Games as art.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

To be honest I'm not looking to start a discussion here. Instead merely to put to words my thoughts on the matter.

It seems when discussing games as an art form, many use examples of games that are similar
to films in the way they deliver a story (Mass Effect series, The Witcher II, Uncharted and more) or merely experimental (many indie titles ect, Journey, Flower, ect). Critics of course say games are not art because they cannot deliver emotion like films.

Why must we use the merits of a different art form like film and apply them to gaming? A very different medium. Would we compare Films to Paintings? Or consider only those games that are being a bit different/experimental?

I say that the games that should be considered art are the ones that we individually think are the best gaming experience. For example I would consider Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Metroid, Final Fantasy 6 and 7, hell even Gears of War to be art. Games that we personally find are the pinnacle of gaming. Therefore they should be considered art. Because games should be judged on the merits of their own medium.

Even after all the threads on this topic...I still don't see why games need to be classified as art. Why can't we just enjoy games as games like we have for the past what? 30 years? Why does it need to be seen as art?

I don't think the discussion is that all games are art, but that games can be art.

ShinyCharizard:
Critics of course say games are not art because they cannot deliver emotion like films.

Then those critics don't know what they're talking about. Games can evoke emotion, just as much as films do not always do (unless apathy counts). Even "real art" such as van Gogh's painting will not evoke emotions in everyone, personally I couldn't care less about those damn sunflowers, but I hear very few people say he wasn't an artist.

2010 called. They want their thread back.

...

I'm going to give my usual canned response:

Just what the fuck is art?

Seriously, every damn time someone starts this discussion they never offer a definition of art. Never. You can't argue that something is or isn't a certain thing, especially something as vague and nebulous as "art", without first explaining exactly what you mean when you use that term.

imahobbit4062:
I still don't see why games need to be classified as art.

They don't.

imahobbit4062:
Why can't we just enjoy games as games like we have for the past what? 30 years?

We can.

imahobbit4062:
Why does it need to be seen as art?

It doesn't.

Eleuthera:
I don't think the discussion is that all games are art, but that games can be art.

^This.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with viewing games as pure entertainment. But every now and again, a game comes along that does something very different with the medium and there are those of us who appreciate a break with convention. All I would say is that if people want to make games that aren't necessarily fun, and are 'doing it for the art', then let them. And let everyone that appreciates them call it 'art' if it feels like 'art' to them.

And I would view going completely the other way and saying games should never be art to be just as bad. Games are different things to different people. For me, they're one of the most immersive ways to tell a story, and story will always be my priority. But I can appreciate a game that's all about pure fun (for me, that's games like Fifa, Peggle and COD multiplayer) as much as I can appreciate a game that's asking you to think about it, rather than enjoy it (for me, Spec Ops and I suppose KotOR 2 to a lesser extent), and then there are those games that are just... arty (Journey).

Like Zhukov said, what the fuck is art? Nobody ever defines it in these posts, and there isn't a solid definition that everyone can agree on. Until there is, these discussions are pretty pointless. Are they art to you? Then yay, they're art. Just like lots of people don't consider paintings of a dot, or a line, art. The whole thing is totally subjective.

Zhukov:
2010 called. They want their thread back.

...

I'm going to give my usual canned response:

Just what the fuck is art?

Seriously, every damn time someone starts this discussion they never offer a definition of art. Never. You can't argue that something is or isn't a certain thing, especially something as vague and nebulous as "art", without first explaining exactly what you mean when you use that term.

I'm completely with you here. On every point. Are movies art? How can you tell? I literature art? That would include newspapers, you know. Are games art? Are they not? How do you distinguish between the two?

CAPTCHA: carbon-copy
Are you suggesting that this thread is not original at all and is the thousandth rerun of this topic on this site alone?

I can't write I know what art is. A term people used to use is, will it stand the test of time? I think, almost sadly, that is hokum. My own kids have no idea what "Citizne Kane" is, but their ignorance hardly makes CK less a piece of art. I also read recently that art paintings are likely not a good investment. The piece went on to describe a painter that was all the rage in the 19th century. Now you could pay to hang one of his works from your refrigerator. Again, our ignorance doesn't mean the artist was less one.

