http://search.deviantart.com/?q=by:x-muse&section=today deviantART RSS for by:x-muse en-us Copyright 2009, deviantART.com Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:26:09 PST deviantART.com http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss http://s.deviantart.com/minish/widgets/apple-touch-icon-precomposed.png http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/27513272/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/27513272/ Wed, 30 Sep 2009 22:34:19 PDT
To coin a phrase: It doesn't get any better than this. Good times does not even begin to describe it....

]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/26759213/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/26759213/ Sat, 22 Aug 2009 17:17:16 PDT [link]

Please do read it.

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/26485044/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/26485044/ Sun, 09 Aug 2009 13:48:59 PDT
I did not see, upon posting, an option to disable this feature.

I have my own opinions about this but I would like to solict your views. Please sound off in the comments.

Thank you.

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/26316883/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/26316883/ Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:38:15 PDT
Here's the deal: we will make selected images available to you and you let us post the finished artwork in our blog at X-muse.net, with all proper credits and links back to you. If your favorite image is not among those we select, just ask! We may be able to make it available. (We can't release every image we have for this purpose because we share copyright with the models and need their permission.)

What's the catch? Your work must be good enough for X-muse. So if you are interested, send us a note or leave a comment below. We'll check out your work and if it measures up, we'll send you a note with information about the images.

If you would like us to feature your existing artwork in our blog, let us know that too. We'd be happy to post a small-sized image with links back to you, if we feel the piece merits it.

So hit us with your best shot!

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/25385629/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/25385629/ Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:53:43 PDT

My friend and I have this on-going debate: she likes on-line communities and thinks them useful and I'm dubious of them and worry they dilute and distort the power and joy of human interaction.

Ladies first: My friend considers that on-line communities -- what we called 'virtual' back in the day -- are unparalleled in their power to bring people together, to organize efforts, to maintain contacts with old or distant friends, to find new opportunities, and when needed, help.

My take: Virtual communities reduce people to avatars, emotions to emoticons, and aid to our fellows to posting a snuzzle gif in someone's blog.

Now, we are both, to some extent, right. The debate centers on the extent to which we are right. And right in the middle of this cordial and heretofore rather academic debate, reality intervenes and bites, and bites hard.

Some of you may be familiar with a DA member, Vispir: [link] . Others may not; if you are one of these please familiarize yourself with her situation, but allow me first to give you a précis: Vispir is a young woman with a life-threatening illness, currently thousands of miles from her family with few resources and no health insurance.

There is nothing virtual about Vispir's situation: this is not some cathartic and conveniently forgotten made-for-the-masses tear-jerker about the poor cancer-stricken girl who teaches her jaded friends about the meaning of life before going to a beatific end while the credits roll and the commercials start.

This is about constant fear, near-constant pain, isolation from your family, being betrayed in your moment of greatest need by the one person you should always be able to count on; about vomiting blood at three in the morning.

There is nothing simple or tidy or beatific about this. Good wishes will not pay for doctors and blaming "The System" or referring this problem to the semi-mythical "Upstairs" will not help.

We are The System. This is not above anyone's pay grade. This is Reality and all the snuzzle gifs in the world will not solve it.

Vispir needs proper medical treatment and that costs money that she does not have. (Read her journals as to why.) Hence this fundraiser for her.

It is simple: you may visit her DA page and donate through the instructions there, or you may go to X-muse.net [link] and purchase a membership, which will cost you as little as $5. All the revenue X-Muse generates during July and August (and possibly longer) is going to straight to Vispir to pay her medical bills. (Proofs to be furnished on request.)

That’s the deal. If you want to help and want to see X-muse but would rather not sign up, I'll give a month's membership to anyone who furnishes me with proof of a donation to Vispir of $10 or more.

So how about it? Am I right or is my friend right? Is there more to this virtual place than emoticons and avatars and lots of virtual good wishes? Can we bring people together and organize to help (and possibly save the life of) a beautiful young woman with two children?

It's up to you.

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/25009084/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/25009084/ Fri, 29 May 2009 04:08:39 PDT
Well, not really. I doubt I should arrogate to myself the dignity of a mountain, and this particular mouse is unlikely do much roaring, though one never knows. What I can say is that 9 months -- and what is it about that particular period of time? -- of effort and plumbing the mysteries of Code to a depth I had never heretofore expected to attain, we have reached, if not completion, at least a milestone.

Our site, X-muse.net, has today launched in a Beta version and we need willing victims to test it. If you have enjoyed the work we post here, we believe you will not be disappointed.

