Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
Room Service, Anyone?
Guest Editorial by Allison Goodman

First impressions can be important. And in this case, I almost fainted when I first saw this image in a recent New Yorker Magazine. A bit of investigation turned up that the photograph was by Annie Leibovitz — part of her study of people who work at the Peninsula Hotel (for the Peninsula hotel).


But all that information came later. First I had to deal with a serious case of the vapors because I could NOT imagine why a hotel would promote itself by advertising its abusive child labor practices! … Small, barely smiling, kids dressed in service uniforms and crowded together for a portrait. No silly props. No having fun. No joy on their faces. No explanation whatsoever within the ad. Just children seemingly forced into labor. One scenario that kept playing over and over in my mind was Kathy Lee Gifford’s almost comic indignation over the photographs of child laborers sewing her signature line of clothing.

Confusion prevailed.


With a very cautious peek, I turned the page. Helpful but just as horrifying. There I encountered the other part of the Peninsula ad: an image of an adult dressed in the same white bellhop (they called him a “Page”) uniform walking all sorts of over-bred dogs (well, he was actually carrying the miniature Chihuahua). Below that image was a rather small explanation that the children on the previous page are actually the offspring of Peninsula workers: “Our staff’s children pose as Peninsula Pages, a symbol of our celebrated tradition of graciousness, benevolence and warmth.”

How so?

For me, the dour tone of the photograph implied a lack of kindliness. Wouldn’t setting up college education funds be a better example of corporate graciousness? Benevolence of what sort? (Maybe the kids got to keep their uniforms?) And the warmth is… where? (Interestingly, another image in Leibovitz’s portfolio for the Peninsula also featured children, but this time they were guests… and although they were of similar age and ethnicity to the children in the “laborers” photograph, they are having all sorts of fun… a bubble bath, goggles, a beautiful scene out the window, etc…)


Despite the best efforts of everyone from school photographers on up, a picture of small children does not automatically reify any particular attributes. In the case of the image in the New Yorker, the photographer failed to imbue any grace, munificence and/or kindness into her image. And I think that because that’s what we expect when we see images of children, the absence is both noticeable and notable.

I don’t know who is at the core of this blunderous presentation of kids: the ad agency, Leibovitz, or the Hotel. But just in case it’s the latter I’ve decided that — should my family ever have the opportunity to stay at a Peninsula Hotel — we won’t be using their babysitting service.

(The entire Leibovitz portfolio can be found at “Portraits of the Peninsula”)

Allison Goodman is the author of The 7 essentials of graphic design (How Design Books, 2001) an entry level text for aspiring graphic designers as well as the graphic design curious. She has worked in the offices of Sussman/Prejza & Co., Inc. and Richard Saul Wurman. Currently, Goodman is a professor at the Art Center College of Design where she has taught since since 1990.

Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
PUBLISHED ON May.06.2005 BY Speak Up
Jeff Gill’s comment is:

Ms Goodman, do you ever spend time with children that are not your own?

This is by far the strangest, most uptight interpretation of photographs of children and dog walking I have read in my whole life.

The group shot looks fairly typical of the several different expressions one would find on the faces of children in any given group.

The dog walking picture is just cool--and also evocative many past images of the dogs of the rich being walked

How does the third picture excape your horror? Naked, mixed gender children in a bubble bath? Shocking! This is the gross sexualisation of innocence! Oh no! What shall we do?!

On May.06.2005 at 11:07 AM
ps’s comment is:

i tend to agree with jeff on this one. having looked at the images on the website, i certainly did not have any fear of fainting... i personally think its a nice series of photographs by a damned good photographer.

Wouldn’t setting up college education funds be a better example of corporate graciousness? who tells you that they did not?

On May.06.2005 at 11:21 AM
BlueStreak’s comment is:

>Ms Goodman, do you ever spend time with children that are not your own?

I had to check the author's bio before I finished the article to see if she has any children of her own. Nothing there. Only a vague mention of family in the article itself.

The critique seems hyperbolic and I'm wondering what baseline of reference the author is using. I have some first hand knowledge of both abusive child labor and joyful children. And I'm interpreting the images differently too.

On May.06.2005 at 12:07 PM
Daniel Brice’s comment is:

I agree with the editorial. What about a photo of children dressed to "serve" is a good message for the Peninsula Hotel ?

