“Cities, like dreams, are made of desires and fears, even if the thread of their discourse is secret, their rules are absurd, their perspectives deceitful, and everything conceals something else.”
— Italo Calvino  in Invisible Cities

Ariadne – the Architect of Inception

I‘ve always loved Christopher Nolan’s work and his latest film Inception was awaited with great anticipation by all his fans and this time by many architecture and city planning students as well. Even the well-known Danish architect Bjarke Ingels was excitedly placing facebook updates about the film from a month before its release. I finally saw it this week. Since there are many reviews about the film already out there, I’m not writing any. As Frank Zappa (or was it Thelonious Monk?) had once said: “Writing about music is like dancing about architecture,” I’ll have to say that critiquing on Inception is like talking about swimming. It’s just one of those films that have to be fully experienced to be understood.

Inception is  certainly one of THE most brilliant films to come out in a while. Nolan who was working on its concept for nearly 10 years apparently referred to the book Godel Escher Bach (one of my all time favourites) to carry on the dream-within-a-dream trans-level loopy-loop concept. And amongst its other incredibly imaginative features and themes, I’m pleased as punch that they have finally shown an intelligent confident talented young WOMAN architect for a change (instead of the plethora of confused/passive and/or vapid/consumer-hog stereotyped women who have dominated most of the films so far earlier this year; or the proverbial ‘architect’ in any film being shown as some egotistic old man.)

An amazing movie, a fantastic concept that leaves you pondering for hours and days after you leave the theatre, and a whole lot of hard work by the technical crew! And while James Cameron’s Avatar was a visual treat with very valid green design messages, this movie is in many ways thematically much better as it is like a cerebral/visceral/psychological/visual manna. And for the few who have been detracting this film in cowardly message boards, really, it amuses me sometimes when people who cannot create works of depth or magnitude, think it is ok to belittle or criticize. Doers do. Non-doers criticize.

And this is a movie that’s definitely a cut above the rest – and a true inception of Nolan’s doing – and absolutely worthy of the appreciation it is receiving by both critics and members of the audience who have been captivated by its ingenuity.

It is also very refreshing to see a remarkable and self-assured young actress – Ellen Page – playing the part of the Architect. A self-described pro-choice woman, Page tries to avoid “stereotypical roles for teenage girls” which she finds to be “sexist.” Her name in the movie – Ariadne – is no coincidence. In the movie she represents the one who can unravel and find a way out for its conflicted protagonist Cobb (played by DiCaprio). In Greek mythology Ariadne is considered the ‘mistress of the maze’, the one who freed Theseus from the minotaur’s labyrinth and who the Greek god of chaos and madness Dionysius marries. Ariadne, the Architect in the movie, not only bridges and creates the cities in the multi-leveled dreamscapes where reveries and reality merge, mingle or oppose, but she also knows the way out of the maze amidst all the intoxicating Dionysion chaos that her team members must navigate through. A must-see film; a sensory/intellectual powerhouse. And the Parisian ‘folded urbanscape’ came as an especially delicious surprise – like entering into an Escherian world. (Did you know that M.C. Escher was also an architect?) As noted movie critic Philip French wrote, this movie would have delighted Freud. I think it delights mathematicians, architects, physicists, psychologists, computer-geeks, sci-fi fans, thriller fans and just good-movie lovers all alike.

Here is a link to  a good analysis done about the ‘architecture’ of the film by an archi-centred blog: http://www.architizer.com/en_us/blog/dyn/4964/inceptions-dream-architecture/

And this is an absolutely fascinating article on the neuroscience behind Inception from Wired magazine: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/07/the-neuroscience-of-inception/

But this analysis possibly takes the cake, or should I say, totem: http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/07/the_ultimate_explanation_of_in.html

M. C. Escher : Relativity


Inception movie poster


In light of creating ‘dreamscapes’ I thought this would be a fitting context to place Alex Roman’s breathtaking short film ‘The Third and the Seventh’. When I first viewed the film earlier this year, having visited many of the buildings featured in it, I thought that Roman’s cinematography was incredible. Only on reading about it on his website did I realize that this entire film was a CGI masterpiece – one of the most breath-taking short films that truly capture the ‘spirit’ of buildings. Ranging from Frank Gehry’s Bilbao museum to Santiago Calatrava’s Milwaukee Art Museum to a Mies Van der Rohe house to Louis Kahn’s Exeter library and Dhaka government center and other well-known works including one of Alex’s own creations in the forest, his 12 minute film has truly captured the inspiring and meditative quality of great buildings. For the complete uninterrupted version – where a full screen view is necessary, please watch it directly on his website.