Fair warning: X-muse is a subscription site and so there is a small fee to partake fully of what the site has to offer. But because of the site is in Beta test, the fee is not only reduced to rather nominal level at this point, but we will have a fairly liberal refund policy for members until the Beta-test phase is completed. And for those with the faith to stick around, we are offering charter members a full year's subscription for a very good price indeed.

For those who might feel it somewhat infra dig for us to offer our art for a fee, I will be happy to direct them to Tehanu who, operating on all sides of this business, has an excellent and global understanding of it, and will be all to happy to explain the reasons (I might even say, the necessity) for this approach.

In any event, good thoughts as we move from this phase of our endeavor to the next will be much appreciated and gladly reciprocated.

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/24285591/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/24285591/ Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:25:26 PDT
I find it somewhat ironic that in the 136 years since that story was published, we have out-Fogged Fogg to a degree unimaginable up until very recently. Fogg was famous for having a clock in every room. We -- especially we here in the US -- generally have several. We are surrounded by clocks -- anything with a chip in it has at least one -- to an astounding degree, and the clock-makers ( like our society in general ) are obsessed with dividing time in ever smaller slices. And all these clocks are busily ticking away, counting off the increments of that most problematic entity and making some of us feel guilty or apprehensive or frustrated (or all three) by doing so.

I have been, to no small degree, one of those afflicted.

You see, quite some time ago (longer, indeed, than I care to say), I set myself a deadline. And then I let it pass. And let it pass again. In fact, between last October and Valentine's Day, I let it pass four times, at which point I decided that deadline needed to be retired, so I did. It's my deadline -- I can put it out to pasture if I want to.

But I cannot stop the clocks from ticking, nor can I ignore the fact that the task to which I set not just myself, but a few others as well, goes undone. And that is why I am thinking on clocks.

But I am also thinking on clocks because, now finally, the end -- well, maybe just the beginning of the end -- it is in sight, or better yet, in focus. I can see details formerly obscured and conquer them. And I am doing so. Now, as the clocks tick, my To-Do list shrinks in proportion and I get closer and closer to unleashing the fruit of all this labor on an unsuspecting world.

No doubt the world will remain unsuspecting as it will take no notice whatsoever, but a teeny-tiny fraction might, and it is possible that you are in it. At least I hope you will be in it. So watch this space for an announcement in the not-to-distant future.

That is all that I will say for know, except that I knew this mountain once, and now I know how she felt.

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/23481411/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/23481411/ Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:01:19 PST really bored with chicken soup. . . And then tonight, I checked in here at dA and found that a someone had shot a little ray of sunshine into my life:

They said this photo [link] is porn, not art.

I've been posting nude and erotic photos here on dA now for over a year; garnered over 1200 watchers, gotten over 69,000 pages views and over 1500 comments and this is the first time I have gotten that simple, long-awaited comment. Seriously I was wondering just what I was going to have to post here.

Now I'm not about to get into the "Porn vs. Art" debate, here or in the comments. Yes, there is a difference between porn and art; no, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive; yes, the term "porn" has become so overused and used so ignorantly that it is these days practically a semantic nullity -- but it still sure can get people's dander up!

But the reason I'm so happy is that there is a story I've been wanting to post since last Spring (and forgive me for being puerile here and sort of letting the cat out of the bag) but I didn't feel I could because just having it come out of the blue, apropos nothing, would have robbed it of its impact. I needed an opening and no one would give it to me! Just one comment accusing me of posting porn -- was that too much ask?

Ok, so none of that explanation is necessary and probably not even desirable, and yes, I over-think and over-explain things way too much, but hey! I'm sick and thus feel entitled. Anyway, here's the story, and it's all true:

My ex-wife's girlfriend has a teenaged daughter (17-18) who works in a small boutique in Sunnyvale (heart of Silicon Valley). One day a late-30's to early 40's woman, dressed nicely in the best corporate style (think senior HR rep, executive secretary, or middle manager in marketing) brings in her younger teenaged daughter (about 14) to pick out a pair of earrings for her newly pierced ears.

Corp. Mom leaves daughter at the jewelry counter in the care of the GF's daughter and goes poking about the store. While GF daughter and Corp. Mom daughter are going over options, they hear a not-at-all-well-hidden gasp and Corp. Mom storms up to the counter and angrily demands to see the manager.

The manager -- a women in her 20's -- is duly fetched.

