Two year old abstract artist

[CFLarsen]

It doesn't take much effort to discover that art has been clearly defined many times in history. E.g., in Ancient Egypt, there were strict rules as to how you should depict people (always from the side, important people should be bigger than less important people). The Greeks thought they had found the perfect way to form the human body, too. Russian icon were painted from a specific formula. The Chinese schools (e.g. T'ang, and Sung) also painted from formulas.

It could well be argued that every school of art have defined what "art" is. The Dadaists had their manifesto, the Impressionists had their ideas, the Pre-Raphaelites theirs.

 

[volatile]

Ok, so clearly you know much more about art history than me. However, couldn't you say that within the art, the artist and the patron were sort of collaborators? I mean, I'm sure the patron didn't have the knowledge of the artistic form that the artist did, so there was likely some leeway in what they would do. Obviously there are cases in which the patron had a lot of detail they wanted included, but surely the artist had a lot of their own input?

This is indeed one way of looking at it, and one with which I happen to agree. It's by no means a consensus position amongst academic art historians, but it is one that is gaining more and more of a foothold.

You're right, I think, to term it a collaboration of sorts -- albeit one usually borne out of economic necessity rather than a joint desire to create a collaborative piece of work in the way 21st century artistic collaborations might work. But that still does not mean that "the artist was inspired by religion" in the way in which you originally meant.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I said nothing at all about uncertainty. Art is subjective for the simple reason that human beings are not identical, they do not have identical educations, do not have identical experience histories, and do not percieve things identically.

So substitute "subjectivity" for "uncertainty" and you are trying exactly the same bad argument the woos use. The existence of a degree of subjectivity does not prove total subjectivity. Just because some reviewers differed over how good Citizen Kane was doesn't mean that there is not an objective sense in which Plan Nine From Outer Space is a terrible movie.

You are shifting the argument from artistic value to technical skill. Technical skill may be evaluated by an objective measure (even if that measure may or may not be arbitrary), but technical skill is a very small part of art.

Accusing me of shifting the argument is a bit rich. It's been my position from the start that the main reason good art is interesting or valuable is that it's executed with uncommon technical skill. The idea that technical skill is a very small part of art is art-woo nonsense. In my view technical skill is necessary but not sufficient to make decent art of any kind.

And as far as "evocative"- that's subjective too. To many people a canoe might harken back to summer days spent with fathers, or a first, awkward love at camp, or a honeymoon trip, or an unfullfilled dream of exploration, etc.- compared to which the Thinker is just an ugly lump of metal.

While that may be the case, your canoe and the sculpture are apples and oranges. A sculptor may be entirely unable to make a canoe out of Blu-Tac- that does not make the canoe "better" or more valuable than the sculture, any more than your inability to make a sculpture makes it objectively more valuable than the canoe.

No. This is just wrong. The fact that Michelangelo was a very good sculptor is a vital part of why his David is a good sculpture. I am not a very good sculptor which is why my Blu-Tac canoe sucks, even if in your imagination someone might be reminded of sex by it.

Is it now? And where is the reserch to support that extraordinary assertion?

We have a nervous system that's wired to spot human features and react to them, for starters. More human-like things trigger those systems more strongly.

Like hell. There is no measure for which you can judge any of these things by with which another person cannot rationally disagree.

All a critic, or an "art expert" can do is offer the reasons for their own subjective judgements- judgements with which people often and frequently enthusiastically disagree. "I don't care what the critics say, I liked it!"

Which is a subjective judgement.

The key mistake there is your use of the word "rationally". Plan Nine From Outer Space is not as good a movie as Casablanca, in all sorts of objectively describable ways. If you say otherwise you're not rational, you're an idiot.

The only degree of "objectivity" possible here is the extent to which one is deluded in thinking one's own opinion applies (or should apply) to everyone.

Incidentally, this is the very hubris with which you seem to despise in the "art expert". Hubris which I, considering the fact that art is subjective, happen to agree is very foolish.

You've made another mistake here. The "art expert" is inconsistent if he behaves as an art expert but also claims that art is totally subjective. In fact, in that case the "art expert" has admitted they are a con artist.

I'm not inconsistent - I've got a clear and consistent position about art, which is that if it doesn't display impressive technical skills it's bad art (and it still could be bad art even if it does).

What ways?