Sometimes after a long day, I like watching his film just for its sheer poetry and Zen-like peaceful beauty. It’s like tectonic therapy. The following video is just the first half and placed here only for a short dekko. It is much better to view it directly in the link above.

Part I only of the 3rd and & 7th film; Please watch the full version instead on the link.

* *

I’m halfway through reading the autobiography written by architect Daniel Libeskind : Breaking Ground – an immigrant’s journey from Poland to Ground Zero – a book someone gave to me. I’ve always had reservations against extreme ‘style-based’ or ‘jargon-happy’ starchitects, but decided to give it a read with an open mind, taking into consideration his war-ravaged past.Once you can get past Libeskind’s extremely self-viewed style of writing (which can easily be viewed as arrogance and malignant narcissism if not accepted that this is a confessional of an audacious man whose nomadic life is a story of survival and who grew up amongst insurmountable odds), the book settles into an entertaining read of the convoluted politics and poetry of the architectural world, the bitter dog-eat-dog world of New York City’s public projects, developers, rival architects and governing bodies, the crazy work schedules and demands in the world of architecture and a flashback into the horrors his family had faced during the Holocaust, which is a particularly poignant part – picaresque and viscerally moving at times, gut-wrenchingly horrific at others. The trials his parents went through in their birth land, then in their exiled countries and finally the labour in New York City (each working in a sweatshop and a printing factory respectively, and deliriously happy in the little they had) are quite remarkable. Just his father’s life alone is like a story straight out of a movie and is perhaps more inspirational. As well as the infallible strength of the two most influential women in his life – his mother and his wife Nina who most certainly seems to be his bedrock.

The book is filled with anecdotes, many vignettes and bizarre true-life stories, topics flitting from Proust to Mozart to German philosophers to Russian leaders to New York Times journalists to its mayors and governors to everyday folks and a lengthy description of his win and then subsequently being sidelined in the controversial Ground Zero Freedom Tower design. But when it comes to describing his built projects you wish he had credited, named or mentioned his brilliant associates and structural engineers – as any architect knows who the unnamed silent heroes in a starchitect’s firm truly are.  So far, I particularly liked his chapter Light where he does make the effort to credit some ancient masters at least, and while watching Alex Roman’s film thought how appropriate the quality and manoeuvring  of light truly is to reveal the ‘soul’ of good buildings, those that are unique and poetic.

The play of light is one of the most essential tools of any good architect – and Louis Kahn, whose library is featured in the Third and the Seventh film, was a virtuoso master of playing gymnastics with sunlight and shadows in his buildings. It was, in fact a visit to a Louis Kahn building and a profoundly moving experience I felt within its walls, meditative brick corridors and arched and circular openings that had inspired me at age 8  to become an architect later. (I had dreams of becoming either an astronaut/pilot or an architect or a secret agent – I was 8 after all….and the middle and more pragmatic choice prevailed at the end. My parents instead had hoped that I’d become either a doctor, a dentist, a professional classical dancer or an MBA – in that order – and indeed, I had found myself forced into a prestigious medical college – had the grades to get in – by my father’s insistence, only to quit after 2 weeks to join Architecture school, where I had also secretly applied and topped its nationwide entry exams.)  Louis Kahn’s play of light and surfaces had stolen my heart a long time back. My dream of becoming an architect would not be quelled by parental pressures. Louis had led me to Light through his funky wall ‘openings’ from what I believed then was the darkness of the prosaic conformity my parents had chosen when they had suppressed their own artistic, musical and writer’s sides to have embraced their academic Ph.Ds and ‘safe’, ‘stable’ livlihoods. Architecture still was a mostly ‘male’ profession with little place for women except to design ‘interiors’ where they were pushed into while the men would push themselves to design ‘towers’. The trouble was – inside I had never thought of myself as either a ‘woman’ or a ‘man.’ I was a ‘person’ in love with Louis’s Light and little did I know then that I’d go on to become the youngest woman architect, at 22, to start her own firm and build and implement projects. And 5 years later, I’d be designing museums and high-rise towers. And less than 7 years later, designing plans for entire ‘new-towns’, cities, and even a 16 square mile eco-city proposal. But starting out, one of my first clients would be not some disgruntled housewife or a store, it would be the CEO of the General Motors manufacturing plant in Asia wanting to design 300 acres of their land for their new plant. A couple of my first built designs under my own firm, both in landscapes and architecture, had circular openings……Hmm. I wonder why ;)

