Conductive body paint allows for electrical current to pass through without frying bit of skin in the process. What you’re seeing in this video is the dancer creating connection between copper contacts.
This has great Teknomagi potential. A little ink and you can turn body movements into a switch. I’ll put it into context. Imagine you have a door. The absolute basic way to open it is a door handle and push. A slightly more advanced way (if you like) is a button you push and opens the door. Above that, doors that open automatically, either with movement sensors or RFIDs.
Now imagine a door where you had to place the correct hand sign on to it? Or a door that opens when you have to draw the correct symbol? Hell, you could make it even more interesting buy only opening if the correct pattern is on your hands. Any talk of participation in museums, you have an ink here that turns your visitors into wizards.
I spent a long while trying to find the right video to demonstrate a point, a lot of them were getting silly with the potential applications. This one only makes one, “You’re phone could change into a laptop then back into a phone”. No it couldn’t, unless you phone was already the size of laptop, or you wanted a laptop that can only do what a phone does. Programmable matter looks like it can change shape and colour, not mass and certainly not into a different component.
“Create a new media type“. The video imagines furniture, business meeting rapid-prototyping and art. I imagine a bank of these Claytronic pools being the ultimate in access to museum collections. I imagine the conference papers of the future being about 3D digitisation, the issues of conservation about scanning objects to an atomic level and whether people can claim copyright on a temporary near-identical object even if it dissolves back into a grey goo.
What would the ethics be? This could change every idea about material culture we know, especially the tenet that says being in the presence of an object is better than any digital image. Well, how about a being in the presence of a digital 3D solid replica that you could smash open and have a look inside and then hit the reset button?
To which I would say, “what’s the point?” How much more would we rely upon narrative for the experience?
I have about 260 feeds going into my Google Reader. Many of them are Google Alerts or delicious subscription-type feeds. I sit in a torrent of information from a plethora of sources. All day, I’ve seen a billion people talking about Ben Stiller printing money. Not that long ago, I stopped trying to report on every story about how museum’s were cauterising massive financial bleeds. We live in a world where a fake museum is making more money than actual ones.
Yes, a fake museum. I don’t care if it said it was the Smithsonian. Any museum using straw as packing material is clearly one rooted in fantasy.
I wondered if I had lost the ability to write about the future. All my news feeds and I can’t find inspiration or motivation to write about the outbreaks in museums. It’s not helped by the New Yorker and David Hockney getting thrills out of making art that looks like bad mid-90s point-click-adventure games with 2009 technology.
The late J. G. Ballard once said:
I would sum up my fear about the future in one word: boring. And that’s my one fear: that everything has happened; nothing exciting or new or interesting is ever going to happen again… the future is just going to be a vast, conforming suburb of the soul.
The Ballardian nightmare is that we would run out of innovation. If news patterns are anything to go by, the recession has done something worse: It has put our future on pause.
I’m viewing this through newcurator editorial lens. Everything I blogged was chosen (sort of) carefully. They were not all heralds of a sweeping changes in the museum mainstream, nor end points of discussion. They were little steps or small shifts along a path that I would sometimes get demonstrative over to make a point. I notice there has been a a distinct lack of these steps compared to a couple of months ago; an innovation downturn. Don’t believe what the New York Times says about “Tight Times Loosen Creativity”. What Mike Daisey (and Susie Bright) posted in response says it better than I could.
From mikedaisey.com
I’m talking about things making the news here. I say nothing against most of the bloggers I read who all make such fascinating reading. Sometimes I think I may as well hand Nina Simon the newcurator keys or risk becoming one of those annoying as hell pingback blogs that just copy my content. That’s why I’ve got delicious and tumblr.
This is also not a criticism of people working in museums (before someone undoubtedly accuses me of this). It’s more a comment on the current State of Things. You can see it in the wider microcosm of the art world. Repatriation and restitution is on the increase with museums all over the world handing back objects or going to court over it. Even JP Morgan recognise a good thing. Economic Plight = Culture / Ownership. There’s an Asset Grab going on and the only people actually buying are part of a French/Arab coalition.
What happened to the museum news? Or should I say, what happened to things in museums that were news-worthy? A dinosaur with bad posture and I think Manchester Museum plan to lock up a man in a tower. Looking at his quotes, it’s probably for the best. Same goes for so many art critics who appear to be having collective attacks of existentialism as they try to work out what they do and what they are now good for.