What ways?


What ways?


What ways?


What ways?


What ways?

Life's too short to deal with people who play dumb. Placido Domingo is a better singer than I am in all sorts of objectively measurable ways - range, volume, control, repertoire, endurance, etc. He's also a better singer in all sorts of aesthetic ways. Extend that to the other media as you see fit.

Thanks, you disproved your own assertion. There is no quality to any of these things you mention that does not have at its root s subjective judgment of valuing one aspect of the experience over another. In your case, you seem to be arguing that technical skill should trump every other consideration. That's okay, and that's fine if that's what you think is important. Soem people value other things over technical skill, though- personal emotional resonance, esthetic beauty, symbolic signifigance, political meaning, cultural identification, and many others. And they are not automatically wrong just because they don't value the same things in art as you do.

Blah blah blah, limited subjectivity does not prove absolute subjectivity.

I first read Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" when I was around twelve-ish. At that time, I had not read very many "adult" books (and was pretty much completely naive and innocent of sex, drugs, and rock and roll, etc.), and I liked it- despite the fact that I realise now that I understood probably about a tenth of what the book was actually about. I liked it because I thought I should. I re-read it last month, and it's rubbish.

What does that prove? Two very different entities read the book at different times and formed different opinions of it. Once again limited subjectivity does not prove absolute subjectivity.

You'll do me the favour of explaining what exactly is "over-radical subjectivism", won't you? Something either depends on a human value judgement, or it doesn't, yes?

It almost sounds like you are trying to use a purely emotive term to cast a negative light on a position with which you do not agree.

Limited subjectivity does not prove absolute subjectivity. The idea that art is absolutely subjective is a dumb one because it makes art meaningless. Thus the term "over-radical subjectivity" to refer to that particular error.

No, you are making the initial assumption that they do not. You don't value the things they claim to, therefore they must be lying.

Since they can't distinguish it from monkey art, stands and so on yet they do not wax lyrical about such mundane junk normally, I have very good evidence they are lying or deluded. I have explained this repeatedly.

You need to face up to the same challenge Cavemonster keeps ducking: Explain the awkward fact that monkey/elephant/toddler pieces cannot be distinguished from "real" modern art even by experts. If you want to defend woo art, explain that to us. Art woos clearly believe that some pieces of art like Pollack's are worth millions, yet they also endorse radical subjectivity... don't you see the problem there?

I don't expect a serious answer to that question, since there is no answer to it. It's a total giveaway. I just want to remind everyone that you aren't answering it.

 

[quarky]

Wow, going from "I'd not be surprised if" to a positive statement of it as fact in the very next sentence. Not even some woos move that fast.

When was art "clearly defined", by whom was it so defined, what was that definiton specifically, and when did it allegedly change? What evidence do you have to support this claim?


What is your source for this statement? What definition did it "evolve" into?

It was clearly defined in the realm of stone cutting. Wood working, too.
Now, the definition of art has expanded into whatever you can get away with.
There is no working definition. Once, there was. That's what I'm saying.

(not very controversial.)

There may have been radical artistic expression hundreds of years ago, but the public didn't recognize it as such.

Cave paintings are often hailed as art. Its likely that those people also made other 'artistic' expressions that haven't survived. Yet there was no working definition of the word.

Must i be pigeon-holed by semantics?
I'm not sure what I said that's objectionable.

 

[Piscivore]

It was clearly defined in the realm of stone cutting. Wood working, too.
Now, the definition of art has expanded into whatever you can get away with.
There is no working definition. Once, there was. That's what I'm saying.

(not very controversial.)

There may have been radical artistic expression hundreds of years ago, but the public didn't recognize it as such.

Cave paintings are often hailed as art. Its likely that those people also made other 'artistic' expressions that haven't survived. Yet there was no working definition of the word.

Must i be pigeon-holed by semantics?
I'm not sure what I said that's objectionable.

You said that "once, there was" a "working" definition of art. I simply asked you what that was, and whose definition it was.

 

[Piscivore]

It doesn't take much effort to discover that art has been clearly defined many times in history. E.g., in Ancient Egypt, there were strict rules as to how you should depict people (always from the side, important people should be bigger than less important people). The Greeks thought they had found the perfect way to form the human body, too. Russian icon were painted from a specific formula. The Chinese schools (e.g. T'ang, and Sung) also painted from formulas.