“All material in nature,
the mountains and the streams and the air and we,
are made of Light which has been spent,
and this crumpled mass called material casts a shadow,
and the shadow belongs to Light.”

– Louis Kahn

(his real name is  Itze-Lieb Schmuilowsky)

Now back to that Libeskind autobiography: Here are a few excerpts from the chapter Light from music-child-prodigy-turned-belated-architect Libeskind’s book.There is a particularly grim section where he writes how while designing the Jewish Museum in Berlin he was wondering if he should build one room with no light to depict the unsparing black, hopeless volume for those who had died in the Holocaust. He recalled the story of a woman who later lived in Brooklyn, a survivor. While being transported by train to the Stutthof concentration camp and at the point of abandoning all hope, she caught a glimpse of the sky through the slats of  the boxcar and a white streak suddenly appeared;  later though she knew that the streak might have merely been the trail of an airplane or a cloud, but that ‘vision’ had filled her with hope that she might somehow survive. And she did. This story was the inspiration behind designing the room named the ‘Holocaust Void’ which is empty, forbidding, neither heated nor cooled and only very high up in the ceiling is a tiny angled slit that lets in a line of light that is then reflected on the floor and walls of the Void. And he writes at the end of this story : Light is the measure of everything. It is absolute, mathematical, physical, eternal. There is an absolute speed to it, you can’t outrun it; that’s what the theory of relativity is about. Stand here and remember what you can. What you remember is in light, the rest is in darkness, isn’t it? The past fades to dark, and the future is unknown, just stars.”

“Like music, architecture is often about direct encounter rather than analysis. If you are interested in a piece of music, you can analyze it after you’ve heard it, take apart its structure, explore its modalities, tonalities. But first you have to simply let it wash over you. Buildings often exert their magic, their genius, in a similar way.” – DL

And these lines were interesting, to loop back to the topic of dreams :

“Do you want proof that there is immortality? I have always been taken by an argument posited by the philosopher and writer Henri Bergson, who won the Nobel Prize for literature in 1927 but, sadly, is not in vogue……[lines edited out here] ….Bergson believed that dreams are proof that there is immortality. Think of it, he said: Dreams are luminous, filled with light, and yet they happen without any optical, or measurable, light. They offer us a promise of eternity. I also have my own proof, which has followed me from Lodz. When I was seven years old, an aunt in Brazil sent me an extraordinary mounted butterfly, with phosphorescent wings and a deep indigo. It was one of the most beautiful things I had ever seen, and certainly one of the few objects of beauty we had in Lodz. In those wings that glowed with an almost radioactive light I could see everything I needed to know about Rio de Janerio, about nature, cities, light, the afterlife, eternity.” -DL

Update (July 22): After finishing the book, I have to admit that although there are parts that are quite poetic and others very poignant, and you feel for the injustice his parents and others went through – Libeskind’s extremely condescending view of all his other contemporaries in the architectural world and his failure to give credit nor name any members of his own dedicated staff in his office or his engineering firms (who obviously do most of the heavy lifting for his designs given that he is more of a theorist and less of a structural ace) leaves you with a dry insipid aftertaste. While one can admire his optimism, his book knowledge of the arts and philosophy, and the fact that he succeeded in living an eastern European immigrant’s ‘American Dream’, his ‘outsmarting’ and ‘one upmanship’ anecdotes that he outlines in every project of his life right till the very end of the book (oftentimes bordering on pettiness and blatant self-aggrandizement) makes you begin to wonder if  this is a boyish audacity he never outgrew or just someone who craves the limelight. Something he never got over from the days as a music prodigy when as he claimed early on in the book, had ‘stolen the spotlight’ on the stage from violin prodigy Itzhak Perlman.