So I try to think about and research the Metrocurator and Death of the Curator ideas. First thing I find? There was a discussion about so many related issues that not only Godwin’d but stamped over well-worn ground in circles rather than any kind of exchange/development of ideas. It made the whole thing sound horribly and frustratingly boring.
3. Hang around places where they hang out and try to talk to them.
4. Write them letters about what will happen if they don’t talk to you.
5. Stalk them (whilst fantasising what you would say to them).
That was AAM’s advice. I hope you don’t mind me offering my 1 Way to Engage Legislators
1. Become so damned important they come to you. These are politicians you’re dealing with and they just love to be seen “attached” to some big photo-op. Don’t sell out your influence or reputation by rushing to be part of they’re club.
I had no doubt in my mind who I wanted to exhibit for the new ArtFriday. I’ve been wanting to put Tiffany Horan’s stuff on here for a while. She was part of the ArtFriday social network but went to Bahrain before she could submit anything.
The other reason for wanting to display Tiffany’s art is that she is still a student and we’re all about the future here at Newcurator. When she’s a successful artist, I want to be able to say she was on ArtFriday. And she will be successful.
Considering the variety of things Tiffany has turned her hand to; photography, sculpture, drawing, video art, it’s rare to see the development of such a mature sense of direction and style in one so young. In each piece she does, you can see her crafting the simplicity of a powerful statement without resorting to alienating cheap tricks that I see so often in young artists. I doesn’t surprise me that Tiffany also describes herself as a writer.
You can find Tiffany Horan at her blog, her twitter, and her flickr.
This is the third time I’m trying out ArtFriday. The first one was just an open call that took ages as I unpicked emails and twitter direct messages. The second ArtFriday was based around a social network that was bulky and burnt bandwidth like no tomorrow.
I’m going to try something different this time. Instead of making the call out on the social networks, I’m going to dive into them and see what I find. ArtFriday from now on is completely my choice instead of compiling submissions. The focus is going to be on one artist from now on. They then get put into the ArtFriday Alumni in the sidebar.
Don’t go emailing me saying you want to be on ArtFriday. They’ll be ignored. To improve your chances, follow me on twitter, facebook or tumblr and make lots of good art that’ll I’ll notice.
I’ll try to email you beforehand. I’ll also have to hotlink. Sorry, but I’d rather not have “bandwidth exceeded” every month.
With that, I’ll do the first 3rd Generation ArtFriday in a few moments.
Metrocurators is the term I used to describe a new generation of curator that’s lightweight, deals in very little bureaucracy, has a DIY attitude because of very limited funds and basically is running all over a city pushing small outbreaks of museums into public spaces. The motivation and the survival of a Metrocurator is based upon creativity. The former models of big established institutions look too slow and lumbering.
If you want comparisons, it’s like the graffiti writer versus the council clean up crews. It’s like innovative start-ups in Silicon Valley versus the big companies like Microsoft or IBM. If you care to ignore politics, its like Hamas compared to the American army.
I said in the original post, there’s “museum-y things” to be considered. I think I’ve found two missing pieces.
Public Collectors consists of informal agreements where collectors allow the contents of their collection to be published and permit those who are curious to directly experience the objects in person.
So ordinary people spend some time cataloging their personal collections and allow people to come have a look. So far, most of the collections are based in Chicago and made of books, films and vinyl (and the originator’s extensive collection of porn’n’ gore comics from Mexico).
This would be a valuable resource to the Metrocurator, who hasn’t got the ability to store, conserve or build collections of their own. Think about the numbers of personal collections in one city. It’s the Metrocurator’s job to recruit these people into lending a few objects as well as assisting in the correct cataloging and consulting on storage. That would take care of providing collections for the Metrocurator to use as opposed to having to rely on artist contacts to commission site-specific pieces.
The other missing jigsaw piece is funding. Sure, the Metrocurator could go through the usual channels of applying to grant giving organisations (or even find a venture culturalist). Or use “Crowd funding” like Kickstarter.com (found via Intelligent Naivety). Kickstarter (I’m so glad they kept the E) works like micro-philanthropy (as opposed to micro-credit) with people funding individual creative projects with pledges (I’d call them micro-grants). They also have a whole set of guidelines in place.
This may be a good way to fund the “building” each individual mini museum, especially when it comes to security. Or even finding the small amounts of funds for exhibitions.