Corp. Mom immediately begins berating her: she had thought this was a safe place to bring her daughter; she was shocked and appalled that a supposedly nice boutique would carry such items; she felt betrayed; her poor daughter; blah blah Ginger blah blah.*

The manager is mystified, the GF's daughter is stupefied, and Corp. Mom's daughter is trying to look very very small. As the women briefly pauses, the manager politely asks exactly what the problem is.

Corp. Mom looks incredulous for a moment, then points in the direction of some clothing racks and, inhaling like a whale about to dive, bellows: "PORN! There's PORN in this store!"

The manager and the GF's daughter blink, glance at one another, blink. Corp. Mom's daughter looks like she'd rather being doing her homework while eating rat poison. Before anyone can recover, Corp. Mom relaunches her tirade, says "PORN!" a few times for emphasis, grabs her daughter by the upper arm and hustles her out the store. The daughter mouths "sorry" to the manager and the GF's daughter, and the GF's daughter replies with a little wave.

The door closes, merciful silence descends.

The GF's daughter and the manager go over the clothing racks and start trying to figure out just What the Hell happened. In a few minutes, they see it. On a line of tops, down at the hem, smaller than a postage stamp, in matching pastel fabric, is an appliqué of the Playboy rabbit head logo.

Nothing else. Just a small pastel appliqué of a stylized bunny head wearing a bowtie. PORN.

So there you have it.

Thank you, semi-anonymous young-acting person for the opening; thank you for reading; and to all, a Good Night.



* A Gary Larson reference -- sorry.

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/23373447/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/23373447/ Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:39:09 PST
In humble gratitude . . .

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/22219716/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/22219716/ Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:46:35 PST [link]

Space is limited (he sold out his January session) so it's best to reserve your slot ASAP.

Also, Craig is still having his sale on his hand-made prints (I have several -- they are gorgeous!), so if you can't attend, you can at least get a print. More info here: [link]

Full Disclosure: I'm not affiliated with Craig in any way. We've known each other personally for several years (our studios are 5 mins apart), and I've been a fan of his work since I discovered it in 1992. I hosted one of his workshops two years ago, and they are excellent. I don't derive any financial benefit from people signing up for this workshop or buying his prints; I just think the guy is an amazing photographer and the people here would benefit from his work.

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/21835314/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/21835314/ Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:10:44 PST
Would it be a community site, a resource site, a search site, an entertainment site, a shopping site, a gaming site, a site with various utilities you could use? All of these? Something else entirely?

My focus is on things current site don't do, or don't do well, but if the internet already gives you eveything you desire, please feel free to say that.

And if you have favorite sites, please list them and summarize what you like about them.

Thank you!

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/21477358/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/21477358/ Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:46:49 PST
Something happened during a shoot some years ago that brought this point home to me in a way I found both very touching and poignantly funny. I was photographing two women making love - a married couple - and during a particularly heated moment, one tapped the other ever so gently on the nose and whispered in her ear, "photoshoot, dear", meaning that the tempo was increasing to the point to where the camera could not keep up. But there was a more important message — that the spirit of collaboration was in danger of being lost.

This collaboration is vital to the whole notion of a true portrait, and it is a dicey business; all the more so when when the subject is erotic. To get a true portrait, the photographer must be unobtrusive but by the same token cannot be invisible. If s/he becomes invisible, we have entered into the realm of unalloyed voyeurism. Now voyeurism may be bad or not according to the circumstances, but it is not portraiture. Portraiture requires that the subject communicate with the viewer; that they be joint witness to the fact of the portrait's creation; that some sharing take place. If the subject is unaware of the camera, this communication becomes lost.

Yet the best portraits are found in unguarded moments. Hence the balancing act of keeping the subject aware of your presence as a photographer, yet making them comfortable enough to offer you those unguarded moments when you can peek inside and see — and record — something special they may not be fully aware of. It is this willingly but unknowingly revealed "something special" that informs and transforms the conscious image they are seeking to project.

It is this convolution of the willfully expressed and the unwittingly revealed that creates a portrait that is literally stunning; that can catch the heart and stop the breath with the power of its communication. I cannot say I have ever created such, but I have seen some, and it is always what I shall seek and strive for.

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/21039055/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/21039055/ Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:46:02 PDT
I suspect others have a similar experience while searching, but I really want to know how much of a problem other people think this is, and exactly what it is they find dissatisfying. So I’ve set up a poll to ask you all about your on-line search experiences: [link]

So if you would, please share your thoughts, and as the poll doesn't allow you to pick more than one response, please feel free to expand on your answer in the comments.
Thanks!

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/20754749/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/20754749/ Tue, 30 Sep 2008 06:48:54 PDT
C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/20160653/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/20160653/ Tue, 26 Aug 2008 04:03:51 PDT

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/19397485/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/19397485/ Mon, 14 Jul 2008 19:34:25 PDT
It was a good day.