On the other hand,

UrinalDook:
let everyone that appreciates them call it 'art' if it feels like 'art' to them.

Also a problematic definition, especially if a government subsidizes what someone subjectively calls art. 60 Minutes did a piece on modern art, including that someone willingly paid $350 K for a platform covered in packets of various sweetners. I wanted to find the "artist" and kick in in the knee cap.

In the end, I can't say what art is, but if I'm paying for it with my own money, I'll define it thanks.

In the 1970s I had a console that did nothing but play variations of pong. Someone thought the the sound of the blip striking surfaces or being returned sounded aesthetically pleasing if it were "just so". I'll call that art.

Zhukov:
I'm going to give my usual canned response:

Just what the fuck is art?

Seriously, every damn time someone starts this discussion they never offer a definition of art. Never. You can't argue that something is or isn't a certain thing, especially something as vague and nebulous as "art", without first explaining exactly what you mean when you use that term.

This is basically my opinion. Art, by definition, is subjective. What may be a deep, thought-provoking, artful game could be pretentious wank to others, for example.

Because of this, I don't think games should be aiming to be considered "art." I'm not saying that some of these "art" games can't be good (I liked Dear Esther, and Journey was fantastic), or that we should not try to push the boundaries of what we think we can do in games, but if developers specifically try to be "art," it's way to easy to forget why people like playing games in the first place. Just try to make a game that accomplishes what you want it to, and do what's best for that game.

art can mean "made by man" by the common dictionary definition, so that fits about everything in our homes.

Sometimes "Art" is used to mean of great significance. Pretty only applies to our decoration.

The only objective way to approach the quality of Art is by looking at it's monetary value. Art is worth what the fool will give for it and you cannot argue against money.

I believe that gaming can be seen as an artistic medium, and we have several examples of that already (granted, mostly on the indie side). But that doesn't mean that all games are art. Most games are not art and never will be, which is perfectly fine. Most of the games I play are not art games, but I do like to delve into one every now and again. A game doesn't have to be all artsy fartsy in order for it to mean anything in the long run.

veloper:
art can mean "made by man" by the common dictionary definition, so that fits about everything in our homes.

Random observation - this means that "artefact" comes from "art". Or vice versa. OK, that's it - just something that I never noticed until now.

DoPo:

veloper:
art can mean "made by man" by the common dictionary definition, so that fits about everything in our homes.

Random observation - this means that "artefact" comes from "art". Or vice versa. OK, that's it - just something that I never noticed until now.

And arteficial.

veloper:

DoPo:

veloper:
art can mean "made by man" by the common dictionary definition, so that fits about everything in our homes.

Random observation - this means that "artefact" comes from "art". Or vice versa. OK, that's it - just something that I never noticed until now.

And arteficial.

You blew my mind. I never actually made the connection between that and "artefact". Also, I may be a bit oblivious when it comes to words.

DoPo:

veloper:

DoPo:

Random observation - this means that "artefact" comes from "art". Or vice versa. OK, that's it - just something that I never noticed until now.

And arteficial.

You blew my mind. I never actually made the connection between that and "artefact". Also, I may be a bit oblivious when it comes to words.

It's all ars (latin). Skill. But this bores me. I want to pick a fight over something.

In a world where an unmade bed, a starving dog chained to a wall, and a cured shark can all be considered art, the matter of whether or not games can be considered art is not even worth discussing.

Can games be art? Yes.

Why? Because I say so, and art has no definition beyond 'What people think is art'.

Will games being accepted as art make any kind of difference to the games themselves? No, it will not.

Zhukov:
2010 called. They want their thread back.

...

I'm going to give my usual canned response:

Just what the fuck is art?

Seriously, every damn time someone starts this discussion they never offer a definition of art. Never. You can't argue that something is or isn't a certain thing, especially something as vague and nebulous as "art", without first explaining exactly what you mean when you use that term.

People have been trying to define art for centuries. I'm not convinced we'll ever find an answer everyone is happy with >.>

Considering that people can put a brick on a pedestal (literally) and claim it's art worth paying to go into a gallery for why would you even want games to be considered art?

Calling something art frequently tends to bring out the pretentious types who like to act like something has a far greater significance than it actually has. Who then act superior because they "get it" while normal, sane people realise it's actually just a cynical move by somebody who realised that they could actually make money from sticking a brick on a pedestal.