It's not about the photographer or the other photographs, it's about a strange message that evokes child labor issues.

On May.06.2005 at 12:09 PM
Steve Mock’s comment is:

How did you make the leap from photograph to advertisement?

How do you connect "children pose as..." with "seemingly forced into labor"?

This is wacky.

I like the term "comic indignation", though.

On May.06.2005 at 12:13 PM
Tan’s comment is:

To me, I interpret the first image as symbolic of the childlike wonder, exuberance, and enthusiasm that's representative of the Peninsula Hotel and its staff.

It's not that different than thousands of corny photos such as this one below. We've all seen them.

I don't read child labor laws into this or the other photo. That's ridiculous. I interpret the Leibovitz photo differently, probably similar to the thousands of guests that patronize the hotel.

Is it because the children are Asian that you start to associate it with the issue of child labor? Careful there — that's dangerously close to stereotyping.

There's nothing funny or callous about the real issue of child labor. But if we become too PC as a culture, and start to interpret the dark and evils of the world into every photo of children — then what a truly sad and disheartening society we'll be.

We also run the risk of trivializing a serious issue with these types of non-relevant observations.

On May.06.2005 at 12:26 PM
Tan’s comment is:

Sorry, I didn't mean to dogpile on Ms.Goodman's opinion. I do recognize that her outrage comes from good intentions.

Should we talk about the dog walker? I'm a little more disturbed by that image. If you think about it, the prissy dogs can be seen as symbolic of the women with shopping bags behind them, surrounding the bellhop.

I wouldn't put it past Leibovitz to juxtapose that kind of statement into her photos.

On May.06.2005 at 12:46 PM
brian Corchiolo’s comment is:

I think this whole article pretty sums up Potical Correctness gone overboard.

Would the author have the same problem if there were white children in the picture? What if they were black?

On May.06.2005 at 12:56 PM
Pat Broderick’s comment is:

When I see that picture, I just get the impression someone thinks it's cute to dress up little kids in adult uniforms. As far as preparing children for a lifetime of servitude I think things like this McDonald's playset are far more worthy of concern.

On May.06.2005 at 12:58 PM
Armin’s comment is:

I actually see where Allison is coming from. I am not appalled as much though. This is more an issue of (mis)perception by a member of an audience that doesn't belong to the ad's (or the hotel's) target audience. Let's put this bluntly: unless Allison — and I don't mean to make any stupid judgments on who Allison is — has the best teaching gig in the world I doubt she would spend the type of money required to stay at the Peninsula, where you can be helicoptered out from the only private helipad in Hong Kong. The imagery — and this is where stuff gets tricky because Leibovitz's photos are, what, art? just images? — of the hotel is accurately pretentious and snobbish. Which is great, that's the audience. I think when the hundreds of thousands of readers of The New Yorker that are not in this target audience see the ad are bound to have a not-exactly-positive reaction for many different, personal reasons. The kids photo is clearly something that would make — and this again delves into dangerous, offensive stereotypes — Ivana McRich go Awwww, look at those cute boys, in their cute hats. Like Allison, I too read a certain disconnect in the photo. It's just not quite right. But then again, I'm not the target audience.

On May.06.2005 at 01:16 PM
ps’s comment is:

I think when the hundreds of thousands of readers of The New Yorker that are not in this target audience see the ad are bound to have a not-exactly-positive reaction for many different, personal reasons.

well, they don't need to. just as not everyone has a positive reaction to an adobe ad. or a greenpeace ad or...

On May.06.2005 at 01:26 PM
Armin’s comment is:

Well, no, of course they don't need to. But if they do, then… then some will just shrug it off, and others, like Allison, would say interesting, let's put it on Speak Up.

On May.06.2005 at 01:29 PM
ps’s comment is:

interesting, let's put it on Speak Up.

in the end Speak Up is the beneficiary of a campaign by the peninsula hotel.

On May.06.2005 at 01:34 PM
Armin’s comment is:

Yes. As we speak, a helipad is being installed on the roofdeck of my apartment by cute asian kids in construction worker clothes. Cute, huh?

On May.06.2005 at 01:37 PM
ps’s comment is:


and if your staff follows annie leibowitz's portfolio. you will have a ratio of 8:1 men over women doing all the underpaid labor. what an outrage.

On May.06.2005 at 01:42 PM
Tan’s comment is:

Ok Armin, I'll buy the elitist interpretation.