With a bit of work, you can have exhibition space, collections and funding. I’m now trying to think of what else a Metrocurator needs in terms of infrastructure?
No, this isn’t another blog war. This is me remixing two blog posts a la Jason Nevins Vs. Run DMC.
I found these two blog posts at roughly the same time and was intrigued at the sense they made when put into other/wider contexts. This is partly an experiment, and party because whenever I see two lists (especially two lists of criticism!) I want to see if I can make a… critical matrix!
Paul Orselli’s ExhibiTricks said Five Things that make grocery store exhibits bad. I’m going to summarise and turn them into fundamental statements about the wider aspects of museum design, therefore museum intent. You have to read the original blog post for a greater explanation. But this is five bad design
1. “Anti-Green Design”
2. “Inefficient”
3. “Creatively lazy”
4. Unintended Messages
5. Fundraising ploys
Martin Weller of The Ed Techie made a list of Four Assumptions of the Publishing Apocalypse. These Four Things came from the criticisms of journal publishing’s outdated referencing guidelines concerning digital content. Again, go and read to see where I’m going with this. I feel there is a lot in common with journal publishing and museums, especially the academia, the resistance to digital and the fact that both are media and follow media methodologies.
A. The assumption of power
B. The assumption of quality
C. The assumption of immutability
D. The assumption of proprietary
Now, lets see if these 5 and 4 statements can make 20 pearls of wisdom. I apologise for the epic length of this article.
A1. The resistance over eco-digitisation - I’m going to take this as a statement about materials and museum’s failing ability to be eco-giants. Just think about the amount of paper a museum uses and wastes. Now, I want to believe that every single leaflet a museum produces is worth keeping, but its not the case. How much can be digital? Why isn’t every museum leading the eco-way? Solution: You only have to look at what the Mattress Factory is doing.
A2. Ignoring digital efficiency – I’m going to interpretPauls’ statement as "wasting staff time" and I think about all the other ways staff are locked into old fashioned practices. Solution: Too many to count but one example is a registrar using RFID tags to provide a better collection management. I think there needs to be new training to get over this issue.
A3.Stifling Creativity – I think this is a matter of trusting staff. Look at what Google do with encouraging side projects in order to tap into their staff’s abilities. The issue here could be the result of losing too many creative people to other industries. Solution: I would say the venture culturalist model in some form could help.
A5. Money Priorities – An ugly realisation that may be above my pay grade to solve. We’re all suffering in one way or another recently and museums have taken a kicking financially despite numbers increasing. Solution: If you come up with one, I’m sure we’d all like to know. The Museum Bailout idea on a grand scale (like national organisation level) could have done something, I’m sure. Everyone working together to improve membership numbers. Also, Maryann Devine spoke about a For-profit model for the arts which could be considered but would take a massive change in industry thinking.
B1. Green Quality-What is best for the museum should be what is best for the planet. I don’t mean this to be a puritan statement against extravagance, but as Paul said, is there a need for an overabundance of plastics? Yes, it is nice to have a giant molded cartoon character in an exhibition The other side of this is touring exhibitions. What is the carbon footprint of flying art from China? It would be a shame if it couldn’t happen. Solution: Greater ethical guidelines produced. Does there need to be a change in how we view materialism? Would people accept a rapid-prototype of the same object on the other side of the world?
B2.Inappropriate ideologies – Martin talks about quality as elitism and Paul talks about entropy. I’m going to take this as the stagnation of new people into the field. Solution: Go waaaaaay back to my article on museum HR to find all kinds of talking points.
B3.Lack of new ideas – There definitely needs to be a modernising process that say that something done 100 times doesn’t make it good. This is were the authority needs to be relaxed and inspiration needs to come from other sources, especially with online/technology. Solution: (and a great example of what I mean) The Brooklyn Museum released an API and someone made an iPhone app. Its time to tap that massive developer community out there and trust that they are not random amateurs.
B4.Narrow Meanings – Bit of a paradox to hold authority over quality yet make mixed connotations and contexts. But it happens. I think the problem here is overcoming bias. Solution: I fully believe that people can handle an incredible amount of information, why stop at labels and information boards? Send them down paths, let them explore the data themselves, give them everything you have on a subject in a manageable format. This must work otherwise wikipedia would never have become so big.
