Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Winter Breeze by paulypants Winter Breeze by paulypants
The best way to get the upper hand in a snowball fight is to catch your opponent off guard! The Cheesecake Boy in my new holiday piece "Winter Breeze" makes it far too easy when his pants unexpectedly fall to the ground, revealing his festive Christmas underwear!

Limited-edition prints are available in my store: [link]
Add a Comment:
 

Daily Deviation

Given 2013-06-28
The suggester said: This series is brilliant—anyone who thinks pants falling down randomly is a ridiculous scenario is invited to figure out the constantly slipping straps of cheesecake girls. Winter Breeze by ~paulypants ( Suggested by neurotype and Featured by Astralseed )
:iconziffler:
ziffler Featured By Owner Mar 25, 2015
Fun.  Humorous. Silly.  I love it.
Reply
:iconsilver1158:
silver1158 Featured By Owner May 29, 2014  Hobbyist Artisan Crafter
I've seen this. It's a book cover.
Reply
:iconcrossheart-hope2draw:

I have that exact pair of underwear... Hmm...

Reply
:iconbear48:
bear48 Featured By Owner Jul 11, 2013  Professional
nice
Reply
:iconsakurasensie14:
sakurasensie14 Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2013
This is hilarious. Lol :-)
Reply
:iconclassicjazz8:
ClassicJazz8 Featured By Owner Jul 3, 2013  Hobbyist
That made me laugh..good job
Reply
:icontobiasbui:
tobiasbui Featured By Owner Jul 1, 2013
I wanna a pants like this :p
Reply
:iconmagith1:
Magith1 Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
And that's why you always wear a belt with jeans.
Reply
:iconjacob-livious:
Jacob-Livious Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013
Wowza.
Reply
:iconspazzygamergirl:
Spazzygamergirl Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
lol
Reply
:iconcodepurpleyedrawings:
CodePurpleyedrawings Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
I like his undies but this is crazy.
Reply
:iconmidnightpanther:
midnightpanther Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I have fluffy pyjama pants with the same colored pattern as his undies. 0.o
Reply
:iconkarinta:
Karinta Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Student General Artist
Haha. Quite funny.. :D
Reply
:iconthegalleryofeve:
TheGalleryOfEve Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Congratulations on your well-deserved DD!!! :iconflyingheartsplz::iconlainloveplz::iconflyingheartsplz: :clap::clap::clap:
Reply
:iconrosepetal179:
rosepetal179 Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013
oh my gosh...that is so cool!! is this a scene from a movie?
Reply
:iconsimplysilent:
SimplySilent Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013
:heart: Congrats on the DD! :clap:
Reply
:iconkakasakuobessive:
KakaSakuObessive Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Nice undies xD
Great piece, by the way.
Reply
:iconmyly14:
Myly14 Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
o__o ... art is just... werid
Reply
:iconjester-of-the-clown:
Jester-of-the-Clown Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
You're being generous calling this art...
Reply
:iconyvonne84:
yvonne84 Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Why isn't this art?
It is expressive and there is a good amount of skill involved.
There isn't any gore, nudity or breach of human rights either.
Or is it just that you are homophobic perhaps?
I couldn't find any art in your gallery either, so maybe you shouldn't be talking about things you may not understand.
Reply
:iconcommandereve:
CommanderEVE Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013  Student General Artist
OK, I know about art and photography, so I am going to reply to this if you do not mind. :B

I would say that this piece is borderline expressive, in the sense that the two men are homosexuals and the man on the right has his pants down, which if I remember correctly means that he is ‘open’ for a gay relationship. Although, the contest of this piece does not make any sense, it just seems to be a mish-mash of traced stock photographs which the artists thought looked good together. This may look ‘skilful’ to you, but to my eye I see a piece that has been traced from three layered stock photographs.

The use of lighting on the right man’s face, leg, jacket and trousers is not coherent to the lighting in the background, as if it has been shot in studio with a studio light lighting him from the left and maybe above to the right.