It could well be argued that every school of art have defined what "art" is. The Dadaists had their manifesto, the Impressionists had their ideas, the Pre-Raphaelites theirs.

That I should live to see the day that Larsen agreed with me. Yes, Art, and any definitions of such, are entirely subjective. there is nothing objective that makes the Greek idea of art any more valid than the Egyptian or the Dadaist.

 

[tomwaits]

This is indeed one way of looking at it, and one with which I happen to agree. It's by no means a consensus position amongst academic art historians, but it is one that is gaining more and more of a foothold.

You're right, I think, to term it a collaboration of sorts -- albeit one usually borne out of economic necessity rather than a joint desire to create a collaborative piece of work in the way 21st century artistic collaborations might work. But that still does not mean that "the artist was inspired by religion" in the way in which you originally meant.

So I was wrong! What do you want from me?!


Another point: if it was indeed a collaboration, wouldn't there be a sort of inspiration, at least on the part of the patron who had the original idea?

Also, modern art can be born out of economic necessity. Salvador Dali was in it for the money. Does that mean he wasn't "inspired"?

 

[rwguinn]

...

You need to face up to the same challenge Cavemonster keeps ducking: Explain the awkward fact that monkey/elephant/toddler pieces cannot be distinguished from "real" modern art even by experts. If you want to defend woo art, explain that to us. Art woos clearly believe that some pieces of art like Pollack's are worth millions, yet they also endorse radical subjectivity... don't you see the problem there?

I don't expect a serious answer to that question, since there is no answer to it. It's a total giveaway. I just want to remind everyone that you aren't answering it.

Oh, for Ed's sake...
If you don't like it, it ain't art to you, so don't buy it!
While I can appreciate Domingo's voice and talent, I wouldn't pay $10.00 to go to a performance, because it isn't woth it to me.
I am always amused by the snobbish way "artists" and "Art Critics" speak down to everybody who doesn't "appreciate" whatever it is they are trying to support the price of at the time...

 

[Beerina]

Two year old abstract artist



Is there any other kind?


Budda-bing!


And now, for something completely different...

 

[Piscivore]

So substitute "subjectivity" for "uncertainty" and you are trying exactly the same bad argument the woos use.

If only "subjectivity" and "uncertainty" were the same thing. They are not.

I don't like carrots. I'm not at all uncertain about that. I'm not putting forth the idea that "I don't know if I like carrots, therefore my hypothesis is that no one knows". Further, it has been tested- I've eaten carrots, I'm not uncertain about how they taste. And I don't mistake that judgement for a fact- "carrots are yucky for everyone"- it is a subjective judgement, applicable only to myself.

Further, art appreciation is not an "hypothesis". It is a judgement. It is not (except in cases of abject ignorance or egregious arrogance) held to be a universal, objective fact for all mankind. Some people like abstract paintings, some don't. Some like action movies, some don't. Your assertion is that no one likes abstract art, and the ones that claim to are lying. I'd like to see the evidence.

The existence of a degree of subjectivity does not prove total subjectivity.

Really. Suppose you tell me how you get an objective fact out of something made up of "degrees of subjectivity".

Just because some reviewers differed over how good Citizen Kane was doesn't mean that there is not an objective sense in which Plan Nine From Outer Space is a terrible movie.

No, the fact that some people enjoy Plan Nine From Outer Space is what prevents there from being an objective sense that it is a terrible movie. They may not enjoy it in the way that the director or the actors might have intended, but some people do find value in it.

Accusing me of shifting the argument is a bit rich. It's been my position from the start that the main reason good art is interesting or valuable is that it's executed with uncommon technical skill.

Do you have evidence beyond just your opinion that this is a more important factor than any of the others?

The idea that technical skill is a very small part of art is art-woo nonsense. In my view technical skill is necessary but not sufficient to make decent art of any kind.

Yes, I know your opinion. Bare assertion does not make it fact.

No. This is just wrong. The fact that Michelangelo was a very good sculptor is a vital part of why his David is a good sculpture. I am not a very good sculptor which is why my Blu-Tac canoe sucks, even if in your imagination someone might be reminded of sex by it.