After reading the book, I came out with greater respect for his father Nachman, for his mother and for his devoted and diplomatic wife Nina than for Daniel. They are certainly the real girders due to whom Libeskind was able to build his dreams in reality, and not be stuck forever in his castle of words. And of course, his dedicated staff – unnamed in his book…..


Here’s the link to the short film the Third and the Seventh once again, to be lost in a world of dreamlike buildings, existing in the real world, breathed life to by the inception of  ideas in its creators’ minds:



Jewish Museum. Berlin.

*  *  *

*  *  *

12 thoughts on “Dreamweavers

  1. Interesting comments about architecture. Louis Kahn was one of the Masters of Light and one of my own heros both for his humility as a person and the quality and sincerity of his architecture. – But I’m in the camp of those who find Libeskind to be a phony charlatan first and a talentless but slick marketer second. (Only the most tasteless and shallow person would want to release ‘Breaking Ground’ on the 3rd anniversary of September 11 so they could do book signings at events marking the tragedy?) – So it is no surprise that Libeskind was eventually fired from the Freedom Tower or that he has not been awarded a single commission even for a park bench at the memorial. The design for his Royal Ontario Museum was so bad that the Washington Post dubbed it ‘The Worst Building of the Decade’. Even the Jewish writer Edward Rothstein writing in the New York Times eventually got past the hype and wrote that the Jewish Museum in Berlin was so much about Libeskind’s ego that it made a mockery of the Holocaust and turned that tragedy into an amusement park ride with cheap and tacky portrayals of the event.

    So stick to Louis Kahn and give Libeskind’s ego a miss. Take a cue from Daniel’s wife, Nina. When she was looking for an architect to design their home, she bypassed her own husband and business partner and hired Alex Gorlin Architects instead. (Although that did not stop Libeskind lying to the New York Times and saying he designed it himself. – see http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/magazine/21wwln_domains.1.html )

    But don’t take it from me. Check out the Posters on TED.com who responded to Libeskind’s speech “17 Words of Architectural Inspiration”.

    And if you like Kahn, try Carlo Scarpa. Another humble but thoughtful architect.

    • Thanks Brenda for the comment and info.

      I’d heard Libeskind talk at Harvard – he seemed jolly – but then of course architects are quite different on the podium sometimes.

      The associate of a firm I worked for and an architect I admire greatly had told me similar things as you have (and I have seen the ROM – liked parts of its interior but not the exterior – the window panes were a mess amongst other features. – and the whole building reeked of seeking attention) I am always a bit wary of the pure ‘brand style’ architects – Gehry, Libeskind et al – because you know it’s their associates and structural engineers who do all the heavy lifting – and in Libeskind’s case his devoted wife certainly seems to be the one who manages the office and public relations. Only few like Calatrava are engineering aces themselves as well. Wow – had no idea he released the book on the Sep 11 anniversary! (I’d got the book as a gift – didn’t buy it myself.)

      Yes – Louis Kahn of course is a Master. And my inspiration. And I have always LOVED Carlos Scarpa (his poster hangs in the office of my archi mentor.) I’d watched a film on Scarpa too a while back. I’ve not been a Libeskind fan – he seemed to be more a ‘theory’ guy who sketched first and thought structures later. I was trying to see if this book would change my opinion – he certainly did face a lot in life, perhaps more so his dad, so I was giving him the benefit of the doubt – but when even by the end of the book he failed to mention any of his staff members by name (except his lawyer and ceo- and of course, being an architect myself – you and I both know how it REALLY works in firms, right? and made himself the hero in every single instance) I got rather disappointed and had to go back to my mentor’s opinion of Libeskind. After all DL was more of a theorist till the age of 52 and architecture is something you learn by actually DOING through the years, not just writing.

      I also know some German engineers who worked on the Berlin museum with him and there were tales of his ego – but which ‘starchitect’ doesn’t have one? And I met other well-known ones at Harvard – including Eisennman and others DL mentions in the book – and was a bit surprised he would write that way about them.

      Thanks again – I’ll make a few minor edits and stick to the words of my mentor and his associate (who is Jewish, and still thinks DL used his past to profit).
      But the book is informative otherwise – both revealing his pros and cons…..Alas – more of a theorist after all he turns out to be.

      I’ll watch the TED link. Bjarke Ingels btw is also humble and grounded in person. He’s very young but though very lively on the podium, is very serious and mature in person.