The two men stand out from the background due to the awkward lighting; both men look like they have been photographed in the same studio but with slightly different lighting and times which is why it does not fit into the background.

The shading is also in all the wrong places, excepted for the shadow under the man who is squatting on the snow. This is due to the fact that the artist has drawn what they have seen on the studio stock photographs hoping that it would fit in with the background.

It also seems that in the stock photographs that have been used without permission, there were no gloves and so the artist has improvised which make the picture look even more awkward when it already was. The same goes for the snowballs they are holding, they look out of place. It also seems that some of this drawing is still part of the photographs, as the details seem to change, just look at the left man’s arm compared to their faces. I have also noticed odd shadowing behind the two men, as if it is some chromatic aberration created by the possible fact that these are three different drawings that have been layered on top of each other than photographed.  

Now, the composition. There is none, it is all out of place, as I said before it is nothing but layered images that have been traced.

The scale is also off, look how the two men look comparison to the background. The two men look huge compared to the trees in the background; this is not Attack on Titan you know.

This also has nothing to do with homophobia, as Jester has just simply pointed out more or less what I have stated in a nut shell. And so that somehow makes him homophobic because?

Also, you do not have to be awesome art are to be able to understand it, you can be an appreciator of art, as there are people who get paid a lot of money for critiquing art even though they do not create any art of their own. Although it does help to have hands on experience.

And so, it is you who does not understand, and please, do not turn this into a ‘who can draw better then who argument’ as that is not the focus of this debate.
Reply
:iconpaulypants:
paulypants Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2013
I don't typically respond to comments like this because I'm not interested in defending my work. You are welcome to your opinion about its merits or lack thereof. I enjoy what I do and have found an audience for my work, which is all I ever hoped for. But I do wish to respond to your accusations about tracing and using uncredited stock photography, neither of which were done in the creation of this piece. Like many artists, I take reference photos for my work. I used MYSELF as a model -- my hat, my gloves, MY undies, etc. As for the lighting and other issues you raise, I'll just say that my inspiration for this series comes from the classic pin-up girl art of the 40's and 50's, and I'm particularly drawn to the works of artists like Art Frahm and Gil Elvgren whose illustrations were intentionally, and quite charmingly, very contrived and at times, "awkward." Love it. Hate it. You're entitled. Frankly, I find it amusing that a silly picture of a guy baring his bum would elicit such a pompous critique.
Reply
:iconcommandereve:
CommanderEVE Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2013  Student General Artist
You sound like a copy of yvonne84.
Reply
:iconjester-of-the-clown:
Jester-of-the-Clown Featured By Owner Jul 4, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Likely it is, or at least a friendipants.
Reply
Hidden by Owner
(1 Reply)
:iconyvonne84:
yvonne84 Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Working from photo reference isn't necessarily bad, there are some professional artists who do great work with that process.
I looked through the artists's gallery and I was under the impression that he makes his own reference photographs, and he uses them to make some pretty good line-work.

His colour, shading, compostion and detaling choice may be odd, I put it down to a style-choice since I have seen it before in various kind of 50's art.
I also gathered that for the sake of style the backround was more intended to be a backdrop (like those image screens you can take photographs in front of).

I did not assume that Jester is homophobic, I merely asked for an answer.
Which I got.
I was unsure of the reason jester berated this piece, especially when I looked at jester's works.

I agree you don't have to be a great artist to understand and critique it, but why in the world whould you (if you truely understand art) post the kind of doodles (I am referring to the skill that is used) Jester posts.
Even If a person only knows a lot about art in theory, I bet he can produce quite some good stuff when he sits down with a pencil and paper and puts his mind to it.

If someone is berating a piece whilst the skill-gap between berater and berated is so large, it usually means that the berater has some kind of other reason (other then the skill of the piece) to berate the piece in question.
This is the whole reason why I asked if jester was homophobic.

Can you be sure paulypants uses other peoples photographs without permission and without creditting them?

