Tumgik
#2001 revival
Video
youtube
17 minute interview with Chita Rivera talking about Casper the Musical when the 2001 production was being made
7 notes · View notes
arcadebroke · 10 months
Photo
Tumblr media
290 notes · View notes
planetamarte · 4 months
Text
after the events of the black arms invasion, shadow the hedgehog looks for ways to focus on the present over the past and connect to the planet that he vows to protect. rouge tells him about the internet, and after an introduction to html and css from tails, shadow decides to start a blog.
welcome to THE ULTIMATE... found at FORMLIFEULTIMATE.NEOCITIES.ORG
Tumblr media
this is essentially me doing a character study/writing canon-compliant fanfiction using the format of an in-character personal website. i wanted to attempt an unconventional storytelling format + ive been gettin into html/css and web revival via making my own website so this spawned out of that interest too. blog posts will come every couple weeks or so :)
111 notes · View notes
thendhasnoooend · 6 months
Text
Tumblr media
75 notes · View notes
lightgamble · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Stranger Things | 4.08
You know, the Rockies, Grand Canyon...
162 notes · View notes
oflgtfol · 2 years
Text
halman used to be ironic to me but years of watching people be unironic about it on tumblr and also realizing its genuinely canon has slowly made me be unironic about it as well
3 notes · View notes
rabbitcruiser · 2 hours
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
“The first of its kind on any of the nation’s state house grounds,” the African-American History Monument was sculptured by Ed Dwight of Colorado and was dedicated on March 29, 2001.  
1 note · View note
worldsofzzt · 10 days
Photo
Tumblr media
Source “24 Hours of ZZT Spring 2001 [Revival]” by emmzee/Various (2001) [131.ZZT] - “$Revival? What Kida Topic is This?” Play This World Online ---- Discover More Information About This World on the Museum of ZZT
0 notes
ziseviolet · 1 year
Note
Please can you explain the difference of meaning between hanfu and huafu ? Sorry if you already got the question
Hi, thanks for the question, and sorry for taking ages to reply! (hanfu photo via)
Tumblr media
The term “hanfu” (traditional Chinese: 漢服, simplified Chinese: 汉服) literally means “Han clothing”, and refers to the traditional clothing of the Han Chinese people. “Han” (漢/汉) here refers to the Han Chinese ethnic group (not the Han dynasty), and “fu” (服) means “clothing”. As I explained in this post, the modern meaning of “hanfu” is defined by the hanfu revival movement and community. As such, there is a lot of gatekeeping by the community around what is or isn’t hanfu (based on historical circumstances, cultural influences, tailoring & construction, etc). This isn’t a bad thing - in fact, I think gatekeeping to a certain extent is helpful and necessary when it comes to reviving and defining historical/traditional clothing. However, this also led to the need for a similarly short, catchy term that would include all Chinese clothing that didn’t fit the modern definition of hanfu -- enter huafu.
The term “huafu” (traditional Chinese: 華服, simplified Chinese: 华服) as it is used today has a broader definition than hanfu. “Hua” (華/华) refers to the Chinese people (中华民族/zhonghua minzu), and again “fu” (服) means “clothing”. It is an umbrella term for all clothing that is related to Chinese history and/or culture. Thus all hanfu is huafu, but not all huafu is hanfu. Below are examples of Chinese clothing that are generally not considered hanfu by the hanfu community for various reasons, but are considered huafu:
1. Most fashions that originated during the Qing dynasty (1644–1911), especially late Qing, including the Qing aoqun & aoku for women, and the Qing changshan and magua for men. I wrote about whether Qing dynasty clothing can be considered hanfu here. Tangzhuang, which is an updated form of the Qing magua popularized in 2001, can also fit into this category. Below - garments in the style of Han women’s clothing during the Qing dynasty (清汉女装) from 秦綿衣莊 (1, 2).
Tumblr media
2. Fashions that originated during the Republican era/minguo (1912-1949), including the minguo aoqun & aoku and qipao/cheongsam for women, and the minguo changshan for men (the male equivalent of the women’s qipao). I wrote about why qipao isn’t considered hanfu here. Below - minguo aoqun (left) & qipao (right) from 嬉姷.