    • P.S. Brenda – I guess you watched Louis Kahn’s film ‘The Architect’? I had rushed to see it and was quite disillusioned to see how he’d treated his own son. Very moving although you see the contrast of his work life and the sadness the four women in his life faced. It took me a long time to understand a weird fact of life though – that it seems a man’s creative output and personal characteristics can often be contradictory….And in some ways you’ve to accept them both for their ‘darkness’ and their ‘light.’

      Just read the NYT interview – yes, you are right! He seems to be more like the ‘style’-centric fashion designers – only far more well-read. But perhaps good at talking of the blend between music and architecture. Perhaps he got so used to getting attention on the stage so early in life, he never grew out of it?

      Have to admit, that the male egotists amongst architects (and the lack of women journalists who try to promote women designers) have certainly pushed back many talented women architects. I feel much more for the women in the field than the men.


  2. Re: women journalists – I think most people would agree that the best of the (relatively) recent New York Times Architecture Critics was Ada Louise Huxtable. Paul Goldberger, Herbert Muschamp and the impossibly pretentious Nicolai Ouroussoff never matched her high standards.

    As for Libeskind, I’m with Brenda on this one. Any one who makes pretentious statements like the following quote by Daniel Libeskind deserves all the derision that they get.

    “Who do I build for? I think every building is addressed to someone who is not here. Every building that is good is not addressed to the public, that they walk around and find themselves to be comfortable. It is addressed to those who are unborn, in both senses: of the past and in the future. I think that is who they address and that is what makes them important. To that extent, every human being is really unborn.”

    Huxtable would have taken him to task for this nonsense. Muschamp and Ouroussoff lapped this rubbish up.

    • Tracy A.

      Oy vey! He sure has turned out to be the usual jargon-happy egotistic theorist. I’m now absolutely convinced that my mentor (who recently won the Order of Canada and is an architect who learnt the craft hands on – even working alongside construction workers in his youth) was spot-on about Libeskind and would call him a ‘gimmick-happy’ architect.

      It’s weird though as I am progressing through the book that what he talks of in the first chapters he completely changes in the other chapters….first he says the past is history then he says we have to always ‘capture the past in the present.’ It’s self-contradictory and I have to sigh and sadly say – ‘jargon-happy’. The quote you wrote ‘To that extent, every human being is really unborn’ had me in splits…Now those are some really illogical words. I started the book with an open mind but it wilted and what put me off most is how not once does he write even a paragraph about his staff with their names, those who give up their sleep and social life for him, but he takes all the credit for everything.

      I’d have liked to see what Huxtable had to say. Though in his book he has written how Muschamp turned the tables on him too and blamed this on another architect – the other musician-turned-architect Vinoly.

      Thanks for the input.

  3. Actually Libeskind DID mention his staff. There’s a point in Breaking Ground where the always smug and insensitively ungrateful Libeskind writes about arriving at work one morning, all fresh from a good night’s sleep and being pleased to see his staff architects (and this is a quote) – “emerged red-eyed and exhausted, not having seen their families-or sunlight-for weeks. They looked like newts, their skin tender and gray-green”.

    OK, he doesn’t know their names, but you can’t really expect a self-styled genius to bother to learn the names of all the lowly help!!!

    More upsetting to me was Libeskind’s blatant chauvanism towards women. Once again in that biography he wrote, “When I first met Nina, I thought she was so beautiful she must be stupid.”

    It’s a very telling remark by someone who thinks they are greater than everyone, even the poor woman he chose to take as his wife. But what I’d like to know is whether he really thinks all beautiful women are stupid? It seems to be his default reaction.

    BTW – We have a copy of Libeskind’s biography in our office. There’s a small hole drilled in the top right corner and it’s hung by a wire beside the toilet bowl in the Client’s Toilet. They get the hint that if there’s no toilet paper, tearing a sheet or two from Breaking Ground serves the same purpose!

    • Nameless Architect,

      Geez – it gets worse I guess. I’m regretting now even having put one of his quotes up (but I’ll edit it out perhaps later.)