B5. Marketable Standards – Tricky, because if something work and makes money, why change it? But are you trying to “sell chunks of museum real estate”? This is where the US and UK differ. In the UK, it’s not so much a preoccupation with sponsorship but a concentration on under-16 education to receive funding. It either case, it can skew a museum plan into unsustainability in a long term ie. Young single males aren’t going to go to a place overrun by children. Solution: Don’t let it dominate your path. More variety of… products. (Ug.)
C1. Eco-Denial – THE PLANET IS DYING. Solution: SAVE THE PLANET.
C2. Comfortably Slum – There’s no excuse for inefficiency, especially with a financial crisis. Solution: Time for an audit. Hell, get some strategists in. I can recommend one.
C3.Repetition, Repetition, Repetition – You know what happens when you don’t change a stuck record? People get annoyed. To me, this is again an area of stagnation that would take a huge effort to overcome. Solution: More graduate programs, more internships, anything to hike new thinkers into the museum society. Government’s should really pay for this.
C4. Stay the course – I am of the opinion that individuals can consume information much faster than ever. Look at how viral marketing works and how it’s the only game in town. Cultural flashes before being replaced by the next meme. I think museums need to speed up their turnaround of content before people tire of them. Solution: I touched on this a bit in my Make Museums Like Magazines article.
C5. Knife-Edge Finance – What happens when there’s a financial crisis and there an over-reliance upon so few reliable income streams? Google “museum” and “crisis”. So much is broken, I don’t know where to start. Saving museum workers jobs would be good. Without them, there’s no museum. Just a room of stuff. Solution: Hate to say it, but can we rewrite deaccessioning ethics yet? You know, without dragging reputations through the mud. There must be some way to protect the public’s trust AND museums without flat refusals. I would prefer thinner museums than no museums.
D1. Ignore the problem – Yeah, without wholesale change the problem is going to get fixed. Solution: Need more Museum Eco-activists.
D2. No Other Models – I think you’ll find this changing quite fast. See any post of mine about museum expansionism. Solution: Adapt. Invent new systems. The Commons.
D3. Cultural Black Hole – Again, there’s a risk of losing good interested people to other industries. Again, I think of newspapers like I did in Death of the Curator. What happens when there are thousands of people who can work in a newspaper? They start blogs. Solution: Diversify, jump on bandwagons, find any new outlet and dominate it before it turns on you (eg. the music industry and mp3).
D4. Signal & Noise – Maybe more of the same, but museums shouldn’t talk about “authority” or “authenticity”; like they’re a given. They are things to be earned and they can vanish pretty quickly so its pretty dangerous ground to describe yourself in such ways. Today’s media is a lot of noise over signal and boasting isn’t going to help. Solution: Add to the production. Take Artbabble for instance. Those videos feel like documentaries made by experts… mostly. There’s something more that just showing or curating but producing something else. (This point isn’t 100% clear and may need further thinking).
D5. We own museums – Sponsorship can go somewhere else or dry up, people vote with their feet and imagine if all the big companies started their own museums rather than normal philanthropy. There is very little freedom for museums to combat this when you think about it. Solution: ?
There. 20 thoughts over 1500 words for you to ponder over the weekend. I apologise for any grammatical errors but it is quite late. If anyone has anything to add, like a different interpretation or a different solution, add them to the comments with the (letter)(number) reference at the beginning.
So let me get this straight: stuff that goes into a museum cannot be sold to pay the bills or plug budget gaps (forget the Yanqui Difference in “buying more art”), but art can be donated from an educational institution to a national heritage trust and auctioned to build a museum?
But if that art was inside the museum, oh no, you couldn’t possible auction it afterwards.
Is that the actual limit of museum ethics? Museum walls?
Let’s just assume that all museum ethics are equal, that the general importance of every rule is on a par. Considering the amount of noise made over deaccessioning, I know I’m raising the status of a lot of guidelines. So with that in mind, isn’t this like building a museum based on plunder?
Deaccessioning, selling art, breaching public trust – bad, right?
Looting national heritage, plundering culture – also very bad, yes?
Both equally highly-debated and enforced aspects of the museum industry. Building a museum on cultural blood money, we still feel the effects today with repatriation trying to correct the wrongs. In this case, the museum is deaccessioning/breaching public trust before it’s been built! What happens when that auction is won by an overseas businessman? That artwork is lost from the public and lost from the nation. But don’t worry, it was never within the museum walls. When those walls are built, you can expect it to be the bastion of obeying deaccessioning rules with nothing ever leaving the public trust.