For most of us, it's difficult to understand what it's like to live wealthy, or to work in professions that serve the wealthy. But these types of service professionals aren't necessarily servants. A butler, concierge, chauffer, chef, or nanny are respected professions. Heck, a concierge at a top hotel can make well into 6-figures annually.

But people who are unaccustomed to being served formally are often uncomfortable in that environment. There's a false sense of guilt, shame, or something weird like that. That's all totally misplaced.

My experience with this doesn't come from being wealthy, but comes from working in service at a posh Ritz-Carlton during my college days.

I dunno where I'm going with this other than to say that the interpretations of those photos are largely dependent on the baggage of the viewer, not the photos themselves.

Ok, back to my manicure.

On May.06.2005 at 01:45 PM
Bradley’s comment is:

Hey guys, it wouldn't hurt to be a bit more respectful of Ms. Goodman's essay and opinion. Agree or disagree, there's no reason to be derogatory about it. I know there's a great tradition of pulling out the steamroller on Speak Up (which I love and adore), but damn! Let the woman speak!

I'm personally not disturbed by the images, but while they struck me as a little odd, they are really damn good too. What's interesting as well, is that out of all the hotel chains in the world--how many acknowledge their cleaning staff with such gorgeous imagery? Or the mechanics and doormen? There's something to be said for that. As pricey and exclusive as the hotel appears to be, they're putting beautiful emphasis on the people who change your sheets and park your car. And for Ms. Liebovitz's fees, I don't see the hotel management's sentiments as being fake either!

On May.06.2005 at 02:42 PM
Tan’s comment is:

Bradley — I don't think anyone has used any more derogatory language than Ms.Goodman has used herself in her essay.

And as I've said, I don't think people have intentionally dogpiled against her. I respect her opinion and her right to voice it — I just happen to disagree with it.

And being Asian myself, I feel like I have a right to question what I see as stereotyping. Maybe that's horseshit — but is my response any more accusatory, inflammatory, or disrespectful than Ms.Goodman's child-labor inference of the Peninsula?

On May.06.2005 at 03:02 PM
j. leibow’s comment is:

as a co-teacher of allison's at art center, i really look forward to her reponse to all of these responses. allison?

-- justin

On May.06.2005 at 03:04 PM
Drew’s comment is:

Huh, I just thought they were cute kids playing dress-up for the camera.

On May.06.2005 at 03:18 PM
Jeff Gill’s comment is:

I just watched the Portraits slide show. Fantastic! It does a superb job of making me feel like the people are what make the Peninsula. I want to stay there (and goodness knows I need the break) because the people there seem great--like People, not staff.

That's why I think the pictures (there's a shot of kids & parents in the slide show) of the kids work. They give the impression that the families & lives of the employees are valued too, not just the services they provide.

And what little kid wouldn't get a kick out of dressing up for work like their mum or dad? My 7 year-old son likes to design to design logos now & again. Ms Goodman's Disapproval (seeing as we are reading deeply into things) smacks of a view that service emloyment is inferior and that picturing children playing at it is at best foolish. But how is it any worse than showing a child with a little doctor kit or "My First Powerpoint Presentation"?

Bradley, as for the Steamrolling of Ms Goodman, I can only address the essay. I'm sure that she is a wonderful person with many opinions that I would respect a lot's of experience that I would be grateful to learn from. And, Allison, next time you are in North Wales I'd love to buy you a pint of our very fine local ale.

On May.06.2005 at 03:27 PM
viviane’s comment is:

This campaign has been around for a little while and the first image of the series that I saw was the one with the dogwalker.

Living in Manhattan where dogwalkers abound, I felt that it actually picked up on both the vernacular of the guests - who may want to use the hotel's service - and of so many New Yorkers in general.

As to the image with the children - my first reaction to it was that it shows an aspect of the staff that is often overlooked - they are regular people with families and children and also happen to make the hotel run well behind the scenes. The little uniforms to me were mere visual shorthand of who these kids are. Definitely did not invoke any references to child labor!

Having looked at the rest of Annie Liebovitz's Peninsula portfolio I generally felt that it was a very personal and actually somewhat uncommercial approach to presenting a chain of luxury hotels, vs. the usual happy couple relaxing in a fabulous suite.