I won't make this into a "who can draw better argument", so do not worry.
I am here to learn more, so please tell me what your thoughts are on the points I have made in this post.
Reply
:iconcommandereve:
CommanderEVE Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2013  Student General Artist

Indeed, I have seen some very good drawings which have used stock photographs. I sometimes use stock photographs as reference, but my drawing ends up looking completely different. I have also looked through the artist’s gallery and this is not his best piece, not so many of the others look quite as bad as this one.


This is not 50s Art, this is 50s: randywelborn.com/rw005.jpg And I do not see anything wrong with the colouring, shading or lighting because it is stylized. As for this piece, I do not think it is stylized; it just looks like a mess.


If it was intended to be a background, then why are the two men holding snowballs? Unless they are props, but then the snow on the right man’s jack is wet, as it is soaking through his jacket as you can see.


But Jester understand art, I know he does. He is an appreciator, like I said. Indeed, he does have some promising pieces in his gallery; he just needs to practice more.


I can be half sure, becuase for one he has not stated that he has used stock photographs unless they are his, like you aid before.


Ok, thank you. You are mature, unlike some other users on this site. I have been in arguments where it turns into insult slinging.

Reply
:iconyvonne84:
yvonne84 Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Mike Deodato Jr. is one artist I know of who makes it work with reference pictures who is in the comic business. Maybe you've heard of him/seen his work? I am always interested in artists working methods.

As for 50's art;
a lot of vintage pieces don't have great composition or shading techniques.
There is a lot more free information about techniques available right now then there was in the 20's to 50's.
Also just because it is vintage doesn't mean all of it is great and up to today's standards when composition and such are concerned.
I have seen a lot of vintage pieces with wonky backgrounds and weird/odd/off/bad/almost non existant compositions. To me it just adds to the charm.
Just because there are some artists that have not been bettered even now imho, doesn't mean all the popular artists from those days are that good.

In my eyes technique isn't holy.
I have read some graphic novels that had a lot of mistakes, but they had such charm and the storytelling and style was so alluring that I love those books regardless of the mistakes.

If it's a single image, I still take charm and style into account plus the feel that the image gives off (don't know how to explain that in other words).
I value the image as a whole, and bad composition/lighting/shading/whatever doesn't necessarily devalue the image to such an extent that I don't like it anymore.

I personally do not know Jester, the impression I get from his gallery is that he is very untrained and scribbles at the level of a 12/13 year old.
The only promising piece in his gallery imho is the Motley man.
It shows somewhat of an understanding of form and the way that form looks when not viewed head on.

And in what way do you mean "he understands art"?
Do you mean in the way that artists use their techniques, the steps they take, the tools they use and the theory they use?

Or do you mean in the ways that art can be interpreted, the messages it sends and all that.
Like an artist who throws discarded wrappings and other trash together in less then 5 minutes and says it is a piece depicting our western consumer culture.
No technique is involved, at least no technique some one has to study/train for any length of time to aquire.
Usually when I see images that depict no recognisable shape, have no aesthetic value to me but are said to send a very powerfull message, I stand alongside a certain kind of people who are fervently discussing the piece and raving over it's deep message, the only thing I think (after trying to see any kind of meaning) is "I don't get it, can anyone give me a hint?".
Sometimes I get a "you just don't understand art" response...instead of some helpfull hints.
You mean that Jester understands the meanings of that kind of art?
I so, he is a genious!
Reply
:iconjester-of-the-clown:
Jester-of-the-Clown Featured By Owner Jun 30, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
"Mike Deodato Jr. is one artist I know of who makes it work with reference pictures"
Referencing is not photo-tracing. I have no problem with referencing- or photo-tracing, if properly referred. ~paulypants used photo-tracing in this work, with a vague nod to his resource in his summary.