We wouldn’t dare dream of something like that happening in this museum.
(If there is anyone who can argue how this fits into museum ethics, then I would like to hear it. If the ethics are dependent upon the actual founding of the museum to provide a definition and a boundary, then its not ethics, is it? It’s dogma)
For no other reason that vanity, but also proving that The NEWCURATOR Twitter Acquisition/Disposal Policy works. I have been blocking every follow-hoarder, every spam zombie, every single person trying to sell me something and every single “marketing strategist”. I followed every museum worker or artist (allowing to be liberal with the definition).
I didn’t-follow-back only those who I could work out what they did. (If you feel I should be following you, let me know).
@newcurator's followers grouped by Bio description
I’m not sure how the algorithm works so I have no idea why Arizona is there.
Top 10 @newcurator's followers grouped by Occupation
I call the policy a victory. You know what this means? It means the newcurator twitter followers list is a comprehensive and moderated… heh, curated directory of the arts and culture industry. Imagine if all everyone followed each other? That would be a major creative/museum twitter network of contacts. Who needs twibes?
As part of my daily routine, I check where traffic is coming from and where it’s going (so if you could allow google analytics if you have a javascript blocker, it would really help). This time, I checked who’s been saving newcurator links on delicious.com. It was this one that caught my eye.
Shockingly bad blog that features even worse art
Shockingly bad? Possibly, in places, I’d admit that. But even worse art? I appreciate every one’s efforts who submitted to ArtFriday. Everyone who was part of ArtFriday came from making links via twitter and I value every acquaintance.
Dear Karen Archey (@findings), you can take your rudeness and elitism with you to artfagcity.com. Here at newcurator, we’re about the future
Paddy Johnson, Art Fag City’s main editor and someone who I’ve personally enjoyed reading and has pride of place in my feed reader, said this.
These are only opinions. The job of artists and curators is to determine the valuable feedback, and ignore the rest.
True. I also believe it’s the curator’s role to defend the artists they represent. Anyway, these were my followers on twitter, not multi-millionaire artists.
And there we have it. I now ask all of you: Does rudeness and elitism have a part to play in the future of art and/or museums? If so, what exactly? I personally think about the lack of elitism that launched hundreds of musicians off a social network like Myspace. I also think about how things like twitter have allowed artists to gain a lot more exposure. I also see how rudeness is replacing honest debate and cheapening the levels of critical theory of culture.
The concept is simple: after curators argue for their proposed acquisitions, collectors, who have ponied up money to participate in the event, vote on what to buy with the pooled funds.
Remember my Death of the Curator article? I was taken by the idea of ”crowdsourcing the curatorial decisions of an exhibition”. What I saw was the potential for pure populism of a large community to supersede an art historians curatorial expertise, amongst other things.
I saw the word “vote”. Maybe it’s not the Death of the Curator, but of the Museum Trustee.
Look at MyFootballClub. A load of people paid membership fees to go into a fund to buy a football (soccer in Yanqui) club. They ended buy acquiring Ebbsfleet United, a small Kent club in the fifth tier and turned it into the first web-community owned football club. As this Guardian article from 2007 states, the plan was to have the new community of owners pick the team and vote on all major decisions like a big crowdsourced game of Football Manager.
As I understand it, that hasn’t panned out exactly to plan. Liam Daish, the manager, still had final say on things like tactics and training. The “Board” was mainly dealing with, wait for it… voting onsigning new players.
I think you see where I’m going with this. A web-community run museum? The director performing whatever the Board decided through majority vote. The curator’s job is safe (ish).
I’m just kicking this idea out there for discussion. Being a trustee of a museum is maybe not as glamourous as running a football club. Trustees tend to be wealthy and well-connected fundraisers, so many museums wouldn’t be supported by a web community. I imagine there would have to be something to make it less… boring? I do quite like the idea of registering my vote to influence an acquisition. Hell, maybe even a deaccessioning. What shape would a collection take if several thousand people were deciding what direction to go into? So much is said about museums being in “the public’s trust”. Well, what would happen if the public were actually trusted?