To paraphrase Ken Cosgrove from the second season of Mad Men when he sees an abstract painting: "You've got to feel something about [the painting], maybe that is what makes it art." If we go on the basic definition that art is something created with a message and with the intention to stir thoughts and/or emotions, then yes certainly games can be art. That doesn't mean all games are art though.

imahobbit4062:
Even after all the threads on this topic...I still don't see why games need to be classified as art. Why can't we just enjoy games as games like we have for the past what? 30 years? Why does it need to be seen as art?

They need to be classified as art for legal reasons to maintain their freedom of speech or something. Which there was a supreme court case on it in the US a while back and they passed so games are legally art. I think people need to realize calling games art won't make them more accepted and mature.

Games are art. This website proves it. Well, so long as you believe anthropology and how it classifies social constructs like art.

imahobbit4062:
Even after all the threads on this topic...I still don't see why games need to be classified as art. Why can't we just enjoy games as games like we have for the past what? 30 years? Why does it need to be seen as art?

Why does it matter the other way around? Why does it need to avoid the topic? Games being seen as art recently granted them protection from content regulations. That is a pretty big reason to argue for them being art.

To me, it seems society has accepted art to be anything that instills passion or thought in someone enough to call it art. A blade of grass can be art should someone deem it so. Perhaps art is a idol for inspiration or emotions. That makes sense to me that "art" is a word we use on something that we feel is an idol for emotional or philosophical subjects. An idol for thoughts and feelings maybe. It would stand to reason why someone out there thinks a messy bed is art and I don't; or that games aren't art and I do. It really just makes tastes make sense as taste would inherently be based on your own personal experiences and perspective and your perspective is the reality you perceive to be true.

Uff, i am finaly back to this forum..........and i see that nothing has changed.

Anyway, back on topic. The reason they are NOT art is because of a fucking technicallity. As presented by our best friend ever Roger Ebert. Here is a fragment that you will find in this link:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070721/COMMENTARY/70721001/

Barker: "I think that Roger Ebert's problem is that he thinks you can't have art if there is that amount of malleability in the narrative. In other words, Shakespeare could not have written 'Romeo and Juliet' as a game because it could have had a happy ending, you know? If only she hadn't taken the damn poison. If only he'd have gotten there quicker."

Ebert: He is right again about me. I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist. Would "Romeo and Juliet" have been better with a different ending? Rewritten versions of the play were actually produced with happy endings. "King Lear" was also subjected to rewrites; it's such a downer. At this point, taste comes into play. Which version of "Romeo and Juliet," Shakespeare's or Barker's, is superior, deeper, more moving, more "artistic"?

But that is one of maaaaaaaaaaaany stupid arguments of art in games. Right now we have the following:

---1)"Games cant be art because they are made by a shitton of people doing their work instead of being lead by a single mind/artist with a vision/message/artistic expresion."

Keep in mind that these kind of people who say it, DONT care if that art is shitty or ilogical even by the fictional world, if it was made by an "artist" then it counts as art. These people probably see Citizen Kane as art along with The Star Wars prequels by George Lucas,John Romero's Daikatana and Casey Hudson 15 minutes contribution in Mass Effect 3 ending.

If having a single mind behind a game is all it takes, then allow me to post 2 examples of games as art under this idea: The Metal Gear series by Hideo Kojima, Killer7 by Suda51 and IJI by Daniel Remar. That is what i can think right now at the top of my head.............and probably all the indie developers that are not making arcade throwbacks and have a story/message in them by a single guy. Probably, if it wasnt for the fact that he didnt make the engine, the guy that made The Stanley Parable is an artist with a message.

---2)"Games are not art because they have yet to make their "Citizen Kane." "

CK is not art for the plot (its a simple plot) or how many tears you dropped when you knew it was his sled, its about the visuals. NOT asthetics but the visual STORYTELLING.

CK is the Most Triumphant Example of Visual Media as an Art Form. Hence the Roger Ebert quote "Its not what the story is about but HOW is about". How you tell the story as opposed to what is it about.

So what do videogames have besides looking pretty as fuck? Interactivity. Art on videogames not only needs to tell a story with its visuals, but also needs to do something with the interactivity.