In addition to showing the staff in their work environment, I also liked the aerial shot of the Pen Bar - again an aspect that blends right into the New York fabric - as many who've gone for drinks there on a hot summer night can relate to it.

Maybe it's not so much a question of first impressions but of context.

On May.06.2005 at 03:38 PM
Darrel’s comment is:

What about a photo of children dressed to "serve" is a good message for the Peninsula Hotel ?

The Peninsula Hotel seems to be targetting a demographic that is constantly pampered by servants. Seems right on-target to me.

On May.06.2005 at 04:42 PM
Darrel’s comment is:

They give the impression that the families & lives of the employees are valued too

I can't speak for the author, but it seems to me that that could be the beef.

It's like Wal-Mart's TV ads where they claim to support local schools or something. It's simply the 'appearance' of caring, when in reality, they don't give a shit about their employees.

Now, this hotel may very well care about their employees, we don't know, but the over-stylized art attempting to give us that impression naturally seems overly contrived.

On May.06.2005 at 04:44 PM
Christopher Risdon’s comment is:

One of the last times an essay evoked this strong of a reaction, i was one of the first to chime in (the response to the Print and STEP sex issues). My reaction was similar in that I couldn't believe the morality of the essay and the overly PC nature of it. Although after a bunch of people also chimed in - mostly with the same tone, I did feel bad about the bit of one-sided dog piling.

But that's the nature of puting up an essay that puts forth a strong opinion, and I commend the author for expressing it in such a public forum - not a one-way monologue, but a blog that guarantees a response.

Having said that, I have to agree with most of the other posters. When I first saw the initial shot of the children dressed as pages, child labor never crossed my mind. They look like a bunch of kids in costume. When I think of contemporary forced labor, I think of underground places with squalid (sp?) conditions. Not children wearing clean uniforms that probably cost more than $100. And the quote, "No joy on their faces." is a fairly extreme misrepresentation. I see some smiling kids and some indifferent kids. And having a wife who teaches kindergarten, it pretty much represents every candid picture she shows me of her class, but this time in costume.

Undoubtably we're going to see a lot of asians in this campaign because it's a chain based in asia, with most of their hotels in asian countries. And to maintain that image of those roots, the hotel probably hires a higher percentage of asians at their western hotels than average.

The images are really good (and I really want to eat at that rooftop restaurant!), though I think it likely gives an overly idyllic view of the happy staff. And I can understand how some - whether it's the possible stereotypes or feeling that 'staff' are being exploited - could see these images as strange. But the essay seems to imply that this is the first and obvious reaction for the average person.

I just don't see it.

On May.06.2005 at 04:55 PM
Pesky Illustrator’s comment is:

Gee, I wish I had a job with a cool uniform!

I think Allison's heart was in the right place only not indignation over these pictures. Let's give her a break. We all jump to conclusions sometimes.

Virtual Happy Hour, anyone?

On May.06.2005 at 05:21 PM
ezequiel’s comment is:

Well, all of this looks like a social issues discusion right out of american paranoia as a life style. Getting worse over and over. Allison is outrage. What happened with you? I loved Leibovitz pictures while I was a design student in Chicago. Now I'm safe of those worries that troubles Allison and many educated americans. I'm back at home in Buenos Aires. Loosen up...enjoy the view. Leibovitz photos are great....

On May.06.2005 at 07:57 PM
m. kingsley’s comment is:

I've always had difficulty with Annie Leibovitz's work. Her career began in "reportage" as a photographer for Rolling Stone — work that I was never enamored with; beyond the famous rock star subjects. And ever since then, I always felt that her pictures were more about surface than the prying, searching, revelation of art. She became well known for taking pictures of well-known people.

In her work for Vanity Fair and American Express, the subject and the situation became the focus. Her (rather large) production team of assistants, body painters, riggers, animal wranglers, and whatnot would set up baroque situations with more anecdotal than revelatory relationships to her subjects. Is there anything beyond the contrast of Whoopi Goldberg's blackness to the whiteness of a milk bath? What do we know about Demi Moore when Leibovitz paints her nude body with a trompe l'oiel suit? Beyond the fact that Demi has nice boobies, that is.

