artwork is the topic.