Reading mode: Light Dark

Interpretation of images

Go to last post
Prosophos said:
Prosophos wrote:

And for my friend Jeff, from Toronto. You may not like landscape images, but you certainly can recognize a good one when you see one. No?

Peter.

www.prosophos.com
Click to expand...
Even that is not always the case. The classic example of a good work of art being unappreciated can be seen with Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. At its completion, Picasso showed it to his close friends, some critics, some dealers. It was met with an almost complete rejection, and so for years Picasso kept it hidden, leaning against a studio wall behind other works. It was only years later that the painting was sold; it is now considered THE most important painting of the 20th century.

What is interesting about Les Demoiselles d'Avignon has much to do with this discussion of your definition of a good photograph. Picasso was wrestling not with subject matter of painting, or with technique and stylization, but with the compositional constraints of the four sides of the frame. Subject matter was subordinated to his working through the limitations of the two dimensions of the canvas, breaking the visual boundaries that existed beforehand. This was difficult work for Picasso to explore, and I'd be hard-pressed to imagine I could have appreciated his undertaking had I been there to witness it at the turn of the century.

Even to this day, for those who don't get the painting, it is most likely due to the fact that they still look at it in terms of subject matter. Primitive figures, not at all pretty, big flat spaces of paint. Viewing it in terms of releasing the tensions of composition from the constraints of the four sides (and the plane of the surface, too) is where the fresh way to see a painting rests.

Gerry Winogrand and Ralph Gibson work(ed) with these problems in the photograph, and I believe many people would be hard-pressed today to enjoy their images, if their definition of a good photograph is limited by its ability to "grab". What I'm trying to say is your definition, while it may be credible as a factor in a good photograph, is sub-ordinate to other features of a good work of art. Quite often we may be mystified as to why an image holds creidbility; it may escape us, but for some reason we can appreciate it even if it is beyond our understanding, comprehension and our enjoyment.
 
You make some interesting points, Jeff.

If I may ask you, what was Picasso's purpose in "wresting with the compositional constraints of the four sides of the frame"? Was it a thing in itself or an exploration of a different take on composition, a step into the unknown?

The reason I ask is because sometimes the first boldly original move is also quite unappealing, both due to its novelty and also because it is has not yet matured. I am a big fan of Picasso's blue and rose periods and have some appreciation for the cubist period, whereas the stuff afterwards has left me quite cold. Which is probably my loss.

Someone once quoted a remark to me Picasso made in his late life (I don't have the source and cannot verify) to the effect that he had regretted the direction his art took and a lot of it was pandering to the public craving new and outrageous forms as well as to his wife's craving for money (his output was phenomenal). He was a supremely talented artist and yet I always wonder if he truly continued loving art?
 
jeff hladun said:
jeff hladun wrote:





Ok...here is the image under discussion. Many of you are quite uncomfortable viewing it, and it is clear to see why. A semi-nude man well-endowed is shown, with our plane of view just inches away from his crotch. To us heterosexuals, it engages our discomfort; we've been trained to divert our attentions from the male genitalia. (Which is why we can comfortably shower at the gym!) :)
Click to expand...
I must admit, it doesn't engage any discomfort for me. I'm not gay or bi, but neither am I cocckk-shy. The male organ doesn't scare me..

I dislike the image, not for the semi-chubby he has (looks like a cocckk to be proud of) - I dislike it because of other reasons.. the hand (or foot) lower left, for example. It intrudes. So do the jeans upper middle..

This should have been posed on a different background field - maybe a seamless with a plinth to lounge over, for e.g.
jeff hladun said:
To me, just investigating the composition-as-composition, the forms within the four boundaries of the image are strong and powerful. It's brilliant. The half-hidden knee (right shoulder?) of the secondary figure adds mystery and intrigue. The on-camera flash lights the frame unnaturally, and re-inforces the voyeuristic feel of the photo. There is a story here; it fulfils 2 out of three of my key definitions for a good image.