Leibovitz's work is well produced and she has a fastidious attention to detail, but I never felt the power of a personal vision. As I went through the Peninsula Hotel portfolio, I was struck by the ordinariness of the work, and the attempt to substitute Leibovitz's celebrity for any kind of narrative. Take away the Peninsula name and the images could be used for pretty much any other nice hotel chain. The difference between, say, the image of the three maids and a picture that I would take, is that Leibovitz has a crack team of lighting specialists. Other than that, or-din-ar-ry. I would bet that, without being told, one would be hard pressed to identify them as Annie Leibovitz pictures.

Perhaps Allison Goodman's reaction to the kids in little Peninsula uniforms was more about the usage of cute kids to invoke umm, warmth... hospitality... something. They are out of place because they represent something, but what that something is was never fully determined by Leibovitz or the ad agency. It may not be child labor, but it certainly is child "exploitation".

There's an interesting interview with Annie Leibovitz http://fototapeta.art.pl/fti-ale.html" target="_blank"> here. I find her comments about seeing Arbus photos everywhere in New York to be very telling.

On May.07.2005 at 03:24 AM
Cranky’s comment is:

If we are having this conversation, we must credit the work for at least being provocative.

I have no doubt the intentions are sincere, and appreciate the desire to honor the true face of their enterprise. They are in the people business, after all. They got that part right.

The execution smacks of cultural tourism.The children seem out of place in an old National Geographic sort of way. The whole feel of the piece, while seemingly benevolent, comes off as patronizing.

Which probably suits the target audience.

On May.07.2005 at 05:28 AM
Sneezy’s comment is:

Patronizing audience... Paranoid Americans.... I'm getting the feeling that all this talk is leading up to asking Doctor Phil for a consulatation...

On May.07.2005 at 08:38 AM
Mark.S.’s comment is:

I feel this critique is absolutely hysterical. Feel free to interpret the word 'hysterical' any way you want!

On May.07.2005 at 09:24 AM
gregor’s comment is:

it would seem that both the essay and the comments here represent the black and white extremes found on every topic on morality and ethics in america.

Allison's interperetation is one extreme of PC overkill, and "cute" is the flipside. Critically thinking, I would think there's a middle ground in both interpretations, and yes these images do speak to issues of child labor, the economic roles played by most new immigrants, etc.

Brushing it off (the essay/editorial by Allison) as cute or overly PC is an acceptance or ignoral of the issues Allison touched upon, and how visual artists, we as designers, the media, etc., reinforce these issues as common place and acceptable.

On May.07.2005 at 10:46 PM
Jamie’s comment is:

It would really help to know the labor conditions under which these people work, before making any judgement call on the photographs. Do they genuinely feel supported by their employers, or is one of those things sh*tty employers do to make themselves feel good, like "look! we're a happy family of a company, we love our employees and their children!" Its just impossible to judge without knowing the economic realities of their situation.

On May.08.2005 at 12:12 PM
Rob’s comment is:

Allison is certainly entitled to her opinion, and like much of you, I don't see the images the same way she does. (And yes, I have kids.) As Mr. Kingsley pointed out, I could see an argument of using the kids of your workers as part-exploitation and part smart marketing to show you care about your 'family.' The spin is up to the viewer.

I'm not sure I see Alison's position being about PC or showing the "paranoia of America"—whatever that's supposed to mean—but more just a personal interpretation on the part of a passionate human who has strong feelings and isn't afraid to share them publicly. Now, that is the best thing about being in the US. Whatever your idea, you don't have to be scared to share it whereever and whenever you want.

As for my next hotel stay, I guess it'll be the Holiday Inn.

On May.09.2005 at 10:59 AM
beto’s comment is:

Well, talk about overreacting. When I saw the pics, being B/W and with a certain touch of nostalgia, first thing I thought was Anne Leibovitz was pretending to recreate some of the feeling of turn-of-19th-century hospitality industry. After all, there exists plenty of photographic material from the era that proves child labor in hotels (or any other industry by that matter) was not the taboo it is now.

Honestly, that's what I thought.

I guess this is rather the history of a good campaign sent to the wrong target audience - paranoid-stricken, hysterical American society that fails to see the big picture.

I'd bet this would have passed largely unnoticed almost anywhere else.

On May.09.2005 at 07:18 PM
gregor’s comment is:

paranoid americans isn't what I would say. put it like this folks -- in this political climate we live in a time of extremes. you can choose one, or you can be critical and hit a balance between them, but first we need to recognize the extremes and not chalk it up to being entitled to an opinion.