Is your canoe meant to be sculpture? If it isn't, you're comparing apple and oranges. The Mona Lisa isn't a very good sculpture either. It does not mean that it, or your canoe, cannot be artistically appreciated, and therefore, art.

We have a nervous system that's wired to spot human features and react to them, for starters. More human-like things trigger those systems more strongly.

What has that to do with art? Are you going to assume from that that all art must depict humans because we are "wired to spot human features"? I don't see the relevance.

The key mistake there is your use of the word "rationally". Plan Nine From Outer Space is not as good a movie as Casablanca, in all sorts of objectively describable ways. If you say otherwise you're not rational, you're an idiot.

Name these ways, and explain why these always supercede any other consideration, for anybody at any time.

There are a lot of ways that Casablanca isn't better than Plan 9. Casablanca isn't funny at all, for starters. It also doesn't have any zombies or flying saucers.

You've made another mistake here. The "art expert" is inconsistent if he behaves as an art expert but also claims that art is totally subjective.

Indeed. I don't deny that there are pompous, arrogant martinets in the art world that would like to have their opinions enshrined as fact. John Ruskin (of whom you remind me strongly) was one of these.

Guess what? The very art that you hold in contempt was created specifically (in many cases) to hose those very people, and to challenge their arrogance. That's what Dada was all about.

In fact, in that case the "art expert" has admitted they are a con artist.

That's what I said. Oftentimes a person's reaction to art tells you something about the person, not the art. Sometimes that's the point- especially in those pieces you most revile.

I'm not inconsistent - I've got a clear and consistent position about art, which is that if it doesn't display impressive technical skills it's bad art (and it still could be bad art even if it does).

Which is great, and I won't fault you for it. But that clarity and consistency does not make it objective.

I'm intrigued though- what are your secondary characteristics that would lead you to think a technically impressive work is not "good art"?

Life's too short to deal with people who play dumb. Placido Domingo is a better singer than I am in all sorts of objectively measurable ways - range, volume, control, repertoire, endurance, etc. He's also a better singer in all sorts of aesthetic ways. Extend that to the other media as you see fit.

Posessing qualities that are "objectively measurable" does not mean that these qualities are therefore objectively valued the same way. If it were, then people would only listen to Placido Domingo, or whoever was "objectively" the best singer of the lot- right? Why don't they?

Blah blah blah, limited subjectivity does not prove absolute subjectivity.

How does one find objectivity in something that encompasses limited subjectivity?

What does that prove? Two very different entities read the book at different times and formed different opinions of it. Once again limited subjectivity does not prove absolute subjectivity.

How does one find objectivity in something that encompasses limited subjectivity?

Limited subjectivity does not prove absolute subjectivity.

How does one find objectivity in something that encompasses limited subjectivity?

The idea that art is absolutely subjective is a dumb one because it makes art meaningless.

No, it means that what is "meaningful" to one person is not meaningful to another- which happens to be the case. It's only a "dumb idea" if you want to think that everybody has to have the same opinion of something.

Since they can't distinguish it from monkey art, stands and so on yet they do not wax lyrical about such mundane junk normally, I have very good evidence they are lying or deluded. I have explained this repeatedly.

You need to face up to the same challenge Cavemonster keeps ducking: Explain the awkward fact that monkey/elephant/toddler pieces cannot be distinguished from "real" modern art even by experts. If you want to defend woo art, explain that to us.

I did:

"Experts" are experts only by consent of those that agree with their opinions. There is no such thing as objectively "real" art. The monky/elephant/toddler/"garbage"/"real" art is art only so far as the viewer subjectively judges it to be so.

If someone who previously viewed a piece to be a valuable work, then discounted it when he learned of its provenance, you've learned something about his personal value structure, but nothing at all about the piece in question.

Art woos clearly believe that some pieces of art like Pollack's are worth millions, yet they also endorse radical subjectivity... don't you see the problem there?

No. None of them are requiring anyone to pay that amount for the painting- they are just saying that's what it is worth to them, and if you want to have it more than they do, that's whay you'll have to give them. I've got people insured who own jewellery that cost more than my house. I would never buy anything like that, but that does not invalidate they or the jeweller valuing that little bit of metal and rock for that amount- or any other they agree to. It's a subjective judgement.

I don't expect a serious answer to that question, since there is no answer to it. It's a total giveaway. I just want to remind everyone that you aren't answering it.