Tumblr media
Below - Xiangsheng (crosstalk) performers Zhang Yunlei (left) & Guo Qilin (right) in minguo-style men’s changshan (x). Changshan is also known as changpao and dagua.
Tumblr media
3. Qungua/裙褂 and xiuhefu/秀禾服, two types of Chinese wedding garments for brides that are commonly worn today. Qungua originated in the 18th century during the Qing dynasty, and xiuhefu is a modern recreation of Qing wedding dress popularized in 2001 (x). Below - left: qungua (x), right: xiuhefu (x).
Tumblr media
4. Modified hanfu (改良汉服/gailiang hanfu) and hanyuansu/汉元素 (hanfu-inspired fashion), which do not fit in the orthodox view of hanfu. Hanfu mixed with sartorial elements of other cultures also fit into this category (e.g. hanfu lolita). From the very start of the hanfu movement, there’s been debate between hanfu “traditionalists” and “reformists”, with most members being somewhere in the middle, and this discussion continues today. Below - hanyuansu outfits from 川黛 (left) and 远山乔 (right).
Tumblr media
5. Performance costumes, such as Chinese opera costumes (戏服/xifu) and Chinese dance costumes. These costumes may or may not be considered hanfu depending on the specific style. Dance costumes, in particular, may have non-traditional alterations to make the garment easier to dance in. Dunhuang-style feitian (apsara) costumes, which I wrote about here, can also fit into this category. Below - left: Chinese opera costume (x), right: Chinese dance costume (x).
Tumblr media
6. Period drama costumes and fantasy costumes in popular media (live-action & animation, games, etc.), commonly referred to as guzhuang/古装 (lit. “ancient costumes”). Chinese period drama costumes are of course based on hanfu, and may be considered hanfu if they are historically accurate enough. However, as I wrote about here, a lot of the time there are stylistic inaccuracies (some accidental, some intentional) that have become popularized and standardized over time (though this does seem to be improving in recent years). This is especially prevalent in the wuxia and xianxia genres. Similarly, animated shows & games often have characters dressed in “fantasy hanfu” that are essentially hanfu with stylistic modifications. Below - left: Princess Taiping in historical cdrama 大明宫词/Palace of Desire (x), right: Wei Wuxian and Lan Wangji in wuxia/xianxia cdrama 陈情令/The Untamed (x). 
Tumblr media
7. Any clothing in general that purposefully utilizes Chinese style elements (embroidery, fabrics, patterns, motifs, etc). Chinese fashion brand Heaven Gaia is a well-known example of this. Below - Chinese-inspired designs by Heaven Gaia (x).
Tumblr media
8. Technically, the clothing of China’s ethnic minorities also fit under the broad definition of huafu, but it’s rarely ever used in this way.
From personal observation, the term “huafu” is mainly used in the following situations:
1. Some large-scale events to promote Chinese clothing, such as the annual “华服日/Huafu Day”, will use “huafu” in their name for inclusivity.
2. For the same reason as above, Chinese clothing including hanfu will often be referred to as “huafu” on network television programs (ex: variety shows).
3. A few Chinese clothing shops on Taobao use “huafu” in their shop name. Two examples:
明镜华服/Mingjing Huafu - sells hanfu & hanyuansu. 
花神妙华服/Huashenmiao Huafu - sells Qing dynasty-style clothing.
With the exception of the above, “huafu” is still very rarely used, especially compared to “hanfu”. It has such a broad definition that it’s just not needed in situations for which a more precise term already exists. However, I do think it’s useful as a short catch-all term for Chinese clothing that isn’t limited to the currently accepted definition of hanfu.
If anyone wants to add on or correct something, please feel free to do so! ^^ 
Hope this helps!
2K notes · View notes
nobrashfestivity · 4 months
Text
Tumblr media
Ismau Noguchi Lamp drawings
The place that inspired Noguchi to create his “Akari” series was Gifu: the Japanese city where traditionally were manufactured all the paper products such as lanterns or umbrellas.
At that time Noguchi was already internationally known and appreciated for his works, and the city’s major asked him to design an affordable and mass producible lamp to help to revive the local paper-craft industry. The artist started to work at the project the same day sketching out a lamp that perfectly mixed sculptural and design qualities from one side with traditional and advanced manufacturing techniques from the other: the Isamu Noguchi Akari lamp was born.