Art is in player choice, how the story reacts to the input of the audience. You shouldnt look for pretty games (like Dear Esther), you should look for games like Planescape Torment, Fallout 1 and 2 but UP TO ELEVEN.

Games that have branching storylines are the key for art.

Think how The Witcher 2 has a branching storyline, or how Mass Effect was SUPPOSED to branch out after the first game as result of your choices (in the end it didnt matter, they didnt do that because they were lazy as shit)

Games like Journey, Minecraft and Deus Ex are fine but are those "The Most Trimphant Examples of Interactive Media as an Art Form"?

Without the "game" part of the game then they are just movies that you have some limited control with. The art has to come from the thing that makes games unique.

What makes movies special compared to previous art forms ,like books? the visuals.

What makes games special compared to previous art forms ,including film? the interactivity.

Before Citizen Kane there were good movies (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Metropolis comes to mind) but not enough to justify the "art" label.

I would say that ICO is more arty than the others because it manages to tell the character development of Yorda DURING gameplay (you know, the part that makes games BE games. The interaction) but still faaaaar away from what Deus Ex or IJI managed.

Since making a true interactive experience where every single action done by the player has concecuences in the work story is a coding nightmare, games are ultimately doomed by their own ambicion.

Thus "Games will never be art" was said. Because nobody has the balls of steel to try.

EDIT1: Keep in mind that i didnt say its the only thing that games NEEDS but the only thing it LACKS to be trully art. Otherwise, if CK had only visuals and no coherent plot, nor good acting, good pacing and characters, then it will be nothing (like Avatar).

Art is a sum of ALL its parts, you need all parts to work under a single vision. And games up to this point had all BUT the interactivity part fully fleshed out, which is the very thing that makes games unique. They have yet to perfect it to its logical conclusion.

EDIT2: For full disclosure, other mediums have ALSO tried the audience participation thing.

Mr. Sardonicus

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/MrSardonicus

is a horror film from the year 1961. It was directed by William Castle and stars Guy Rolfe as the eponymous Sardonicus. It was based on the short story Sardonicus by Ray Russell.

As with other William Castle films, the movie's main marketing gimmick was the audience's chance to decide the title character's fate by "penalty poll", the outcome of which supposedly affected the film's ending (even though only one was shot).

"Helena" exhibit by Danish artist, Marco Evaristti.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marco_Evaristti
http://artelectronicmedia.com/artwork/helena-by-marco-evaristti

An example of successful shock art installation, similar in intent to Spec Ops in that it aims to incriminate the viewer. For Helena, Evaristti placed ten live goldfish in ten blenders, all quite visibly plugged into a power board and ready to go. There was no other incitement to press the button or not; everything was up to the viewer. The viewer had space to consider the work and the implications of the exhibit. What I found most interesting was that when someone finally pressed a button, (as far as I can tell, a button has only been pressed twice in the history of the exhibit) the people charged with animal cruelty were the artist and the gallery, not the person who pressed it. One wonders how Yager Studios can seek to lay blame on a player, considering the man-hours invested in the creation of Spec Ops compared to the average time it takes to complete the videogame.

-------------

OT: If you feel like the artist bullshit is all a conspiracy to discredit games just to be just toys for hedonistic fucktards, then feel free to become crazy with this:
http://metagearsolid.org/2011/07/video-games-in-the-master-plan/

DioWallachia:
he thinks you can't have art if there is that amount of malleability in the narrative. In other words, Shakespeare could not have written 'Romeo and Juliet' as a game because it could have had a happy ending

What springs to mind here is John Cage's 4:33. Rather than the popular interpretation of it being a piece composed of silence, it's supposed to be the noises in the background which make up the piece, e.g. birds tweeting outside the concert hall, people coughing, cars driving by etc. So in that sense, the piece is different every time it is performed. Is that not art? I'm not much a fan of Cage myself, but it's the kind of stuff that seems to turn arty people on.