But what about the emotional content? That's where it initially broke down for me, because the intentions we see initially are usually taboo for men. It made me very uncomfortable.
Click to expand...
Ask yourself.. "Why?" - it's just a body part, it's not on show. It's really just hinted at and it's not even past half-way hard.
jeff hladun said:
But then I wondered: What if the male figure was female? What if instead of his tumescence, there was underneath her tight panties a hint of labia?
Click to expand...
I would think it to be a nice sexy erotic image. But that's from the view of a heterosexual male.

A homosexual male might think the same of this. I don't think it's all that erotic or sexy (the lack of 'sexiness' to me makes me concentrate on what i see as posing failures).

I might think a little differently it it were more openly sexual, a big tent, or bell-end peaking out. Even tighter material, to give better definition to the semi-chubb he has.. Those would be pretty sexy/erotic images.
jeff hladun said:
Would Raaj then think it was a crap photo? If any one of us had posted the female version of this photograph, wouldn't it be the usual "high five" all around from the guys?

Also, what are the women who post here thinking about such an image? Do they like it? Is it a gift to them the way Louis' nudes are to us? What would Ece or Amy have said to the other if either of them had posted this image...and what would we say to them, as men, as well?

I think Tillmans intention was to challenge our preconceptions of ourselves. It is fitting that this image in particular was chosen as representing a bad photograph; it is only the sex of the subject which turns us off it!
Click to expand...
Not so for me - I have no troubles saying "Wow!, Nice cocck" to an image (I might not say it to a guy directly because, as you rightly say, so many are unsure about that area of themselves).

I have other reasons for disliking it; what I see as poor composition and lack of thought over the background (as it is now, it should be expanded a bit to show more of the other person's limbs and more of the jeans).
 
Last edited:
Daniel74 said:
Daniel74 wrote:

You make some interesting points, Jeff.

If I may ask you, what was Picasso's purpose in "wresting with the compositional constraints of the four sides of the frame"? Was it a thing in itself or an exploration of a different take on composition, a step into the unknown?

The reason I ask is because sometimes the first boldly original move is also quite unappealing, both due to its novelty and also because it is has not yet matured. I am a big fan of Picasso's blue and rose periods and have some appreciation for the cubist period, whereas the stuff afterwards has left me quite cold. Which is probably my loss.

Someone once quoted a remark to me Picasso made in his late life (I don't have the source and cannot verify) to the effect that he had regretted the direction his art took and a lot of it was pandering to the public craving new and outrageous forms as well as to his wife's craving for money (his output was phenomenal). He was a supremely talented artist and yet I always wonder if he truly continued loving art?
Click to expand...
For a long time in painting, there was a linear growth to the understanding of the techniques and constraints of the art. Picasso was trying to expand on the work of Paul Cezanne and the problems Cezanne had set for himself in compositional structure. Picasso was building on, and trying to answer, the questions Cezanne failed to do.

Oddly enough, this isn't really a concern in the photographic world. Chuck Close made an interesting observation that photography doesn't work in historical step-by-step the same way painting does. Instead, photographers generally pick and choose techniques and favoured photographers of the past and present, and then meld them into their own style. It's an interesting difference on the nature of artistic challenges.

As to your last questions: That may be true, although I've never heard about those regrets. He feared death throughout his life, and used that in his art, and the fear became even greater in his final decades. Maybe your friend thought that because he was so unnaturally prolific in his old age; at a time most of us would slow down, his output was not that much lesser than when he was younger.
 
FeedMe said:
FeedMe wrote:
FeedMe said:
I have other reasons for disliking it; what I see as poor composition and lack of thought over the background (as it is now, it should be expanded a bit to show more of the other person's limbs and more of the jeans).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Fair enough! You present the reasons strongly as to your likes and dislikes about the image. I find the composition very very strong through the image; it leads my eye across the whole plane. The jeans and second figure add to the strength of the composition, and I like the compression of the elements. There is no wrong or right here for its appreciation, although I would caution against the desire to add hypothetical forms and should-have-beens.

The image could be classified under the vernacular oeuvre; it reminds me of Eggleston's work in the banal and quotidian, where attention to composition is given more importance.
 