"a lot of vintage pieces don't have great composition or shading techniques."
that is a lie. That is a fucking lie. Stylization doesn't make for bad composition or subpar shading, regardless for period. Carelessness does. Here the artist was careless. This was not stylistic, this is a lack of proper regard for context of imagery and attention to detail.

"If it's a single image, I still take charm and style into account plus the feel that the image gives off (don't know how to explain that in other words)."
You're damn right you can't- because that's your personal, subjective opinion, given from your particular standpoint and understanding of artistic aesthetics.
Both me and Eve have stated that this is not the best in the artist's works and that we were judging it on its own particular merits. Trying to beat us over the head with your personal opinion as if it's the rule is absurd.

"I value the image as a whole, and bad composition/lighting/shading/whatever doesn't necessarily devalue the image to such an extent that I don't like it anymore."
Which is odd, considering you seem to value the technical approaches to art rather highly, if your gallery is anything to go on, scrawlings and diagrams and all.

"the impression I get from his gallery is that he is very untrained and scribbles at the level of a 12/13 year old."
This was a complete shot in the dark and the "impression" that I get is that you overvalue the art class/textbook approach to things and fail to understand the value of getting your hands dirty.

If you had taken even half a glance down my page, or even more than a page's worth of looking through my gallery, you'd have realized my focus has been for the longest time on the human form, particularly in regards to foreshortening and proportions, and that I was just beginning to break out into the more broadbased geometric aspects of drawing. Whilst in your ivory tower viewpoint this matters very little,, in terms of actual hands-on experience, it appears that I've done more than you have in terms of artistic work and self-challenge, if we're going to take potshots at each other's gallery.

The cute skeletal forms that you've posted are certainly useful, as I've composed most of my figures from the bones out using that same method. Problem is, this loses most of its punch outside of imagined works, as serious life drawing/portraiture/landscapes/still life drawing is technically about space and volume, not body shape guesswork. It's very context based and about parts relative to each other, when you get down to the nitty gritty, having to draw big before small and all that jazz, and while our artistic focuses seem mutual, you appear to be stuck between the classroom and the art gallery, utilizing vagueries and backhanded observations rather than actually sticking to your own work, your own, original opinion, and actually accomplishing something- which, as of yet, you've yet to share with this community, even though it's been more than a year- which is longer than even the laziest deviant takes to cough up some kind of example of work- and these sterile studies of yours are hardly examples of much more than what teacher told you and your handwriting.

So before you decide to snipe at me again, show your work so it's fair to talk the big talk about galleries that lack art. :|
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconjester-of-the-clown:
Jester-of-the-Clown Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
It's all tracing, bad shading, and rather poor composition, besides.

It's labeled "traditional art", but it's clear the "artist" did this in an art program with the same brush, using various stock photos without crediting the photographer or whatever pool resource he drew from.

I couldn't care less about homosexuality here. I've found plenty of works by homosexual and bisexual men and women to be brilliant, beautiful, and profound. This lazy ripoff has no place among their works.
Reply
:iconyvonne84:
yvonne84 Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
His colour, shading, compostion and detaling choice may be odd, I put it down to a style-choice since I have seen it before in various kind of 50's art.
I also gathered that for the sake of style the backround was more intended to be a backdrop (like those image screens you can take photographs in front of).

Are you sure this piece can't be achieved with pencils and inks (and perhaps a little bit of pastel)?
Some of the pieces on DA are created with pencils, but are in a style that people take a first glance and think it is a photograph or some other kind of medium.

Working from photo reference isn't necessarily bad, there are some professional artists who do great work with that process.
I looked through the artists's gallery and I was under the impression that he makes his own reference photographs, and he uses them to make some pretty good line-work.

Are you sure these aren't his own reference photo's?

Since you see/recognise tracing, bad shading and rather poor composition in this piece I am going to assume (for the benefit of the doubt) you have improved your own skills vastly in the last 6 months.