Since the 50s the Noguchi lamp has been produced by the Gifu paper-lantern manufacturer Ozeki & Co and by Vitra Design Museum from 2001
The lamps were an incredibly commercially successful
(text edited from midcenturyhome)
208 notes · View notes
zahri-melitor · 22 days
Text
Poking at timeline stuff again:
So Kon was ‘born’ in 1993, and hatched from his tube aged… 15ish? He turned 1 in Nov 1995 (Superboy Annual #2 of his series) – note Kon is STILL AGING here, and after this point he’s usually described as 16 physically. His age ‘froze’ in July 1997 (Superboy #41) and then started aging again after Sins of Youth in May 2000 (Superboy #74) Kon died in May 2006 (Infinite Crisis #6) Kon returned in June 2009 (Final Crisis: Legion of 3 Worlds #4)
2000-2006 is about a year in Comics Time. I think it’s 100% fair to say Kon was physically 17 year old, at his youngest, as at his death, and mentally 17-18.
Kon enrolled in Smallville High on his revival – he’s almost certainly in Year 12/a Senior – and 2009ish is known as the ‘start’ of a school year by a bunch of correlating factors (Steph starting college is one). Flashpoint interrupts and this school year likely never finished. He may or may not have celebrated his 18th birthday before Flashpoint but it either happened or was due imminently.
Known timegaps – Kon lost slightly over a year between Infinite Crisis and Final Crisis. His aging stopped either for over a year (if you use Bat timelines) or more like 6 months (given it was 3 years real time). In total I want to say Kon’s ‘age’ went backwards about 18 months to two years over this period. His mental age, however, probably only lost 15 months or so.
By Flashpoint, Kon probably was due to celebrate his 18th birthday in his personal timeline.
In comparison: Jason Todd died aged 15 (if you take canon at its word) or 14 years 9 months (if you use the canonical birthday and death day dates). He was officially dead for 6 months before getting resurrected (- 6 months) and then in a coma for a year (-12 months). He then had a fun amnesiac period which does not have a defined length of time before Talia got sick of it and pushed Jason into a Pit.
Using Bat timelines, 18 months after Jason’s death is probably some time around Contagion or Legacy. Legacy in particular makes a lot of sense for Talia to see Jason in Gotham and pick him up to take home with her. He probably had to go into a Lazarus Pit during No Man’s Land, given Bane and Bruce start the ‘destroy all the Lazarus Pits’ campaign post-NML, culminating in Death and the Maidens in 2003-2004.
Either way, Jason Todd is still mentally 15 years old as of 2000.
Jason’s not in a position to return to Gotham with Talia’s urging until AFTER the rebuild for the famous bomb the Batmobile moment (realistically probably 2000-2001), and from the rebuild process IN DC comics 2001 is a better call than 2000 if you don’t still want rubble everywhere (they didn’t manage to get Ivy out of Robinson Park until Jan 2001)
He then does his world travel training trip… but is back in Gotham for September 2003 and Hush (and Tim’s 16th birthday).
Given Tim’s birthday is canonically on 19 July, the longest Jason’s world training trip can be is 6 months, and is probably more like 3-4 months given the required futzing time either side.
Jason doesn’t legally turn 18 until March 2004 (Tec #790). He’s still almost certainly mentally 16 years old here. He’s arguably physically 17.5 here.
A set of preboot timeline facts from all of this that is hilarious (to me):-
Jason and Tim are mentally about the same age, given their canonical 23 month age gap by date of birth. Depending on how long a period Talia keeps Jason around as an amnesiac, Tim may actually be mentally older.
Yes. The Titans Tower fight was essentially two 16 year olds having a spat.
Kon, despite also having fun death times, is 100% mentally older than Jason for all periods, though they’re close to drawing even after Final Crisis. He’s probably close to physically the same age as Jason for a lot of the time up to Infinite Crisis.
Tim may actually have spent a similar amount of time training in Paris (between Robin I and some time during Legacy and the summer leading up to Cataclysm) as Jason did on his Lost Days world trip.