FeedMe said:
I have other reasons for disliking it; what I see as poor composition and lack of thought over the background (as it is now, it should be expanded a bit to show more of the other person's limbs and more of the jeans).
Click to expand...
tillmans studied photography. he was therefore pretty much taught everything one is supposed to know about composition and other theory related to the creation of an image. that should give you a hint that if his images appear poor in composition it can't be because he didn't know to compose them right but because he wanted to compose them exactly the way he did. it wasn't a mistake or lack of knowledge but a deliberate decision.

another thing when it comes to pictures like this is that one is supposed to focus on what is presented on the image and how and not trying to figure out how should it be presented.

there is no deep philosophy behind this image because it's quite a straightforward idea applied behind it. it's just about exposing human intimacy and presenting it to the viewer in a very crude, realistic, down to earth way. it's just a picture of a semi nude guy's body sitting in a sofa or something. he's not trying to mystify the scene by presenting it in a appealing way as it would be the case in commercials for example. it's a very human like scene in which a body of a young man is presented as it is. he obviously doesn't want to make a model out of his human subjects but present them in a way as if the image was taken by someone at home. it's supposed to look like a picture from a family album. and this is the whole point of it. to present the viewer a scene of human intimacy as directly as possible without trying to put a particular meaning or "filter" between the image and the viewer so that the viewer could relate to it on a personal level as well. it's for example something completely different from what mapplethorpe was doing.

on the other hand this image is part of series of images with which tillmans tried to document the social and physiological condition of the youth of that time, especially the youth of the club and gay scene in london where at that time he lived. this was in early 90s.
 
I believe education, training, practice and experience can influence and inform one's sense of style and composition. Over time this sense can be developed to the point where it is almost unconscious.

The same can apply to the mastery of tools and techniques.

Images, such as those made by photographer and sometime DPR contributor Irakly Shanidze, can be the result of a concept, intent or idea. Irakly's work clearly demonstrates this precept (to me, at least), together with a deep understanding of composition, tools and techniques.

Certainly, all images are the result of an intent. I have difficulty accepting the assertion, however, that the two images presented by Misha are as rigorously or deliberately conceived, or that they are the product of a similar degree of intent as those made by Irakly. Likewise, the photograph by Tillmans, which appears to me to be the result of documenting an environment.

Context, too, may inform an image. Perhaps no images are as richly contextually endowed as those made during WWII and the Vietnam conflict. The photographs of Robert Capa, Alfred Eisenstaedt and Eddie Adams (amongst others) are most certainly meant to convey an idea and carry clear intent. Yet, when asked to describe these consequential captures, none, while moved, waxed as deeply philosophical as what can be witnessed in the art world.

In fact, it has been my experience that when asked to describe the underlying concept or intent of a photograph, the photographer (artist?) rarely waxes as incomprehensibly or conjures up the degree of pop psychology pseudoscience as the critics, whose job it is to ascribe meaning or purpose to the work being reviewed. And, in an effort to belong, there appears within the critical community and amongst connoisseurs a need to elevate one's self by seeing or divining more from a particular work than the last one.

Joe.
 
HansAlbert said:
HansAlbert wrote:

answer to absentaneous

You must have read a lot, but somehow not the right books. :) In Terry Barrett's "Criticizing Photographs" e.g. you could have found a passage against the overestimation of the artist's intentions, the so-called "intentional fallacy" (p.56f. 4th ed.). Knowing something about the artist may help initially, but at the end of the day the artist's comments or self-interpretation must be verified by qualities of the work of art in the same way as other interpretations. Or, as Barrett puts it: "We should take an artist's interpretation as an argument and evaluate it on the same grounds as we do other interpretations that are offered. We should not consider an interpretation more privileged because it comes from the artist." (p.57f.)
Click to expand...
what you wrote here would make sense to me if you showed me where did I made a claim against all this. where was I claiming otherwise?
HansAlbert said:
The relative importance of the artist's words may help to concentrate on what there is in a photo, i.e. what you perceive as the subject matter, as the elements of the composition, as the subject; especially it may help to avoid psychologism or artsy-fartsy talk.
Click to expand...
same as above. I don't see how this is supposed to concern me since it's something self-obvious and not something I've been trying to deny.
HansAlbert said:
Let me remind of Irakly's reactions in this forum. He never influenced or censored our reading of his photos, though our ideas were sometimes quite different from his own. E.g. his last photo was to show Judith, a famous figure in the history of art, but for me it was not bloody enough and I found it more convincing to read it as an analysis of the Frog Prince (cf. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/41506920). He is really a knowing artist, I would say.
Click to expand...
they say an image is worth thousand words. not sure how much true that is but the fact is that not every mind is able to perceive the same image in the same way. obviously. same things can mean different things to different people and the artists usually try to simply express their subjective point of view that it's not something that everyone is supposed to grasp instantly all the time. I think an artist does fine enough already if he/she is able to make people reflect in the right direction and he/she doesn't have to present the viewer a clear message. often such clear message doesn't even exist.