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/18441806/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/18441806/ Thu, 22 May 2008 04:25:20 PDT
I cannot think of any words that would adequately express my gratitude to everyone who has come by to view our work, leave a comment, or grace us with a favorite. As always, the credit belongs mainly with the exceptional women I have the honor to work with; they are gifted and generous beyond measure.

So, words failing me, I hope we may through our future endeavours convey a heatfelt "Thank You!" to each and everyone of you who have shared in our work and tendered your support.

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/18041395/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/18041395/ Sat, 26 Apr 2008 16:11:26 PDT
Considering what Art is, we must confront the fact that if it could be precisely defined in words, it would not need to exist. Art and language would then be purely redundant and whether we resorted to one or the other would turn on mechanical considerations like efficiency or semantic clarity. But it does not, because Art [in which I include visual, musical, dance etc] exists to communicate concepts and feelings for which language is insufficient; each exists in relation to and overlapping with the other but each has a purpose which is largely its own, and each is defined on its own terms, the expression of which in other forms is at best a palimpsest.

Considering where Art comes from: individually, it occupies the liminal space between imagination, reality, and talent. Socially, it occupies the liminal space between the artist, the perceiver, and the society that both inhabit. Inherent in the creation of Art is tension: the individual tension between the artist's perception of reality, their imagination, and their ability to express via their craft; the social tension between the artist, their audience, and the larger community. Fundamental to the purpose of Art is communication; to be Art, art must be shared and sharable.

Thus the concept of what Art is, along with the art itself, arises not just from the artist but, as importantly, from the social fabric of the society the artist inhabits. Art is supported and informed by the complex weave of shared concepts, symbols, ideals, mores, modes, beliefs, traditions, and worldview that define and circumscribe a society. Good art reaches us, moves and challenges us, on its own terms through the shared social constructs that connect us with the artist. Bad (or at least inadequate) art requires documentation: copious notes to explain what it means, how we should feel about it, and why it matters. (As a rule, if someone has to explain why an artwork matters, it probably doesn't. This is of course is distinct from helping people develop a greater understanding of, and appreciation for, Art.) Ugly art sets out to offend, which is the easiest, least constructive, and most puerile purpose art can descend to.

Thus, to extent that the definition of Art is thought to be held only by the individual and not also by the social consciousness, it loses it's ability to motivate, challenge, or transform. Not only does the idea that "art is whatever I say it is" absolve the artist of trying to communicate with us, it absolves us from trying to listen or perceive. Taken to the extreme, the individualist view in effect converts all art into "bad" art. Or to put it another way: if everything can be art, nothing is art.

Two conclusions are therefore apparent: first, bureaucracies, which are all about rules (expressed in language), cannot define or judge what is Art and what is not; they can only circumscribe its content. Second, the notion that "art is whatever I say it is" is both insufficient and incorrect because it denies the social aspect and therefore amputates both the necessary tension for Art's creation and context for it's expression.

This matters because together these forces undermine and fragment a society's concept of what constitutes Art, and when a society begins to lose its shared, inhered concept of what Art is, it tends to resort to bureaucratic solutions. As a result, art itself tends to become bureaucratized. The bureaucratized approach to Art cannot support good art or defend us from ugly art but treats all art as if it were bad, slathering an egalitarian gloss over all and lubricating... ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/17742828/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/17742828/ Tue, 08 Apr 2008 05:24:09 PDT
10,000 page views -- I had not expected such a response in the 7 short weeks I have been active here. My heartfelt gratitude to each and everyone of you who chose to share my passion with me; and more than that to those who have taken the time to leave a comment or deemed me worth watching.

In a spirit of celebration, I am posting a Quartet Plus 1 of Tessa, doing one of the many things she does best. It is one of my favorite sets and this is it's first public exhibition.

Update: So I was a bit late with the new images of Betcee. Perhap you enjoyed savoring the anticipation. . . which is another was of saying I'm a slacker.

with all fond regards,

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/17662871/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/17662871/ Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:52:29 PDT
These photos were something of a departure for me, as I don't normally venture into fetish photography outside of a commercial context. But last week, a woman I work with told me about an ad she had seen that brought home to me some characteristics of our society and moved me to create these images.