The advertising agency Mother has opened a gallery space called Downstairs at Mother with the first exhibition being a selection of Peter Blake prints. Alongside the opening is the CCA Art Bus, a London double-decker with art displays up top ad educational facilities on the bottom deck.
There are two quotes I want to pull from the Creative Review article.
“Mother as an agency has always sought to immerse itself in the creative environment that inspires it – not to interrupt but rather contribute to art and popular culture”
What an amazing mission statement. I suppose only an ad agency could have come up with it. These are people whose job is to sell creativity. Think about that when you next see an empty museum.
The second quote:
Because we’re not representing artists and not selling work we can do whatever we fancy
Let’s unpick that a little. They have a space that is not in the professional gallery market so don’t have to work on commissions or agents fees. This exhibition is there for the sole purpose of being inspirational. Doesn’t that sound like it is more like a museum to you? But it isn’t because they can do whatever they want. This is an example of what can happen with a true level of autonomy and independence. Downstairs at Mothers doesn’t have to answer to anyone in the realm of museum ethics. This is a corporate venture subsidised by its own business.
Granted, it doesn’t look like it plans to build a collection and viewings are by appointment only. I’m going to overlook these possibly-financial decisions to make a bigger point. A psuedo-museum (minus having to hustle for funds) can focus entirely on innovation, something the bunch of people Upstairs at Mothers have in spades. They’ve got a fancy bus to drive around London! How many people are going to look at that and say, “Damn, that’s cool”? This model has the Be Awesome factor not through being short term, but by being free to do whatever they please. What will they do next? Who knows?
The reason I’m so interested in this because I try to imagine if this can be/needs to be explanded upon. A corporate autonymous cultural institution without needing to join membership organisations. This is the speculative part of me that has read too many books like Snowcrash or Jennifer Government where big business has taken over. But then I wonder about what would happen if most museums had to close because the government or philanthropists couldn’t fund them, or there was a massive exodus from organisations like the Museum Association or the AAM.
Would the sudden popularity of institutions like Downstairs at Mothers seem so far-fetched?
The Museum Boijmans van Beuningen in Rotterdam had an exhibition enhanced by the AR+RFID Lab using… Augmented Reality and RFID tags. Just look at the possibilities this kind of system has, especially for handling collections or archaeology-heavy museums.
We just need to work out a decent way for this to be in a pair of goggles and we can all pretend to be in a Will Gibson novel.
I’ve wanted to show this video for a while, not just because it’s pretty amazing but also because it is a very creative way to make a point/display information. Everything about the BMW museum is to display the elements of design that goes into every car, established by the different car outlines appearing. You also get a strong sense of the BMW branding that extend to the rest of the museum. These shapes aren’t being scribbled out on paper or clunked together on a CAD program, they’re gently and aerodynamically built out of thin air. If there’s a better example of preparing the audience to the sense of awe running through this museum, I can’t find it.
Let’s be honest, a bunch of Bimmers in a building is called a car showroom.
This is an odd idea I’ve been entertaining for a while which only came to a head after a joke James Gleventhal started. Sometimes, ideas just need a name.
Whilst I’ve had guest posts before, it’s normally because I’ve been away for long periods or just bored with the museum news. I always gave people credit and linked to their site to hopefully drive some traffic their way.
Now, I wonder. I’ve enjoyed writing some pretty strange tangents lately and people seem to be enjoying them more. I’ve also felt very free to say whatever I like and make criticisms without having to walk on eggshells. I now wonder if anyone else would like to have this freedom.
I’m offering people to join my Dojo of Museum Shinobi. You can write whatever you like, criticise, praise, appear like a breeze, stick in a knife then disappear again. Shinobi means stealth, so you get to do this anonymously. (I exercise the right to not get myself sued, which may help me judge if things get “too far”)
As Museum Shogun, I get to give you your new Museum Shinobi name. Remember, grasshopper, I will not reveal you or your identity. I would like indicators to people if a Shinobi makes more than one article.
So, here is your chance to get something off your chest without committing Career Seppuku. Or your chance to air an idea without worrying about Reputation Harakiri. However, I am probably not going to publish what a million people are saying publicly ( ie ”I think Brandeis University is wrong!”) or mundanely (Museums need to be more child-friendly!). This is not a chance to be timid. My Shinobi will be Strong.
Interested, grasshopper? Email me shogun(at)newcurator.com with either a finished article or some ideas of what you want to write about and we will discuss it further.
Latest Comments