my point in this threat was just that we shouldn't easily presume that there is nothing on or behind the image worth learning about just because we fail to see it. we need to try to understand the image first before applying rules on them. because if not we might end applying the wrong rules. as it would be clearly stupid to criticize picasso's portraits for not being realistic is the same clearly stupid to criticize certain photographs for not applying the golden ratio rule or something. and this is the mistake the person who started this threat made. he presumed some photos were bad simply because they failed to comply with his own rules without taking into the account that the person who took the pictures might have followed different rules. and it's a futile and pointless debate to fight over which rules are better. there is no such thing. use whatever rules you want but use them effectively in consistently and the results will be good.
 
JTori said:
JTori wrote:

I believe education, training, practice and experience can influence and inform one's sense of style and composition. Over time this sense can be developed to the point where it is almost unconscious.

The same can apply to the mastery of tools and techniques.

Images, such as those made by photographer and sometime DPR contributor Irakly Shanidze, can be the result of a concept, intent or idea. Irakly's work clearly demonstrates this precept (to me, at least), together with a deep understanding of composition, tools and techniques.

Certainly, all images are the result of an intent. I have difficulty accepting the assertion, however, that the two images presented by Misha are as rigorously or deliberately conceived, or that they are the product of a similar degree of intent as those made by Irakly. Likewise, the photograph by Tillmans, which appears to me to be the result of documenting an environment.

Context, too, may inform an image. Perhaps no images are as richly contextually endowed as those made during WWII and the Vietnam conflict. The photographs of Robert Capa, Alfred Eisenstaedt and Eddie Adams (amongst others) are most certainly meant to convey an idea and carry clear intent. Yet, when asked to describe these consequential captures, none, while moved, waxed as deeply philosophical as what can be witnessed in the art world.

In fact, it has been my experience that when asked to describe the underlying concept or intent of a photograph, the photographer (artist?) rarely waxes as incomprehensibly or conjures up the degree of pop psychology pseudoscience as the critics, whose job it is to ascribe meaning or purpose to the work being reviewed. And, in an effort to belong, there appears within the critical community and amongst connoisseurs a need to elevate one's self by seeing or divining more from a particular work than the last one.

Joe.
Click to expand...
people's activities are of course done both consciously and subconsciously. often it happens that a person is driven to do something by quite a strong intention or feeling which is difficult to put in words. but that doesn't mean it didn't exists as an idea. some ideas are more abstract than others. it mostly happen to me that I take pictures of a scene that quite attracts my attention but I couldn't really explain why was that. but the fact alone that I took the picture is the proof that I had to be attracted. of course this attraction is a result of the state on mind therefore it exists as an idea it's just no easy to put into words. and yes, this idea can develop over time and it can even change with time.
 
I always wonder in my mind like some people suggest how you have to look at a picture......

They all speaks as professors..... masters of photography...... Someone say you have to like the picture at first time...... someone else say you have to get in the picture some elements ....... or studying , reading about......

But of course if a picture creates questions , reactions , troubles.....and such a thread , i have to say :

Misha pictures got some real points !!!

...... and i really agree with Joe when he say that someone take a kind of photographs because they believe that is how photographs are supposed to look...

What a great mistake.... indeed !!!!




Best, Gianluca
 
jeff hladun said:
jeff hladun wrote:

I meant it is an uncomfortable image for heterosexual men to view, and that their attitude towards homosexuality is the only basis on which to view this image as being a bad photograph and lacking in artistic sensitivity. I wonder if the homosexual man or woman feels the same way when viewing nudes of the opposite sex?