In brief, our society exhibits 1) a fascination, bordering on an obsession, with the New, the Outré, the Shocking and/or Transgressive; and 2) a preoccupation, sometimes almost neurotic, with sexual and erotic concepts coupled with a prudish aversion to those concepts' frank expression. This condition, which I might call puritanical hedonism, causes considerable conflict. This conflict occurs not just between sectors of society but within individuals, where it all too often manifests itself in some very ill-considered (not to say amazingly dumb) ideas.

Nowhere is this more evident (at least in my view) than in advertising. The ad referred to, which was intended to sell shoes, I believe, involved a woman and a malamute: the woman had her foot up on a piece of furniture, displaying the product; her skirt hiked up to the hip to bare her raised, flexed and bent leg; and the malamute licking her exposed calf while the woman threw her head back in what we can only hope was a pose of faux ecstasy.

Now what immediately leapt to mind -- and I know I am not alone in this -- is that someone had concluded it was a good idea to promote bestiality to sell shoes. And not only that, but that someone was paid to come up with this idea and someone's corporate management decided to approve and execute it and someone else's corporate management to ultimately publish it. So this was not some one-off nutty idea by a foot fetishist with an unfortunate thing for dogs and women; it was a corporately approved and vetted concept considered not just appropriate for national circulation, but beneficial for the client and as reflecting well on the agency that created it.

How exactly could this happen?

Imagining myself (however speciously) in the position of the person assigned to come up with this ad, I see myself receiving a memo saying something like (in what I conceive to be the argot of the day): "Gotta sell some shoes. Kewl shoes! Gotta be edgy, hawt, Rad. Gimme ideas!"

Now, it being me, I would ponder a bit and suggest something like this: "OK, 2 women. Woman 1 has her foot up on a table, displaying the shoe. Woman 2 is kneeling on the table licking Woman 1's foot. Woman 2 is nude except for shoes, but posed so nothing really shows."

To me, such a concept is sexy, thought-provoking, memorable, and kind of sweet. It has some edge and I think it would satisfy the "hawt" requirement. But I can equally imagine the response: "2 girls? Naked? Like naked naked? Foot licking? Like Naked Lesbian foot worship? No waay!"
Me: "So what do you wanna do?" (Showing my flexibility.)
Them: "Gotta talk upstairs."
Eventually corporate response: "No nudity. NO lesbians. We'll get a dog. The dog will lick her leg. Her Leg -- not her foot. NO foot stuff."
Me: "The dog can't wear shoes. You'll only get one pair of shoes in the shot."
Them: "N/p. we'll work it."
And so… bestiality. Yeah, that's waay better than two normal every-day loving women sweetly engaging a bit of foot worship. Society is not ready for that. But bestiality? No problem. Green Lite. Go.
Me: "2-word 7-letter resignation note."

Admittedly, I am making this rather ungenerous exchange up out of whole cloth, but the fact remains that the ad in question was produced and did run, where I am quite sure that should I propose the photos I created for the self-same purpose, they would be rejected out of hand on the grounds of being to overtly sexual. Thus does puritanical hedonism result in rejecting perfectly usual, laudable, and not uncommon expressions of human desire in favor the truly perverse and disturbing; thus producing a wildly distorted vision of the Erotic, or, as in this case, a remarkably meretricious bit of advertising.

Or I could be wrong. If I have somehow created the next great shoe ad, you will read it here first.

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/17296039/ http://x-muse.deviantart.com/journal/17296039/ Wed, 12 Mar 2008 03:48:30 PDT
My photographic technique is simple: I create a basic set, select one of the few basic lighting schemes I understand, and engage an exceptional woman to express herself freely within that environment. To the extent I have a gift, it is a knack of knowing who to work with; women who will make me look good rather than the other way around. So if you like these images, seek out the exceptional women who produced them and express your respectful gratitude.

Regarding the women themselves, allow me to give a better sense of my full meaning when I say they are exceptional. Beauty is not -- whatever the old adage says -- skin deep. Beauty has little to do with skin at all -- or with pleasing arrangement of features, or a specific set of bodily proportions. Beauty is first and foremost a mental activity: the exercise of intellect informed by character on physical features. Shallow people and those of modest mental gifts cannot achieve beauty, though some with an exceptional physique can be coached into a reasonable counterfeit of it.

So the first thing to understand about the women you see in my work is that they are very smart: several have doctorates; not a few have advanced degrees; and almost all are accomplished artists in their own right: photographers, painters, musicians, singers, writers, poets. They are much more that what society generally considers to be with the ambit of the misleading term "model".

It is these exceptional women who, through their great goodness, share with you and with me their sublime, inspiring, and challenging art. I am merely there to try and record it.

C. Owen Johnson
[link] ]]> ~x-muse