Oh, snap. I did. What now, Ruskin?

 

[volatile]

I'm intrigued though- what are your secondary characteristics that would lead you to think a technically impressive work is not "good art"?

Indeed. And by what characteristics does he distinguish technically impressive work that isn't art (I can't make a soufflee, but I'd hadly call my mother's cooking 'art') from work that is.

If technical ability is sufficient to determine art from non-art, would he classify souflees, alley-oops, Audi A5s, Blueray players and Rolexes as art?

Kevin -- your argument boils down to "abstract and conceptual art are easy. Anyone could do them". If that's so - where's your blockbuster show at the Tate, buddy? What's stopping you from making Tracy Emin-level millions?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh, for Ed's sake...
If you don't like it, it ain't art to you, so don't buy it!
While I can appreciate Domingo's voice and talent, I wouldn't pay $10.00 to go to a performance, because it isn't woth it to me.
I am always amused by the snobbish way "artists" and "Art Critics" speak down to everybody who doesn't "appreciate" whatever it is they are trying to support the price of at the time...

There's lots of excellent art I don't want to spend money on.

I realise that idea may break the brain of someone who thinks art is totally subjective.

 

[Piscivore]

There's lots of excellent art I don't want to spend money on.

I realise that idea may break the brain of someone who thinks art is totally subjective.

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? That's the essence of subjectivity- that you don't value something enough to spend money on what someone else does.

ETA: I think you also misread the smilie, which to me was a wink and a nod indicating that rwguinn understands the difference between "art appreciation" and "marketing" when he sees it.

 

[rwguinn]

How on earth do you come to that conclusion? That's the essence of subjectivity- that you don't value something enough to spend money on what someone else does.

ETA: I think you also misread the smilie, which to me was a wink and a nod indicating that rwguinn understands the difference between "art appreciation" and "marketing" when he sees it.

You win the see-gar! (untouched by Clintonian hands, of course)


I fully admit that there is art I will pay to look at, even if I wouldn't hang it over the couch. (which should be construed to mean I'll rent the DVD, but wouldn't buy it for my collection, and all the equivalents to that scenario...)

 

[Piscivore]

You win the see-gar! (untouched by Clintonian hands, of course)

Aw, that's too bad- I bet there's people that would spend a lot of money on one of those...

 

[luchog]

Well, I teach art history at a university, so if we're playing "authority" games, I win.

The only one playing authority games here is you; I was simply countering your condescending assumption of ignorance.

Nevertheless, I think we may be talking at crossed purposes. The reason I raised this in the beginning was to counter the claim that Renaissance artists were "inspired". That simply isn't true -- the very notion of the inspired artist arises after the Renaissance period. That's not to say Michaelangelo, Leonardo, Giotto, Brueneleschi and the rest weren't great artists producing great art, of course...

Definitely cross-purposes; since "inspired" is misused in this context. A more appropriate term is "motivation". The commissions were the motivation, not the "inspiration" for the work.

To be honest, I really don't like the term "inspired" very much in this context. It's too nebulous.

And very few artists worked exclusively on commission. Most worked commissions as a means of support; and created a substantial amount of work for themselves.

I would argue to the contrary. If the work is a paid-for commission, where the commissioner essentially fixes the content and theme of the work, that work must be described as corporate, if (as I was when I brought this up in the first place and you told me I was "wrong") corporate is to be defined as work devoid of artistic "inspiration" in the modern sense.

By this definition, there is very little art that isn't "corporate" to some degree.

Incidentally, most modern corporate art isn't produced this way. The corporate "patron" rarely decides the subject of the work, only the theme only vaguely, if at all. More often, they treat the art as a commodity, and the artist as a craftsman. Most simply buy whatever is already on the market that fits their idea of the sort of thing they want adorning their spaces; at least for indoor display.

Most artists who work with an eye to the corporate world already understand what sells well, and tailor their work for that market.

Non-sequitor. Many patrons did indeed reject comissioned works, but that is certainly nothing to do with whether the artist is now considered "great" or "bad".

Straw man, I never claimed it was.

And here you've fallen into the trap pointed out by Piscivore and others in assuming that art must be intelligibly communicative for it to be art.

I haven't "fallen" into any "trap". Without communication, there is no art.