Also, I doubt my reading was Tillmans original intention; I don't even know if it is the way the art world taste-makers view it. In a way, it has a little something for everyone. I understand it is considered an "important" piece - this is just my take on it.

Thanks for the question, Guy!
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I've found this thread very thought-provoking and educational. My knowledge of what people in photography do and why is practically zilch, so it's an interesting exploration.

I still don't really dig (seemingly) boring stand-alone images that one needs to read (seemingly) spurious critiques to appreciate. When we analysed Shakespeare at school, the analysis fleshed out the themes in a compelling scene that were already there (mostly). It added to a piece of literature that worked on many levels some of which may be more obscure than others, but that was nevertheless powerful.

When critique and context are added to a vacuous piece, that of course doesn't really work. But what is vacuous and what is not, is of course debatable. Skill used to be one arbiter and originality another. I am still partial to these too. Plus the gut reaction - does it grab me on first look? Does it grow on me when I look at it again?

This may all be just a prattle of a dilettante, apologies, and I hope someone more insightful can say so and say why, and thanks again for this lively discussion and for the examples.

Yesterday I went with a fellow shutterbug, John (whose Vatican pic I posted earlier) to our University boiler-room and shot a few images, as a sequence as an experiment in the light of what I've learned on this thread. I don't want to say what the idea was behind the images yet - maybe later. Perhaps someone can take time to give me C&C?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3293303
 
Last edited:
Jeff, thank you for your explanation.

Theoretical considerations and working on a specific problem can certainly expand the horizons of what art can be and can do.

The danger to my mind is to go too far with theory and lose touch with the raison d'etre - why is this image important? What am I trying to say? Is this all about the intricacies of composition and solving a specific compositional problem? In which case it can be contrived and rather unpleasant.

I guess what I am trying to say is this - a truly great work of art works on many levels and appeals (for different reasons) to a fairly wide audience. This is of course, just my current view.
 
RaajS said:
RaajS wrote:

On a previous thread there was an interesting discussion around some images that a fellow forum member posted - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3286980 . It was suggested that folks who didn't "get" what the images were about should go get an education in critical theory, semiotics etc.

I've often seen a lot of what frankly appears to me mostly pyschobabble in discussions of contemporary images - studium, punctum, denotation and other weighty concepts are tossed around with an air of knowing that can leave folks feeling bewildered and lost. If you don't get or like the work of an "artist", it is implied (or blatantly suggested) that you're a country bumpkin when it comes to art, someone who may well have to spend the rest of their life learning and still not get it. I beg to differ. A good image should be visually compelling, otherwise it isn't a good image. Period. My friend Peter has written a piece on his blog that I believe gets to the heart of the matter - http://prosophos.com/2012/10/29/a-good-image-should-grab-you/ and should be required reading for all "artists".

Cheers,

-raaj
Click to expand...
The problem, raaj, is simply that some photos will grab some folks and some won't.

Peter's post is excellent, but general. Some of my work is more approachable than others, tickles some people's fancy more than others, etc. I've gotten used to all different kinds of responses to my photos. I don't expect praise, or condemnation—I do expect response, which I almost always receive in one form or another. That's enough.

An artist of any kind should always pursue that which satisfies their inner voice and d@mn what anybody else says about it. Being an artist should not be a popularity or celebrity contest ... It should be a dialogue between artist and his/her individual vision. Many of these dialogues have no resonance to the outer world of others, and that's perfectly all right.
 
good to see such discourse in our forum

some folks (Misha & absentaneous come to mind) assume that we are uneducated and post condescendingly about Art from their self assumed lofty perspective

folks on the Leica Forum have a broad education, which is apparent from their posts

Erik Magnuson's comment "most of the justifications and fancy words come well afterwords for why it's art, but it's really a confidence game subject to the whims of changing tastes (and tastemakers.)" struck a cord from my own experience of many puerile academic art critics hungry for acceptance from foundations and such (emphasis mine)

I have endured such a con game for years from art school graduates from RISD, Yale & NYU who engage in a circular self aggrandizement fed by foundations & dealers


the work cited by abstentaneous from Wolfgang Tillmans (trained in Bournemouth) is much in this vein & speaks for absentaneous' deficient aesthetic sensibility based on the whims of the Fine Arts academy

art should not require an advanced degree: one should read about art to appreciate it more fully, but great art engages the viewer always & I believe is universal

providing you can hear, you can appreciate Bach or Gershwin or Marley

sad to report, great art is often unappreciated for years after its creation


academic art critics are more often than not risible when considered after even a decade has passed