If someone is berating a piece whilst the skill-gap between berater and berated is so large, it usually means that the berater has some kind of other reason (other then the skill of the piece) to berate the piece in question.
This is the whole reason why I asked if you are homophobic.
Reply
:iconjester-of-the-clown:
Jester-of-the-Clown Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
That's a massive shot in the dark on your part as an apologist.

The choices made with this piece are not only odd, but questionable. It serves no purpose to slap something together like this. This is not stylistic choice, this is stone cold carelessness and lack of consideration during the artistic process.

I know how the various strokemarks look and this is far too consistent even in highly skilled professional work- which this is not. this was made in a bare bones essentials art program with simplistic brush patterns.

Yes, but the application of the stock is absurd here, not to mention a complete crutch to any real artistic development.

even if they were his, he certainly didn't credit the photographer/studio or make sure to mention that they were his alone if he could take all the credit. This kind of omission is not something one does if one credibly did all the work or paid to have the service provided- this smacks of fakery.

It doesn't take equivalent or better skill to recognize legitimate flaws in another's work, the eye developing before the hand, anyways.

The skill gap is not large- at all. I have only ever posted my cartoons, doodles, and vague comical sketches for the benefit of my watchers. My studies are usually for my own benefit and enjoyment these days, and it's because of obstinate, elitist wankers on dA that I feel less and less inclination to share any of my drawn work, only having really returned to this site due to being hung up with an injury.

I find extreme lack of any value beyond vapid fanservice in this piece. It's an awful waste of time, and most of the artist's gallery seems to reflect a similar lack of care for artistic thought, barring a handful of non-fanservice works.
Reply
:iconyvonne84:
yvonne84 Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
"That's a massive shot in the dark on your part as an apologist"
what part are you referring to?
Did you mean apology? or do you mean apologist (never heard the word before) as in someone who apologises?
I am not apologising as I have made no 'negative' statements apart from the one about your doodles. I am merely clarifying.

"The choices made with this piece are not only odd, but questionable. It serves no purpose to slap something together like this. This is not stylistic choice, this is stone cold carelessness and lack of consideration during the artistic process"
These kind of slapped together pieces, I see them a lot in magazines (especially old/vintage ones). And a lot of people like them and buy them.

"I know how the various strokemarks look and this is far too consistent even in highly skilled professional work- which this is not. this was made in a bare bones essentials art program with simplistic brush patterns."
If you say so. When you mention consistent, are you referring to the opacity of the colours/tints?

"Yes, but the application of the stock is absurd here, not to mention a complete crutch to any real artistic development."
I my opinion paulypants is an artist; he produces original images and he is able to sell them. People like his works.
He has the ability/potential to do other kinds of artwork that do not need photoreference to be good enough in my eyes.
We don't know what he does in his time when he is not creating works of the above kind. Can we really assume this is a crutch for him?
Maybe he is merely doing works on this account that are quick, easy and sell well.

He doesn't have to mention his own process, he doesn't have to mention that he has used photoreference if they are made by himself or a friend.

"It doesn't take equivalent or better skill to recognize legitimate flaws in another's work, the eye developing before the hand, anyways."
I have never said that it takes equivalent or better skill to recognise flaw/critique others.
In my eyes (and many others) you have only to be half as good in practice, and just as good in theory concerning the area's you are referring to.

Concerning the skill-gap; I have only your work in your gallery to go on. People will rate your opinions based largely on the work you post yourself. That is how these things work.

"The skill gap is not large- at all."
Well, as I have not seen your unposted work, all I have is your word.
DA can be intimidating, and there will be elitist wankers.
That doesn't mean those wankers are in the wrong when they critique others.
When an artist (higher on the development ladder) gives pointers to someone who is lower on that ladder, he doesn't necessarily have to sugarcoat it as long as the points are clear and concern the content of the piece alone.