      Yep – the ‘beautiful women are stupid’ is a cliched notion that irks me too, to no end. I’d written a post on that – how women in architecture have to battle both sexism from the men and sexual politics sometimes from women in other places. How the men can ‘flaunt’ themselves full blast while the women in architecture have to take the backseat and confine themselves to the unisex black turtlenecks as they slog away, unknown, unnamed. It was the post titled ‘Sex and the Starchitect.’ – the link is on my first comment. (and in my Index page.)

      In that I’d actually poked fun at Libeskind’s Armani obsession. I was given the book by a well-meaning person (a non-architect who probably thought as an architect I might like it) so I thought I’d give it a read. I did find it arrogant (when he talks of himself upstaging Itzhak Perlman – but then thought – no, he might have suffered so much in the Holocaust, I should see the positive side and his optimism) but really, how can one justify a sales act, as Brenda had written, of his signing the books on the WTC site?! That’s rather crass.

      Well – thanks for your comment. I’m from Canada and up there – due to his wife’s political connections – the newspapers always praise him; so it’s good to hear some objective criticism from people in the U.S. who know his ‘charms’ better.

  4. Gypsy,

    I just read your article about “Sex and the Starchitect”. I’d stumbled on your blog this morning via a google search, but now I’m becoming a fan of your insightful writing. And thanks for the tip on Bjarke Ingels. How did I miss this guy … so easy, so relaxed, so thoughtful about design. And although I hope he gets good commissions, he seems the very antithesis of the “starchitect”.

    And yes, I say the Louis Kahn film, “My Achitect” several times. Sure Kahn was irresponsible as a father, but his son’s loving attempt to reach out to discover a long dead father was very touching and so honestly filmed you could cry. But Kahn was sincere and that was evident to his son.

    It only reinforces the degree to which I abhor the “starchitect” culture. And to return to Libeskind, if you see his lecture and book signing schedule and the interminable press conferences he gives, how much tine can he be spending at the dawing board anyway? Very little I would assume. It’s the poor fools at the coalface who bought into his shallow hype who are selling their souls for this mindless and superficial work. But if there’s a microphone in the room or a camera flash popping, Libeskind is there to take ALL the credit.

    I gave up working for an egotist like this, I retrained myself under the tutelage of reading, drawing the classical orders (musical scales for the architect …), and the essential tasks of travel and sketching in watercolor. I’m a better architect than Daniel Libeskind. But nobody knows it … not yet anyway.

    Keep up the great work on your blog. I’m going to read the back issues!

    • Brenda,

      It’s receiving such heartfelt words as you have written that makes me feel at times that putting up this blog was worth it. Really. Thank you so much for that touching comment.

      You obviously have spent a lot of time on the field to know its glories and hypocrisies. I spent more than 10 years (tried a few firms – the ‘egotist’ firm, an all-woman one, a corporate one, and finally the one of my mentor. I’d started my own firm early in life before going back to academia and then back to work again.) Maybe one day you and I can share our work websites. You know – how we go into the field with all our dreams and then see how this is one of the toughest professions for women…..?

      My best friends are some really grounded and talented women architects too – those who are the girders – but their struggles and triumphs are never spoken of. I noticed that most ‘feminist’ writers – the liberal arts type – don’t even wish to mention tech-field women. And so I thought – heck – if no one’s doing it, let me start if even in a small way. I hope to start interviewing or writing the stories of the brave, talented women in architecture and engineering who the men in the field prefer to sideline and….(you read in that post how we are sidelined from both camps anyway.)

      Thank you so much for opening up and your great insights.

      yes – whatever Kahn was, he was not a hypocrite. At least whatever he did was open and honest. The film had actually made me cry. His buildings always had a profound effect on me. I felt the same in a couple of the buildings of my mentor too (his interview in on my blogroll on the right header – The Incorrigible Optimist) You’ll see how grounded he is – and he gives his opinion on Libi too. And how he mentions all his associates as right hands he cannot survive without, even those who have left. And in reality he runs away from the flashbulbs.

      Thanks again so much for your words and support. Happy reading, and hope I can get to see your work some day. And write about your story (or perhaps ask you to write if you haven’t already.) Silence is often peaceful, yet I find that in this world we suffer most when the rational & strong remain silent and the irrational/power-hungry make a lot of noise. I started writing as an outlet, but it is so wonderful when women like you can relate. Women in design are different, only they can relate to the specific struggles of the others in design….and I am at an age where I have no qualms of saying so, PoC or not ;-)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s