Read + Write + Report
Home | Start a blog | About Orble | FAQ | Sites | Writers | Advertise | My Orble | Login

Artist Quirk - quirky facts about the arts by Morgan Bell

 
What is art? What inspires artists? Who do artists inspire? An examination of all that is creative: actors, writers, musicians, painters, thespians, designers, performers . . . is life imitating art? Will the modern artist survive being imitated?

CURIOUSER and curiouser!

July 8th 2008 06:45
The Polixeni Papapetrou photograph featured on the cover of the controversial “protest” edition of Australian magazine Art Monthly is actually a tribute to the early photography of Lewis Carroll, the legendary creator of Alice in Wonderland.

The Federal Police have once again been called in to investigate and the publication will be reviewed by the Classification Board. The same Classification Board that rated Bill Henson's photographs G with the most “explicit” image of the confiscated works earning a PG rating.

Lewis Carroll (1832-1898), the authors pen name, was also a highly respected visual artist who created over 3000 photographs under his real name Charles Dodgson. Lewis Carroll (Dodgson) became interested in photography in the infancy of this scientific art form and is now regarded as one of the very best Victorian photographers. Of all the Victorian photographers Carroll has had the most influence on modern art photographers.

Most of Carroll’s nude photographs were destroyed, at his instruction, when he died. Out of the 1000 photographs that still exist today only six of them are surviving nudes. Four of the surviving nude portraits are of girls, Evelyn and Beatrice Hatch, and Annie and Frances Henderson.

Lewis Carroll was a Reverend in addition to being the creator of several stories for children and an amateur photographer. Carroll had a tender relationship with Evelyn Hatch, Ethel Hatch and Beatrice Hatch, the daughters of the Reverend Edwin Hatch.

The original Carroll nude photograph featuring Beatrice Hatch:

Carroll (Dodgson) nude child photograph of Beatrice Hatch


This nude portrait is professionally coloured with a fantasy setting painted in behind the model. Beatrice Hatch sits on a rock with white cliffs behind her. It has been described as whimsical and trite. Carroll was interested in documenting the human body in a time where adult nudity was taboo but child nudity was considered natural.

Papapetrou’s Olympia as Lewis Carroll’s Beatrice Hatch before White Cliffs (2003


Papapetrou’s works aim to address the challenge of children in art by photographing her daughter Olympia. In her 2003 series “Dreamchild” Olympia was six years old and posed to replicate the groundbreaking photography of Lewis Carroll. The series merges the past with the present and examines gender, ethnicity, and the human body. In “Olympia as Lewis Carroll’s Beatrice Hatch before White Cliffs” we see Olympia, seated nude on a rock, staring out at the viewer with a naïve yet attentive gaze. The possible interpretation of Olympia as a sexual being is tamed here by the mother-artist who creates a sort of filter between her daughter and the viewer, permitting the child’s innocence to emerge.

Cover of Art Monthly, Australia - Issue 211, July, 2008


The choice of Papapetrou’s Olympia as Lewis Carroll’s Beatrice Hatch before White Cliffs (2003) for our cover may be seen as controversial but is made in the hope of restoring some dignity to the debate; to validate nudity and childhood as subjects for art; to surrender to the power of the imagination (in children and adults) and dialogue without crippling them through fear-mongering and repression.

excerpt from Editorial by Maurice O'Riordan in Art Monthly





Carroll (Dodgson) nude portrait of the Henderson girls


Carroll’s nude portrait of the Henderson girls shows them standing in the surf, shipwrecked as their boat sinks in the distance. A rough skirt and covering of leaves added by the colourist. The culture of the era embraced and revered childhood purity. About half of Carroll’s photographs were of children, the other half being adult portraits, landscapes and objects.

Papapetrou’s Olympia and Olivia as Lewis Carroll's Annie and Frances Henderson (Shipwrecked), 2003


Lewis Carroll was a man of infinite patience and one who paid attention to the smallest detail and these qualities were mandatory to be a photographer in the 1850's. Carroll used the wet collodion developing process and enjoyed how demanding it was. He gave up photography when the dry developing process became common, because it made photography too easy and no longer provided an adequate challenge.