I hope you have found another source of critique/pointers besides DA, since pointers can really make you progress quickly as an artist.
Don't be deterred because of those wankers you speak of, DA really has some good things going for it.
Just take in mind that when you critique someone elses work (or suggest that it isn't art) that people are going check out your own gallery, they are going to rate it in their own minds and they will jump on you if you are less then half as good in practise as the piece you are critiquing.
This happens a lot, and I don't blame them.

"I find extreme lack of any value beyond vapid fanservice in this piece. It's an awful waste of time, and most of the artist's gallery seems to reflect a similar lack of care for artistic thought, barring a handful of non-fanservice works."
Vapid fanservice on its own is good enough for me. You may not like it personally, but that doesn't mean that it isn't art.
This kind of vapid fanservice is very popular and it sells well, so it clearly has a purpose.
Reply
:iconjester-of-the-clown:
Jester-of-the-Clown Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
apologist: one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something.
/
Uh no. The difference between this and those vintage pieces is that the latter actually has proper composition, lighting/shading techniques, and uses the traditional medium.
/
No, I'm referring to the texture of the "brushstrokes".
/
When it's used to this degree without regard for context in the composition, yeah, it's a crutch.
/
"In my eyes (and many others) you have only to be half as good in practice, and just as good in theory concerning the area's you are referring to"
You're just pulling this out of your ass.
/
"When an artist (higher on the development ladder) gives pointers to someone who is lower on that ladder, he doesn't necessarily have to sugarcoat it as long as the points are clear and concern the content of the piece alone."
I'm not talking about critique, I'm talking about this idiotic pulling of imagined rank in a discussion. It's purile and rampant in this community. I didn't come here to use my work as leverage in an argument, although discussion of each piece on its individual merits is certainly fine- just not in some random pissing contest.
/
It sells, but it doesn't make it art- the definition is loose enough without throwing what's essentially scrapbook material into the mix. While you could make the argument for plenty of this man's other works as art, this work right here is simply fails in its intended design.
That's just how it goes in one's journey as an artist- some of it will be art, some of it will be just glorified sketches. Better luck next time and all that...
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconnicolasjolly:
nicolasjolly Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
Beautiful work!
Reply
:iconschneefuechsin:
Schneefuechsin Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Congratulations on the DD! :hug:
Reply
:icontrcelyne:
TRCelyne Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
That's what happens when you wear trousers with no belt XD
Reply
:iconjester-of-the-clown:
Jester-of-the-Clown Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
obviously.
Reply
:iconcommandereve:
CommanderEVE Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013  Student General Artist
:lmao: 
Reply
:iconjester-of-the-clown:
Jester-of-the-Clown Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Unless you wear, like, the correct size pants.
Reply
:iconcommandereve:
CommanderEVE Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013  Student General Artist

Indeed. But I guess they would wear tighter ones to make their arse look more attractive. 

Wait... wtf did I just say?

Reply
:iconjester-of-the-clown:
Jester-of-the-Clown Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
They do- so why are his so loo-

Oh. He fields catcher...okay, I guess it's plausible then

My influence is finally getting to you! Mwahahahaha
Reply
:iconcommandereve:
CommanderEVE Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013  Student General Artist
Indeed, or it is the fact I have gotten sharper over time as that tends to happen with me. 
Reply
:iconjester-of-the-clown:
Jester-of-the-Clown Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013  Student Traditional Artist
Mmhm. Has nothing to do with me. At all. Ever.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconsakurasensie14:
sakurasensie14 Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013
omg!! this is hilarious!! i luv it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
:iconblanket86:
blanket86 Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Professional Traditional Artist
This is so amazing! Very interesting concept and style! Really great work! Congratulations!
Reply
:iconooaskjayfeather:
OoAskJayfeather Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Student Artist
:icondatflankplz:
Reply
:iconthedarkrayne:
TheDarkRayne Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013  Professional General Artist
Uh oh! :D

Brilliant painting. Would be such a conversation starter on somebody's wall.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
September 27, 2012
Image Size
322 KB
Resolution
920×1350
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
14,021 (1 today)
Favourites
558 (who?)
Comments
119
×