WoW Killer:

DioWallachia:
he thinks you can't have art if there is that amount of malleability in the narrative. In other words, Shakespeare could not have written 'Romeo and Juliet' as a game because it could have had a happy ending

What springs to mind here is John Cage's 4:33. Rather than the popular interpretation of it being a piece composed of silence, it's supposed to be the noises in the background which make up the piece, e.g. birds tweeting outside the concert hall, people coughing, cars driving by etc. So in that sense, the piece is different every time it is performed. Is that not art? I'm not much a fan of Cage myself, but it's the kind of stuff that seems to turn arty people on.

And what the message behind such action? to ilustrate how all experiences are ultimately the same regardless in what order you experience them? I can SORT OFF see how that is similar to a videogame that we have today, in the sense that its slightly different everytime (like playing Fallout 3 with another set of skills or talking different to people) but ultimately it is still limited by what the developers have made avaliable. In fact, i am sure that in that recording you will never heard sounds of aliens invading Earth or a crazy guy with a chainsaw killing people. Just like games, it will be limited to the surroundings/setting itself, and you will still heard just variations of the concert hall, people coughing (and whispers and goship), cars driving (and maybe a crash every once in a while) and birds tweeting (and getting eating by a car or something)

WoW Killer:

DioWallachia:
he thinks you can't have art if there is that amount of malleability in the narrative. In other words, Shakespeare could not have written 'Romeo and Juliet' as a game because it could have had a happy ending

What springs to mind here is John Cage's 4:33. Rather than the popular interpretation of it being a piece composed of silence, it's supposed to be the noises in the background which make up the piece, e.g. birds tweeting outside the concert hall, people coughing, cars driving by etc. So in that sense, the piece is different every time it is performed. Is that not art? I'm not much a fan of Cage myself, but it's the kind of stuff that seems to turn arty people on.

Forgot to mention, is Ebert against logic and possibility? Sure, the tragic ending is more potent and powerful, but can the setting and story demostrate that to the player/audience in a way that its belivable as soon we are given the power of alter the narrative? that isnt a problem of the medium per se, but a problem that the writer has to solve.

imahobbit4062:
Even after all the threads on this topic...I still don't see why games need to be classified as art. Why can't we just enjoy games as games like we have for the past what? 30 years? Why does it need to be seen as art?

To explain why would require me to go over the entire history of art starting in medival times all the way up to the current day. Im not going to do that, so heres a shamefully simple explanation. Art as seen as today has moved beyond the means of definition and because the definition is so unstable many people seek to interpret things as art.

Games have to be refered to as art if they are to maintain their legal status as such and be free from censorship

IMO no other medium asks such hard questions or as effectively expresses intentions of developers (read: the artists) as games. So to me games are most certainly art

i take a very simple view of it.

look at chess. a game thats been around forever played by millions of people world wide and is taken completely seriously in its own right in the niche its carved for itself.

no one could acuse chess of being "art" but look at some chess sets, they amount of craftsman ship and beauty involved makes them a work of art. same with games. games dont have to be art, they can carve out their own path

Windcaler:

imahobbit4062:
Even after all the threads on this topic...I still don't see why games need to be classified as art. Why can't we just enjoy games as games like we have for the past what? 30 years? Why does it need to be seen as art?

To explain why would require me to go over the entire history of art starting in medival times all the way up to the current day. Im not going to do that, so heres a shamefully simple explanation. Art as seen as today has moved beyond the means of definition and because the definition is so unstable many people seek to interpret things as art.

Games have to be refered to as art if they are to maintain their legal status as such and be free from censorship

IMO no other medium asks such hard questions or as effectively expresses intentions of developers (read: the artists) as games.

Care to share how many "artists" are in the videogame industry? Acording to the "King in Yellow" Yahtzee, Silent Hill 2 is art, and yet it was made by several people doing their work rather than just a visionary.

wombat_of_war:
i take a very simple view of it.

look at chess. a game thats been around forever played by millions of people world wide and is taken completely seriously in its own right in the niche its carved for itself.

no one could acuse chess of being "art" but look at some chess sets, they amount of craftsman ship and beauty involved makes them a work of art. same with games. games dont have to be art, they can carve out their own path

I think that Roger Ebert even compared games to Chess at one point. That the reason they are not art is because you "win" a game, that they are like sports.

DioWallachia:

Windcaler:

imahobbit4062:
Even after all the threads on this topic...I still don't see why games need to be classified as art. Why can't we just enjoy games as games like we have for the past what? 30 years? Why does it need to be seen as art?