Why so? Some of the best art of the past century, in my opinion, expresses itself affectively rather than transparently semiotically; that is to say, the art engenders feeling rather than some clearly communicated idea. Francis Bacon most obviously fits into this model, for example.

Erm... this is actually what I said. I never insisted it had to communicate a specific idea; but it has to communicate something in order to be art. Indeed, the best art communicates on many different levels, some of them subtle and difficult to express through other means. But if it doesn't communicate a concept, emotion, or mood consistently to a significant majority of viewers; then how can it be said to be communicating anything at all?

If I place a couple of empty soda bottles on a windowsill and call it an installation art piece, what am I communicating (aside from, perhaps, my contempt for pretentious, self-important critics and patrons)? What is there that distinguishes art from non-art? Differentiates good art from bad art?

Without communication, everything can be art, and therefore nothing is.

 

[luchog]

Apparently Kevin has never heard of the diamond industry.

Sorry, but that attempt at equivalency as well.

A diamond has an objective aesthetic value. Take a well-cut and polished gem-quality diamond, and sit it next to similar-sized chunks of granite, basalt, or glass -- either equivalently cut and polished, or in their natural state. Offer any one of the, but only one, for free, to people who do not know what they are (label them all as common rocks). How many people are going to choose the granite, basalt, or glass? Very few, if any. Even if diamonds were as common as granite, basalt, or glass, they'd still be valued more; because they are aesthetically more pleasing.

You are attempting to conflate an arbitrary socioeconomic value resulting from scarcity (natural or artificially exaggerated), with an inherent aesthetic value.

 

[quarky]

You said that "once, there was" a "working" definition of art. I simply asked you what that was, and whose definition it was.

And I wrote about the history of stonemasonry, and the way words were once used. When the stone required decorative, curved cutting, it was moved from the craftsmen, and taken to an artist. That's what those craftsmen were called: artists.

No doubt, there were plenty of stonemasons that could have done the decorative stone cutting, just as there are non-MD's that could do certain surgical operations...but we don't call them "doctor'.

For that matter, when a recognized artist paints his house, it isn't automaticly art, just because he is an artist. The intent comes into play, obviously.

I won't bore you with details of what it meant to be a 'free mason', or other history of a craft. If you're curious, look into it. There was a specific dividing line between a mason and artist, as I described. Its arcane now, and that's ok. Yet, at a certain place and time in Europe, the title of 'artist' had to be earned by something equivalent to a college education. A long apprenticeship was indicated, with a recognized 'artist'.

 

[Piscivore]

Sorry, but that attempt at equivalency as well.

A diamond has an objective aesthetic value. Take a well-cut and polished gem-quality diamond, and sit it next to similar-sized chunks of granite, basalt, or glass -- either equivalently cut and polished, or in their natural state. Offer any one of the, but only one, for free, to people who do not know what they are (label them all as common rocks). How many people are going to choose the granite, basalt, or glass? Very few, if any.

I'm sorry, but you're assuming the results of an experiment that wasn't done, based upon your initial premise- that diamond has an objectively inherent value- to support that premise. That's a big no-no.

In my experience, you put together identically cut, polished and set pieces of glass, diamond, and zircon, and it takes an expert to tell the difference- that's why tests exist to tell real diamonds from fakes. I used to sell jewellry, and I couldn't tell just by looking.

Even if diamonds were as common as granite, basalt, or glass, they'd still be valued more; because they are aesthetically more pleasing.

That's a subjective judgement. Some people buy lots of diamonds and some people with similar means don't. Some people enjoy diamonds, some people prefer coloured stones such as rubies or sapphires. It's pretty safe to say that some people value them more than others.

And Our Mr. Lowe wasn't talking about esthetic value, he was talking about monetary value- which is market driven and subjective for luxury goods like diamonds, and art.

You are attempting to conflate an arbitrary socioeconomic value resulting from scarcity (natural or artificially exaggerated), with an inherent aesthetic value.

No, you are. Kevin was making an observaion about monetary value of art by saying it would take a "con man" to get (what he feels are, anyway) overinflated prices for a rock. The diamond industry shows that's not the case. You brought esthetic value of them into it.

 

[lionking]

The exploitation of this little girl commences.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/aelita-learns-that-fame-has-a-price-20090115-7i6t.html

He just set up the web site to prevent others exploiting her. Yeah sure.