Walker Evans, Ansel Adams, Robert Capa will be treasured long after Tillmans' work lines litter boxes
 
Artichoke said:
Artichoke wrote:

good to see such discourse in our forum

some folks (Misha & absentaneous come to mind) assume that we are uneducated and post condescendingly about Art from their self assumed lofty perspective

folks on the Leica Forum have a broad education, which is apparent from their posts

Erik Magnuson's comment "most of the justifications and fancy words come well afterwords for why it's art, but it's really a confidence game subject to the whims of changing tastes (and tastemakers.)" struck a cord from my own experience of many puerile academic art critics hungry for acceptance from foundations and such (emphasis mine)

I have endured such a con game for years from art school graduates from RISD, Yale & NYU who engage in a circular self aggrandizement fed by foundations & dealers

the work cited by abstentaneous from Wolfgang Tillmans (trained in Bournemouth) is much in this vein & speaks for absentaneous' deficient aesthetic sensibility based on the whims of the Fine Arts academy

art should not require an advanced degree: one should read about art to appreciate it more fully, but great art engages the viewer always & I believe is universal

providing you can hear, you can appreciate Bach or Gershwin or Marley

sad to report, great art is often unappreciated for years after its creation

academic art critics are more often than not risible when considered after even a decade has passed

Walker Evans, Ansel Adams, Robert Capa will be treasured long after Tillmans' work lines litter boxes
Click to expand...
 
Hosermage said:
Hosermage wrote:

Hi Raaj,

I think it's about consistency... there are probably a lot less one-hit-wonder in the fine art world. The artists has to prove again and again that they can consistently produce the same quality of result. If your son is able to consistently see "something" in a scene that are appreciated by others and take a photo of it, then I don't know what I would call it if not "natural talent".

Maybe someone has taken an image similar to the shiny shorts with their iphone, but that can be just luck. It's hard for us to imagine that Tillman actually took the photo knowing exactly what/how/why he was doing, but he proved it by showing other works of the same quality. I feel the same way when studying literature and hear people talk about all the symbolism and etc that I did not see. And to me, that when something is elevated to become fine art; not because other people say it's so, but because the piece begins to take on more than just one layer of existence, and the creator meant to do so.
Click to expand...
 
That would be Tracey Emin.




(autocorrect 1 : Jase 0)
 
Godfrey said:
Godfrey wrote:
Godfrey said:
RaajS wrote:

On a previous thread there was an interesting discussion around some images that a fellow forum member posted - http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3286980 . It was suggested that folks who didn't "get" what the images were about should go get an education in critical theory, semiotics etc.

I've often seen a lot of what frankly appears to me mostly pyschobabble in discussions of contemporary images - studium, punctum, denotation and other weighty concepts are tossed around with an air of knowing that can leave folks feeling bewildered and lost. If you don't get or like the work of an "artist", it is implied (or blatantly suggested) that you're a country bumpkin when it comes to art, someone who may well have to spend the rest of their life learning and still not get it. I beg to differ. A good image should be visually compelling, otherwise it isn't a good image. Period. My friend Peter has written a piece on his blog that I believe gets to the heart of the matter - http://prosophos.com/2012/10/29/a-good-image-should-grab-you/ and should be required reading for all "artists".

Cheers,

-raaj
Click to expand...
The problem, raaj, is simply that some photos will grab some folks and some won't.

Peter's post is excellent, but general. Some of my work is more approachable than others, tickles some people's fancy more than others, etc. I've gotten used to all different kinds of responses to my photos. I don't expect praise, or condemnation—I do expect response, which I almost always receive in one form or another. That's enough.

An artist of any kind should always pursue that which satisfies their inner voice and d@mn what anybody else says about it. Being an artist should not be a popularity or celebrity contest ... It should be a dialogue between artist and his/her individual vision. Many of these dialogues have no resonance to the outer world of others, and that's perfectly all right.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top