Anyone who questions how Tim can be one of the greatest bo staff fighters in the world when he’s working off the same time frame of intense training from masters as Jason is (and has a far more substantial training time with Bruce and Dick) is honestly discounting that Tim has more extensive vigilante experience than Jason does, particularly in terms of Gotham-focused skills.
Kon and Tim end up by Flashpoint as within a few months of each other in age.
74 notes · View notes
operafantomet · 2 months
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Phantoms appearing in both replica and non replica production
COLM WILKINSON: Principal in the Sydmonton try-out version 1985, principal in Toronto 1989-1994.
JOHN OWEN-JONES: Principal in West End 2001-2005, 2010-2011, and again from 2015-2016, principal in the Restaged UK Tour 2012-2013.
EARL CARPENTER: Standby in West End 2003-2004, principal in West End 2005-2007, and again in 2011-2012, emergency cover in West End in 2015, principal in the Restaged UK Tour 2013, and principal in the West End revival 2023.
BEN FORSTER: Principal in West End 2016-2017, principal in Thessaloniki and Athens 2020.
TIM HOWAR: Principal in West End 2018-2019, principal in Athens and Thessaloniki 2023.
JOEL ZERPE: u/s in Stockholm 2016-2017, principal in Kristianstad 2020 / 2021.
JOHN MARTIN BENGTSSON: u/s in Stockholm 2016-2017, alternate in Copenhagen 2018-2019, standby in the World Tour 2019, principal in Kristianstad 2022 / 2023.
ADAM ROBERT LEWIS: u/s in West End 2018-2020, emergency cover in the West End revival 2023, and in concert at Guernsey. Also the phantom appearing in The Crown's POTO segment, plus the revival ads 2022.
JOSH PITERMAN: Principal in West End 2019-2020, principal in the Restaged Aussie Tour 2022.
RAMIN KARIMLOO: u/s in West End 2006, principal in West End 2007-2009, anniversary Phantom at RAH 2011, principal in Trieste and Monte Carlo 2023.
GERÓNIMO RAUCH: Principal in West End 2013-2015, principal in Madrid 2023-2024.
Anyone else to add? (and no, i have not forgotten about Love Never Dies Phantoms or those appearing in two different non-replica productions, I just tried to stick to the main theme)
84 notes · View notes
arcadebroke · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media
168 notes · View notes
metamatar · 3 months
Text
In the age of Hindu identity politics (Hindutva) inaugurated in the 1990s by the ascendancy of the Indian People's Party (Bharatiya Janata Party) and its ideological auxiliary, the World Hindu Council (Vishwa Hindu Parishad), Indian cultural and religious nationalism has been promulgating ever more distorted images of India's past.
Few things are as central to this revisionism as Sanskrit, the dominant culture language of precolonial southern Asia outside the Persianate order. Hindutva propagandists have sought to show, for example, that Sanskrit was indigenous to India, and they purport to decipher Indus Valley seals to prove its presence two millennia before it actually came into existence. In a farcical repetition of Romanic myths of primevality, Sanskrit is considered—according to the characteristic hyperbole of the VHP—the source and sole preserver of world culture.
This anxiety has a longer and rather melancholy history in independent India, far antedating the rise of the BJP. [...] Some might argue that as a learned language of intellectual discourse and belles lettres, Sanskrit had never been exactly alive in the first place [...] the assumption that Sanskrit was never alive has discouraged the attempt to grasp its later history; after all, what is born dead has no later history. As a result, there exist no good accounts or theorizations of the end of the cultural order that for two millennia exerted a transregional influence across Asia-South, Southeast, Inner, and even East Asia that was unparalleled until the rise of Americanism and global English. We have no clear understanding of whether, and if so, when, Sanskrit culture ceased to make history; whether, and if so, why, it proved incapable of preserving into the present the creative vitality it displayed in earlier epochs, and what this loss of effectivity might reveal about those factors within the wider world of society and polity that had kept it vital.
[...] What follows here is a first attempt to understand something of the death of Sanskrit literary culture as a historical process. Four cases are especially instructive: The disappearance of Sanskrit literature in Kashmir, a premier center of literary creativity, after the thirteenth century; its diminished power in sixteenth century Vijayanagara, the last great imperial formation of southern India; its short-lived moment of modernity at the Mughal court in mid-seventeenth century Delhi; and its ghostly existence in Bengal on the eve of colonialism. Each case raises a different question: first, about the kind of political institutions and civic ethos required to sustain Sanskrit literary culture; second, whether and to what degree competition with vernacular cultures eventually affected it; third, what factors besides newness of style or even subjectivity would have been necessary for consolidating a Sanskrit modernity, and last, whether the social and spiritual nutrients that once gave life to this literary culture could have mutated into the toxins that killed it. [...]
One causal account, however, for all the currency it enjoys in the contemporary climate, can be dismissed at once: that which traces the decline of Sanskrit culture to the coming of Muslim power. The evidence adduced here shows this to be historically untenable. It was not "alien rule un sympathetic to kavya" and a "desperate struggle with barbarous invaders" that sapped the strength of Sanskrit literature. In fact, it was often the barbarous invader who sought to revive Sanskrit. [...]
One of these was the internal debilitation of the political institutions that had previously underwritten Sanskrit, pre-eminently the court. Another was heightened competition among a new range of languages seeking literary-cultural dignity. These factors did not work everywhere with the same force. A precipitous decline in Sanskrit creativity occurred in Kashmir, where vernacular literary production in Kashmiri-the popularity of mystical poets like Lalladevi (fl. 1400) notwithstanding-never produced the intense competition with the literary vernacular that Sanskrit encountered elsewhere (in Kannada country, for instance, and later, in the Hindi heartland). Instead, what had eroded dramatically was what I called the civic ethos embodied in the court. This ethos, while periodically assaulted in earlier periods (with concomitant interruptions in literary production), had more or less fully succumbed by the thirteenth century, long before the consolidation of Turkish power in the Valley. In Vijayanagara, by contrast, while the courtly structure of Sanskrit literary culture remained fully intact, its content became increasingly subservient to imperial projects, and so predictable and hollow. Those at court who had anything literarily important to say said it in Telugu or (outside the court) in Kannada or Tamil; those who did not, continued to write in Sanskrit, and remain unread. In the north, too, where political change had been most pronounced, competence in Sanskrit remained undiminished during the late-medieval/early modern period. There, scholarly families reproduced themselves without discontinuity-until, that is, writers made the decision to abandon Sanskrit in favor of the increasingly attractive vernacular. Among the latter were writers such as Kesavdas, who, unlike his father and brother, self-consciously chose to become a vernacular poet. And it is Kesavdas, Biharilal, and others like them whom we recall from this place and time, and not a single Sanskrit writer. [...]
The project and significance of the self-described "new intellectuals" in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries [...] what these scholars produced was a newness of style without a newness of substance. The former is not meaningless and needs careful assessment and appreciation. But, remarkably, the new and widespread sense of discontinuity never stimulated its own self-analysis. No idiom was developed in which to articulate a new relationship to the past, let alone a critique; no new forms of knowledge-no new theory of religious identity, for example, let alone of the political-were produced in which the changed conditions of political and religious life could be conceptualized. And with very few exceptions (which suggest what was in fact possible), there was no sustained creation of new literature-no Sanskrit novels, personal poetry, essays-giving voice to the new subjectivity. Instead, what the data from early nineteenth-century Bengal-which are paralleled every where-demonstrate is that the mental and social spheres of Sanskrit literary production grew ever more constricted, and the personal and this-worldly, and eventually even the presentist-political, evaporated, until only the dry sediment of religious hymnology remained. [...]
In terms of both the subjects considered acceptable and the audience it was prepared to address, Sanskrit had chosen to make itself irrelevant to the new world. This was true even in the extra-literary domain. The struggles against Christian missionizing, for example, that preoccupied pamphleteers in early nineteenth-century Calcutta, took place almost exclusively in Bengali. Sanskrit intellectuals seemed able to respond, or were interested in responding, only to a challenge made on their own terrain-that is, in Sanskrit. The case of the professor of Sanskrit at the recently-founded Calcutta Sanskrit College (1825), Ishwarachandra Vidyasagar, is emblematic: When he had something satirical, con temporary, critical to say, as in his anti-colonial pamphlets, he said it, not in Sanskrit, but in Bengali. [...]