Carroll's original photograph Alice, Edith and Lorina Liddell (on a sofa)

Papapetrou’s Olympia, Simone and Justine as Lewis Carroll's Alice, Edith and Lorina Liddell (on a sofa), 2003


Alice Liddell (1852-1934), was a child model in many of Carroll photographs and the inspiration for Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Her family moved from London to Oxford in 1856 and soon afterwards met and befriended Carroll. He became a regular visitor to their house, playing croquet with the children, telling them stories and taking them on picnics by the river Isis. Carroll used Alice and her younger sister Edith as subjects for his hobby, photography. On one of their picnics, in 1862, he created the story of Alice in Wonderland. Alice, aged ten, asked him to write it down for her; this he did, drawing his own illustrations, in a notebook that now resides in the British Library. The book was published in 1865 as Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and its sequel, Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, in 1871.

Carroll's original photograph Alice, Edith and Lorina Liddell (The Cherry Group)

Papapetrou’s Olympia, Simone and Justine as Lewis Carroll's Alice, Edith and Lorina Liddell (The Cherry Group), 2003

Carroll's original photograph Alice Liddell the beggar maid

Papapetrou’s Olympia as Lewis Carroll's Alice Liddell as the beggar maid, 2003






Carroll photograph

Carroll photograph

Carroll photograph

Carroll photograph

Olympia as Lewis Carroll's Xie Kitchin (sleeping on chaise), 2003


Polixeni Papapetrou pays homage to one of the pioneers of photography. Carroll was experimenting with photography and how to capture the human experience in a still image, he did this at a time when Darwin was first publishing his research on the origin of our species and contributed immensely to both the art and the science of photography.

When discussing whether artists are creating "porn" I think at the very least we owe to artist the courtesy of examining the artistic merits of their work. The intent and context are relevant when considering the value of any piece of art.

Great Curiosity, 2004 - from the Wonderland series by Papapetrou


Olympia with her mother Polixeni Papapetrou



157
Vote
Shared on
Add To: del.icio.us Digg Furl Spurl.net StumbleUpon Yahoo


   
Subscribe to this blog 


Just this blog This blog and DailyOrble (recommended)

   

   


Comments
41 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by alt_ed

July 8th 2008 07:00
What an intriguing back story to these photo's.

I have to say though, it's a little disapointing that this new homage to Lewis Carrol's work wasn't done to fruition a little better- along side Carrol's originals, they look a little lackluster, and i don't think quite capture the same emotion- Though the seem to be right up there on the Hysteria scale

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 8th 2008 07:08
hi alt-ed
haha yes the old hysteria scale
im always intrigued by the things that get reported in media stories and the things that dont . . . its almost as if they choose sensational headlines over the truth?
much like the Henson saga, these photos were taken 5 years ago and have been shown in galleries across the country

Comment by RubySoho

July 8th 2008 07:13
Excellent! Brilliant! Bravo!

How silly we look when we consider that even the puritans of Victorian England didn't get themselves into a lather over the bodies of children.

I agree with alt_ed, the new pictures are not a patch on the originals but that's okay, who wants a tribute to eclipse that which they are saluting?

I don't think the picture on the cliffs would be so confronting if the kid wasn't wearing so much make-up and looking at the camera. But that's just my own opinion and far be it from me to demand the removal of art funding just because I don't like a particular piece of art.

And yes, it is art.

Great research Morgan. i did not know any of this and the pictures seem like even less of a big deal to me now.

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 8th 2008 07:55
hi Ruby,
it takes on a whole new meaning when you know the full story hey?
i was totally engrossed in researching the history behind these pictures, there is so much depth to their meaning that we just dont see in the superficial news soundbyte
in the 1940s Carrolls works were rediscovered and since then much has been written about him slandering his character, claiming he was obsessed with young girls and suggesting he was a pedophile
i think part of Papapetrou's intention is to re-create Carrolls classic images through the eyes of the scathing critic, playing on the irony of the mother-daughter relationship of artist-subject
im sure plenty of people would still find the images offensive regardless of the historical context but i think its only fair we at least consider the merits of the project when deciding
personally i dont find the nudity sexual in this piece and the child has confirmed she was not abused so i think its a non-issue
thanks for your rational opinions!

Comment by Chris Champion

July 8th 2008 08:41
I don't think the picture on the cliffs would be so confronting if the kid wasn't wearing so much make-up and looking at the camera.

I think that's a very good point.

Great reading Morgan. Thank you.

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 8th 2008 08:49
hi Chris,
thanks for the comment!
yes Ruby did make a good point there, the child looking direct at the viewer is much more confrontational than the original
im glad you enjoyed the read!

actually Ruby wrote a very articulate post on the role of art and the artist and knee-jerk reactions of the public etc that you might be interested in (CLICKHERE for more . . . )

Comment by Norm

July 8th 2008 08:50
Now I think I know where the real disgust lies.

Great stuff, Morgan.

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 8th 2008 08:55
hey Norm,
i real some fabulous comments you made on another post about the role of public funding in the arts . . . i think its always good to keep things in perspective and keep asking questions *cough* ahem, i mean keep making statements! haha
thanks for stopping by!

Comment by Jason King

July 8th 2008 10:14
Great art and great article Morgan.

Good on them for being controversial and doing the cover. They probably knew this would happen after the last, recent fiasco and probably considered that "any news is good news". I think this may be one of their highest selling issues.

While the photos themselves are only just good, it is a nice honorary photo shoot. The one on the cover is probably the best of the lot of photos - none of the others would be good enough for a cover.

Thanks for the read Morgan!!

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 8th 2008 10:47
hi Jason,

thanks for the comment!

the cover photo is an interesting juxtaposition of the old-looking illustrated background and the modern figure in the foreground . . . a merger of the modern photography today and the classic style of the past . . . i think its a nice tip of the hat to an old master

it seems like alot of people think the magazine just grabbed a random kid on the day and stipped them off for a photoshoot as a protest to Kevin Rudd

it helps to know how the project evolved and to consider that it is an ART magazine featuring the artist and her discussing her artworks in good faith

i agree with you that the cover shot is probably the standout in the Dreamchild series (technically speaking)

to see more of Polixeni Papapetrou's works CLICKHERE

Comment by Bill Green

July 8th 2008 13:40
Thanks for a very nice piece. Gives back sanity. As a kid we ran naked on the beach, as did my parents - and my kids. I guess kids still do. Or has that changed?

Comment by RubySoho

July 8th 2008 13:49
Hey thanks for the compliment Chris.

And Norm, I also was a silent witness to your discussions on another post and was cheering you on. In fact, you were part of my inspiration for my own post that I did on this issue that Morgan kindly linked to.

Rock on everyone, so good to see that the rational ones are out in full force on Orble.

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 8th 2008 14:11
hi Bill,
nice to see you!
a bit of sanity and sense of proportion can be a very refreshing thing sometimes!
i ran around nude or in bathers as a little kid, my mum has the obligatory "rudie nudie" pics from pre-pubescent bathtimes, and my friends and relatives that have young children have no qualms about allowing them to roam around unclothed
nude children have been the subject of art throughout the ages
i particularly liked the statement from the editor of the magazine "the hope of restoring some dignity to the debate; to validate nudity and childhood as subjects for art"
thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 8th 2008 14:24
hi Ruby,
you often find the ill-informed "conservative" opinions hit the tv and computer screens first and then a bit later you can get the real information from sources interested in researching
the SBS tv program Insight hosted a great forum called The Naked Eye on 24 June, 2008
CLICKHERE for transcript
it was an interesting debate, the lady from Bravehearts spoke as did many artists, art critics, and child models

Comment by postmoderncritic

July 8th 2008 20:57
Great post, Morgan!
I don't have a problem with tasteful child nudity at all.

Comment by Joanne Fedler

July 8th 2008 22:46
What a breath of fresh air this post is, Morgan! A tribute to blogging and to someone who does her research (bless you). Why don't you submit this piece to a magazine - it is really worth getting broader coverage on this because much as I am very anti any kind of child exploitation (and I am still not 100% convinced about the issue of using your 6 year old in your nude photography because of the issue of consent), this article does create a rational and sensible counter-narrative to the hystrionics we are so used to.
Thank you so much
Jo

Comment by Johnny Come Lately

July 8th 2008 23:32
Great background story. I loved the originals. i think the only thing that spoilt the homage was the fact that the little girl was wearing make-up and she would have looked better with her cute fresh face.

Whatever happened to the days when small kids could run naked through sprinklers and nobody batted an eye. there is nothing at all offensive about these.

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 9th 2008 03:59
hi epiphanie,
thanks for reading
i think the Art Monthly cover comes under the umbrella of "tasteful" . . . i was surprised to read journalists describing the images of Olympia as "highly sexualised" and "sexually charged" etc


hi Joanne,
always a pleasure to read your comments!
thankyou for the kind compliment . . . magazine worthy? wow!
although i dont know what kind of publication it would suit?
i think its great this kind of art is raising questions in the community i just think its unfortunate some people are putting their blinkers on when constructing their answers
it is certainly a complex issue
thanks again for your thoughtful response


hi Johnny,
yes the makeup is an issue Ruby raised aswell, you guys must have keener eyes than me, i just presumed she was fresh faced! haha
the makeup issue is one of the reasons i find child beauty pagents decidedly distasteful so it is an important part of the debate on child photography
i agree, there is nothing offensive about a childs naked body


i dont think the arts should be above scutiny and i think the artists themselves embrace debate and are quite open about their methods . . . a photo shoot should be safe and non-threatening and supervised and the child should have rights over the distribution of their image . . . the project should have artistist merit . . . all i ask is that people have the full story when making comments about whether these things have been achieved

thankyou to everyone for their opinions

Comment by Cheryl J

July 9th 2008 09:17
What a fabulous background story. I don't see anything wrong with the picture but I have to say I love the original, it's so innocent and pretty.

Well done Morgan.

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 9th 2008 10:15
hi Cheryl,
the original is very pretty isnt it, i think Carroll had a wonderful eye for visual art . . . i also thought it was really interesting how they coloured in the photographs by hand back then, constructing a fantasy-like environment around them
it was great fun researching, im so glad others are enjoying the history lesson!

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 9th 2008 13:40
hi everyone,
just a little announcement:
i was notified that a BBC broadcasting blog called WHYS linked to my article here . . . i checked out the site and there is a very interesting debate going on in the comments
CLICKHERE for WHYS site

Comment by RubySoho

July 9th 2008 14:07
So when you say there is an 'interesting' debate, did you mean 'hilarious and utterly devoid of all logic?

It didn't take me long to come across this comment:

throughout the ages artists have glorified the human body, it can be demure or pornograghic. the intent of the artist has to considered. do the pictures show genitals? is the context innocence? do the pictures incite the spiritually weak to commit horrible deeds? is the nakedness integral to the work of art? i would guess that in most cases it is not, but when i have seen naked children playing on a beach, it seems natural and innocent. how has society infected the minds of the weak so that this naturalness excites them? as a CHRISTIAN, i can tell you that if all were with CHRIST, this discussion would be irrelevant. satan is working in the world today and we as a society have to be alert to it. the devil does not have horns and a pitchfork, he is inciting the desruction of GOD’S kingdom through secularism. the natural order has been turned on its head. the life a child has become an inconvenience for many. in the usa over 35 million have been aborted, since 1972! what does that say about the value of the life of a child? is it any wonder that people do horrible things to children. society says they are disposible!


Did you here that all you pro-choicers? you are personally responsible for these pictures!

And this one:

My religion Islam Prohibits any type of nudity especially that of Females! wether they are six years,eighteen years old,or even sixty years old,they are all expected to cover every part of their body except may be the face and the hands!
Using teenage girls photo’s on the web is really child abuse and this kind of thing’s should not be tolerated anymore!


That's right! Lock all you girls and women away, never to be seen again.


Holy friggin moly.

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 9th 2008 14:46
hi Ruby,
haha yes, you know i am the master of the euphamism!
i like how you honed into the really extreme examples!
actually one interesting point raises was the art of Anne Geddes, she has made a career out of photographing nude toddlers but when we consider the context and intent she is one of the worlds most loved photographers

Comment by RubySoho

July 9th 2008 14:51
Yeah, sorry, I did read a few others but those two just stuck with me for some reason.

Actually my friends and I were discussing Geddes and wondering how long it'll be before she gets accused of being a disgusting, baby-lusting pervert. Not long I suspect, the way things are heading. How dare she show a naked infant asleep in a giant flower petal. man that's just sick!

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 9th 2008 15:16
hi Ruby,

no i totally agree some of the comments were completely insane, but i found there was a broad spectrum of opinions and some of them were worth a read

Perhaps there is no great need to exhibit children in art, but they exist and they are part of the world around us so why should they not feature in art?
Does this mean we cannot make representations of cherubs say, burn all the art of previous eras that feature children?

i wonder what Kevin Rudd or the lady from Bravehearts would say about Anne Geddes work? i presume they would say babies are different, and if so i wonder what precise age you determine a child should no longer be photographed?

we all know babies and toddlers have even less ability to consent than a 6yo or a 12yo, and technically Geddes "exploits" the innocence of children more lucratively than any other modern artist

i think what this debate is highlighting is that there will never be a "one rule fits all" solution in the law

Comment by RubySoho

July 9th 2008 15:31
Well that's a really good point...i swear if we get to the point when we can't even look at a naked baby, then i know we have lost the plot...oh yeah, spoken about that already, haha...that Bravehearts lady sounds like a control freak.


i will read more of those comments in the morning...just feeling a little tired over this topic....hey congrats on that link BTW.

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 9th 2008 15:46
hi Ruby,

i can appreciate what Bravehearts is trying to do, i know they are only trying to protect children, but if the actual children involved are saying it is art and they werent abused or intimidated or bribed etc then i think perhaps its time to move on to the real pedophiles who are downloading images and videos of rapes and violations

although i will hand it to Hetty from Bravehearts, she has stirred up a hornets nest and had the courage to ask the tough questions . . . she has brought alot of valuable publicity to her own organisation . . . maybe now people know her name and what she stands for it might encourage more donations and community involvement to protect the children that really are being abused

thanks re: the link, i just noticed alot of traffic coming from that site in my stats . . . it actually shows me there must not be alot of mainstream media discussing the merits of the project of my blog is a primary source! haha

Comment by RubySoho

July 9th 2008 16:07
well i haven't heard it anywhere else.

i know that Hetty is looking out for the kids but i don't think she has the right to demand that other parents stop photographing their kids and sharing those photographs. it goes back to that whole 'forcing your beliefs on others' argument. and it just leads us down that road of overprotection.

Comment by Bill Green

July 10th 2008 04:11
Hetty has to be considering policy of blindfolding mothers and fathers who change nappies (diapers). They would need lessons of course. Perhaps a plastic baby in rehearsals?

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 10th 2008 04:38
hi Ruby and Bill,
i think Hetty is full of good intentions but the execution needs to be better directed
this is her response when the host of Insight (ABC tv) asks her whether she agrees with preventing parents from photographing childrens sport:

JENNY BROCKIE: Hetty, is this where we're headed?

HETTY JOHNSTON: No, and I'm actually on the record in Queensland totally objecting to just that sort of thing - kids playing sport. That's not what this is about.

JENNY BROCKIE: But that's the irony, isn't it? I mean isn't part of the irony of this that sometimes that's where paedophiles are, hanging outside school yards, hanging around sporting events?

HETTY JOHNSTON: OK, yeah, but we don't put our kids out there and go hey, look at this. And that's what we're saying. There has to be an acknowledgement of the fact that they are there, I guess, and also a realisation of the making it, normalising - what's the word I'm looking for? I can't think of the word - delivering children to the public, you know, over the Internet and through things, in normalising nakedness and sort of saying they're sexual beings so let's just let them be sexual and what are we trying to hide and all of that are for me nonsense arguments.

CLICKHERE for full Insight transcript

Comment by RubySoho

July 10th 2008 06:16
Mmmm. She doesn't really seem to be making much sense to me. I'll read the full transcript and get back to you....

But in the meantime, I can't help but compare this to the status of women in some cultures, whereby they are restricted seemingly for their own good and to keep them away from potential rapists. All this is ends up doing is making prisoners of the women and labelling all men as untrustworthy predators.


Comment by Morgan Bell

July 10th 2008 06:53
hi Ruby,
actually thats an interesting analogy
in an effort to protect children from pedophiles many parents are now locking them up, hence the raised levels of childhood obesity, type 2 diabetes, ADHD, allergies etc . . . kids dont get outside and play anymore, they dont walk round their friends houses or ride their bikes to school, they dont make mud pies and eat worms haha
but unfortunately what everyone ignores is the fact the most kids are abused in their own homes and that most abusers of kids are the parents, relatives or authority figures (CLICKHERE for more . . . )
do we lock up the women and children for their own safety or do we teach everyone that sexual violence and child molestation is unacceptable?

Comment by RubySoho

July 10th 2008 07:01
Well to answer your question Morgan, I will defer to the wisdom of Cyndi Lauper:

Some boys take a beautiful girl
And hide her away from the rest of the world.

I want to be the one to walk in the sun....

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 10th 2008 07:04
hi Ruby,
ahhh Cyndi, she is a wise lady!

Comment by RubySoho

July 10th 2008 07:10
I always liked that line. It hit me hard growing up as a Muslim girl.

Comment by jafabrit

July 10th 2008 14:29
Really appreciated seeing the back story and the comparison images etc. Gives a much better perspective of who, what, where and when, how and why.

Being the victim of a pedophile (got a measly 2 years for 6 years of abusing me) I can assure parents, these images don't cut it, no, they go after the hard core stuff, stuff that would make your toes curl in horror. And it isn't strangers you need to worry about, it is your family, your trusted friends, your priest, youth counselors, boys scout leaders, etc etc those who have access to your child.

While this kind of work is NOT my cup of tea, I wish the same kind of umbrage and anger would be directed towards a real problem, a system which continues to allow sex pervs back on the streets or gives them light sentences.

Like I said I don't find this kind of imagery my cup of tea, but I find it disturbing as an artist to see someone demonized and calls for censorship based on perception and dislike.

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 10th 2008 15:04
hi Jafabrit,

thanks for stopping by and sharing a personal story, i appreciate your candour on such a difficult issue

i think you make an important point about where anger is being directed . . . i understand people feeling frustrated and helpless about pedophilia, it is a horrifying topic . . . for regular people it just isnt possible to put yourself in the shoes of a pedophile in order to stop them, they are too depraved, so far outside even what we can imagine

thanks for the refreshing and insightful comment

ps: your website is fantastic!

CLICKHERE to view the art of Jafabrit - highly recommended! (includes tribute to Frida Kahlo)

Comment by Cibbuano

July 10th 2008 23:44
I agree with alt-ed in the first comment - they do seem a little lack lustre. Seems like sloppy photography...

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 11th 2008 03:32
hi Cibbuano,
i think (as is the case with many artists) Papapetrou's photography has improved over time, i really like the concept of this 2003 Dreamchild series but i can see that with each series she seems to be maturing as an artist and perfecting her technique
the 2006 series Haunted Country includes re-creations of scenes from Picnic At Hanging Rock, and the most recent 2008 series Games Of Consequence is (in my opinion) a feast for the eyes
CLICKHERE to see a full catalogue of Papapetrou's photography on the artists official website
i think artists who attempt to pay homage and re-create are always setting themselves up for more scrutiny as there is an existing benchmark to compare them to, just like directors who re-make classic films
thanks for the comment!

Comment by Carolyn Cordon

July 11th 2008 04:57
Thank you very much for giving substance to the whole thing. I now know far more than I did from the media's hysterical ranting.
Context is the thing that enlightens the viewer, reader etc.
Pictures of naked bodies can be innocent, erotic, pornographic depending on the context and the viewer.

Comment by Morgan Bell

July 11th 2008 05:13
hi Carolyn,
yes i think context is very important and often (sadly)overlooked
it concerns me, both in this case and many many others, that the media do not make a concerted effort to present the whole truth . . . i wonder about journalistics ethic sometimes
thanks for reading along and sharing your opinions

Add A Comment

To create a fully formatted comment please click here.


CLICK HERE TO LOGIN | CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Name or Orble Tag
Home Page (optional)
Comments
Bold Italic Underline Strikethrough Separator Left Center Right Separator Quote Insert Link Insert Email
Notify me of replies
Notify extra people about this comment
Is this a private comment?
List the Email Addresses or Orble Tags of the people you would like to be notified about this comment


One per line max of 30

List the Email Addresses or Orble Tags of the people you would like to be notified about this private comment thread. Only the people in this list will be able to see or reply to your comment.


One per line max of 30

Your Name
(for the email going out to the above list, it can be different to your Orble Tag)
Your Email Address
(optional)
(required for reply notification)
Submit
More Posts
1 Posts
5 Posts
4 Posts
35 Posts dating from March 2008
Email Subscription
Receive e-mail notifications of new posts on this blog:
0

Morgan Bell's Blogs

2925 Vote(s)
37 Comment(s)
53 Post(s)
9982 Vote(s)
1745 Comment(s)
87 Post(s)
5162 Vote(s)
400 Comment(s)
58 Post(s)
Moderated by Morgan Bell