On May.09.2005 at 07:45 PM
allison’s comment is:

...Glad I waited for the dust to settle a bit before I joined the comments phase of the conversation. Amid the whorl, it's helpful to have that perspective.

For the record, I still think the Leibovitz photo and accompanying text is, well, aberrant.

What the accumulation of comments did convince me of is that A) I want to keep writing this sort of critique. And by "this sort" I mean criticism that is not a mere recounting, nor academically rarified, nor limited by some tacit agreement to praise.

The other thing that the body of comments convinced me of is that B) I need to tune my writing skills. (I didn't actually almost faint when I saw the Leibovitz photo... but obviously I didn't make that, and that sort of thing, clear.)

In the end, the experience of writing the critique and receiving the feedback has been instructive, promising and exhilarating. It's good to have work noticed. Better than anonymity any day.

So thanks for posting Armin.

—Allison Goodman

On May.10.2005 at 10:38 PM
wet blanket’s comment is:

fuckin a' - after reading this article i have 2 words.

lighten up.

On May.11.2005 at 08:20 PM
mazzei’s comment is:

I have one word:


On May.12.2005 at 08:31 AM
Armin’s comment is:

I have many words:

If "dumb" or "lighten up" is all you have to offer, I would suggest you keep your comments to yourselves. Seriously. Unless you are willing to expand on whatever claim you want to make please don't pester the conversation with dismissive, offensive, clever-only-to-yourself remarks.


On May.12.2005 at 08:41 AM
jaded star’s comment is:

Did not encounter this ad personally but a friend of my pointed it out to me. I am pasting what she wrote below:


to share a current irritation:

btw i just turned to the worst ad in the new yorker. would you agree that the majority of the new yorker's audience is white, educated and affluent? well, the penninsula hotel has an ad that on one side, shows children of Penninsula staff posing as pages. on the other side is a page (adult) walking 5 dogs in NY, passing at least 6 white women on the street and 3 of indeterminate race, all looking relatively well-off and put together (no slobs on this page!). what irks me is that the page and most of the kids appear Asian, with the rest of the kids possibly Hispanic. Granted, the children's parents could be high-up on the Penninsula employee list, but the adult Page on the next page (!) suggests otherwise. i'm sorry, i know you can't see it, so you can't get the full impression. i mean, what are they trying to say? The tagline to this ad: "Our staff's children pose as Penninsula Pages, a symbol of our celebrated tradition of graciousness, benevolence and warmth." or: "We are working very hard to make these children identify with their parents jobs so one day they will also work for us."

but, who knows? maybe the benefits outweigh the years of servitude?


Interesting, but I am actually one of those children grown up today... My father works as a Room Service Waiter for a very prestigious hotel and so I spent my childhood in their elegant ballrooms for holiday functions and the like. When I was old enough and during a college summer, I experienced working there for myself.

My father sees the hotel business a blessing. One that has put me though my education and providing a home to live in. My father himself, has a M.A. degree and almost a Ph.D. from American universities. However he is, and was, still an Asian immigrant in this country, and so for many reasons including the one aforementioned, has been a Room Service Waiter for some 20 years or so.

For myself, working there was a wake-up call for me. No matter how nice management execs and wealthy guests may be or sound, I could never stop seeing the whole "yes maam/no maam" "Aunt Jemima-ish/Rosario (from Will and Grace)" dealings. Those photos smack of this to me. However my father might simply tell me to "Lighten up, as this is the way of America and what do I possibly expect..." For me, a twenty-something struggling to make something better of myself having grown up here, it is sad but nevertheless it is true.

Sorry this post is so long, but it is very much like watching commentary on my life in a way and besides, this little post box provides nothing in the way of good formatting :p

On Jun.12.2005 at 06:20 PM
winterfleur’s comment is:


i think your comments are the most poignant of all. we can try to intellectualize the subject to death, but when it comes down from the clouds, you are the kid in the picture who has had to struggle with that image/concept of servitude, struggling to keep the "costume" off. how many of those children will do the same?

On Jun.13.2005 at 10:21 AM
leroy ambronovitznNo.’s comment is:

Im not that familiar with miss leibkowitz work but I do know that she went out of her way to walk past me in some books a trillion type place. a name with -witz at the end of it I knew it was some kind on american designer, some of the last names miss goodman has given degrees to. . .at the art center.


On Apr.03.2006 at 09:03 PM