No doubt, additional factors conditioned this profound transformation, something more difficult to characterize having to do with the peculiar status of Sanskrit intellectuals in a world growing increasingly unfamiliar to them. As I have argued elsewhere, they may have been led to reaffirm the old cosmopolitanism, by way of ever more sophisticated refinements in ever smaller domains of knowledge, in a much-changed cultural order where no other option made sense: neither that of the vernacular intellectual, which was a possible choice (as Kabir and others had earlier shown), nor that of the national intellectual, which as of yet was not. At all events, the fact remains that well before the consolidation of colonialism, before even the establishment of the Islamicate political order, the mastery of tradition had become an end in itself for Sanskrit literary culture, and reproduction, rather than revitalization, the overriding concern. As the realm of the literary narrowed to the smallest compass of life-concerns, so Sanskrit literature seemed to seek the smallest possible audience. However complex the social processes at work may have been, the field of Sanskrit literary production increasingly seemed to belong to those who had an "interest in disinterestedness," as Bourdieu might put it; the moves they made seem the familiar moves in the game of elite distinction that inverts the normal principles of cultural economies and social orders: the game where to lose is to win. In the field of power of the time, the production of Sanskrit literature had become a paradoxical form of life where prestige and exclusivity were both vital and terminal.
The Death of Sanskrit, Sheldon Pollock, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Apr., 2001), pp. 392-426 (35 pages)
80 notes · View notes
stuckasmain · 4 months
Text
When I first watched 2001 it was with my dad, it was on my list and he really just wanted to watch me watch the movie. We started late at night it’s like 1 am by the time we finish, absolutely was a trip to go through. I sit there gobsmacked for a solid 10 minutes before “what the fuck was that?”
He spends another hour going through those clickbaity “ending explained” type articles because we’re both exhausted and lost. I’m asking a endless amount of questions and theories- he knows no more than I did. It’s going on two in the morning. It is at this point I find out about the book series and
“Hal is later revived in the following books and saved by Dave Where they later merge”
Me: T H E Y W H A T
Im pretty sure it gave us both brain worms.
58 notes · View notes
beljar · 5 months
Text
From the beginning, the Zionist “redemption of the land” was associated with the so-called “revival of Hebrew” (Saposnik, 2010), with “Hebrew” being used in relation to a range of issues beyond the tongue one speaks. Hebrew became a marker of nationality, with references to ideas such as the “Hebrew nation”; it became (as part of this mark of nationality) the idiom organizing economic relations, particularly in the Zionist campaign for “Hebrew labor” (Avoda Ivrit) that was, in fact, a call to boycott Arab workers in the Jewish colonies (see Khalidi, 1997; Shafir, 1989); and it played a role in transforming space and reclaiming Jewish ownership while negating the indigenes’ claims to the land, via toponymic changes (replacing Arabic with Hebrew names) and remapping projects, which are at the core of settler colonial movements (Abu El Haj, 2001; Benvenisti, 2002; Masalha, 2007). On all these different levels, “Hebrew” was the mark and tool of the de-Arabization of the land.
In addition, language helped in shaping the racial contours of the land's inhabitants. After being one of the basic elements in the orientalization of Jews in Europe through the creation of the “Semite” as a linguistic-racial category (Anidjar, 2007), language (this time Hebrew, rather than “Semitic” languages) became one of the key elements in the de-orientalizing of the Jew: Hebrew was able to “return” to the east, to become the language of the land (Palestine), only after it was reconstructed as a European language, dissociated from its oriental and Semitic origins. Rather than being conceived as an indigenous language rooted in the historic and contemporary East—a relative, as it were, of Arabic—Hebrew thus became part of the westernization of the land.
The demand to speak Hebrew was, accordingly, entangled with the demand to abandon, simultaneously and relatedly, Arabic and (Arab) native-ness. The Arab-Jews were caught up in this effort to eliminate Arabic as part of an effort to displace Arabs. Arabic, their own language, was gradually labeled a foreign language, and then the language of the enemy.
When does a native become a settler? by Yuval Evri, Hagar Kotef, 15 June 2020
68 notes · View notes