To explain why would require me to go over the entire history of art starting in medival times all the way up to the current day. Im not going to do that, so heres a shamefully simple explanation. Art as seen as today has moved beyond the means of definition and because the definition is so unstable many people seek to interpret things as art.

Games have to be refered to as art if they are to maintain their legal status as such and be free from censorship

IMO no other medium asks such hard questions or as effectively expresses intentions of developers (read: the artists) as games.

Care to share how many "artists" are in the videogame industry? Acording to the "King in Yellow" Yahtzee, Silent Hill 2 is art, and yet it was made by several people doing their work rather than just a visionary.

Considering I dont work in the industry I am not privy to numbers so its impossible to acurately answer that question but if you considered every team to be a group of artists creating a single work (similar to the concept of communal art) then I would say its a lot. Even more so if (and this is a big if) you would include testers, critics, and the general populace which may or may not have an effect on how the artistic project eventually takes shape

Art doesn't work this way. The way most people in the gaming sphere think it does, when they try to argue that it is art. Films never "became" art, nor are they primarily made to be art now. The ones that are, are usually bad. The ones that leave a lasting cultural legacy, are thought-provoking, spectacular, and test the talents of those involved in its production such that critics can compare the film to others and discuss them critically, are made to turn a profit. The same is true of music, paintings, and eventually video games. The longer these mediums have existed, the more there is to discuss from an artistic angle, and soon the monetary potential of the medium becomes related in part to its artistic value, and at that point the medium will have already become recognized as art, not as an event, but recognized as though it was an art all along (and it probably is, but time is required to show it). People are already recognizing "the classics" as art to some degree (pong, donkey kong, etc.).

Edit: I like the OP's last paragraph.

DioWallachia:

Care to share how many "artists" are in the videogame industry? Acording to the "King in Yellow" Yahtzee, Silent Hill 2 is art, and yet it was made by several people doing their work rather than just a visionary.

Suda51 is a good starting point. According to the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres (a French thing) Miyamoto is one (I'd agree). It's usually lead designers and such, as opposed to "the staff." Compare to star architects like Zaha Hadid or Frank Gehry, none of whom built those amazing "works of art" on their own. I've worked for some of these people, and I would never consider myself an artist for the project, but would consider the designer one, even though I was involved in its production.

Personally, I don't play games to watch a visual art, I play them to blow off steam and have fun. If I wanted to see/hear art, surprise surprise I'd watch/listen to some kind of art, be it film or music.
There have only rarely been moments in games where they've actually touched my inner emotions and stuff, like the end of Fallout 3, the beginning of Mass Effect 3 or any of the beautiful vistas in Skyrim, and those are less of what I am shown and more of what I feel from it, like the loneliness or sense of adventure which in turn encourages you to continue playing. At the end of the day games are a commercial business and it's more important for everyone that they break even than be awe-inspiring.
Also, some of the games that are meant to be like 'art' in my opinion look kinda boring. Unfinished Swan, Journey, they all look like they could be interesting but I just want to relax and have fun, I don't want to come home from a hard day and then be mentally challenged even more.

Windcaler:

Considering I dont work in the industry I am not privy to numbers so its impossible to acurately answer that question but if you considered every team to be a group of artists creating a single work (similar to the concept of communal art) then I would say its a lot. Even more so if (and this is a big if) you would include testers, critics, and the general populace which may or may not have an effect on how the artistic project eventually takes shape

I am just asking because apparently people forget that MOVIES also had a shitload of people in their production and they are still considered art. However, the artist (most of the time) is considered the director, rather than the writer who made the world itself. The idea is that if there isnt a single mind controlling everyone else for a SINGLE purpose/message/whatever then it ISNT art. Having a bunch of dudes making their best as profesionals in their area doesnt cut it.

There was an exception however:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SixDaysInFallujah

Apparently the team behind making the game had a GROUP of soldiers that were the "artists" (so to speak) behind making the game as real and terrifing as possible to simulate how horrible were the acts done in Fallujah. THAT would have counted as art in the first place...........if it wasnt for the massive censorship that the mainstream media caused:

So if games are never art, its because non gamers dont want them to be art. They are "toys" after all, AMARIGHT?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked