You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Maecenas' tag.
Kevin Kelly reports on his blog about an experimental book publishing model. In this model you first sell a required amount of (hard cover) books (in this specific case 200), enough to cover for the costs of the print run, after which the book is made available online for free as a downloadable PDF. Actually this is just a variant of the delayed Open Access model, in which after a certain embargo time the books or journals are made Open Access. What I like however about the example Kelly mentions of the New Liberal Arts book, a Snarkmarket/Revelator Press collaboration, is how they combine this delayed Open Access model with a community support or maecenas model. Stressing the importance of patronage they state on their website:
“We’ll post a PDF online, free for everyone—but only after we sell this run of 200 real, physical objects. So think of it this way: You’re not just buying a thought-provoking, take-it-to-the-coffee-shop book for yourself. You’re buying access for everybody. You’re a patron of the new liberal arts!”
Of course, as Kelly also says, you need an audience big enough to be able to offer both a print run and on online edition. And here’s where word of mouth marketing comes in handy. And it definitely worked in this case where the print edition sold out in less than eight hours, as the website again states:
“New Liberal Arts, a Snarkmarket/Revelator Press collaboration, is the beginning of an attempt to describe topics, disciplines, and methods of inquiry essential to any 21st century education. Ranging from “attention economics” to “video literacy,” New Liberal Arts is a glimpse into the course catalog of an idiosyncratic new school—a liberal arts college 2.0 New Liberal Arts went on sale on July 7 in a limited edition of 200 copies at Snarkmarket. The initial print run sold out in less than 8 hours.”
Revelator press, which publishes e-chapbooks for the masses, maintains another business model, where they put their books online for free, hoping they will gather enough response and attention to be able to sell print editions. Probably a saver model to use where there is a lack of an audience from the start, and even a small print run of 200 copies can already be a huge financial failure. Maybe POD, as its quality is improving enormously at the moment, could offer some more possibilities for similar presses. Revelator Press has an excellent Q& A section where they explain their choice for a free model. I love it so I have added it underneath. Also be sure to take a look at there beautiful designed e-chapbooks consisting of poetry, drama and short stories. I for example loved this one: Nine Poems by Gavin Graig.
Q: What is Revelator?
A: e-chapbooks for the masses.
Q: What the hell does that mean?
A: I’ll level with you. We know some people. These people write. Good stuff. It’s really hard to get things published (yeah, I know, cry me a river), so we’re going to put some of this stuff out there. Free.
Q: Free?
A: Sure, the first one is always free.
Q: What’s the catch?
A: No catch. We’re betting that you’ll like it, and you’ll come back to read more.
Q: So this is like one of those record club things, where you’ll start mailing me stuff I don’t want, and charge me if I don’t return it?
A: Nope. We’re not in it for the money. We want to get people talking, and maybe if enough people get talking, or the right people in the right places, then maybe you’ll see some of these people in Poetry, or The New Yorker, or on the new release table in your local bookstore. You can buy stuff then.
Q: Real publication? You think these people are that good?
A: Who am I, Harold Bloom? These people are good writers. Read them. Tell them what you like and don’t like.
Q: Tell them? This thing is interactive?
A: This is a blog, isn’t it? Join the 21st century.
Q: How do I keep up?
A: Subscribe to our rss feed (http://revelatorpress.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default). You can keep an eye on the discussion there, and we’ll post original work, in PDF form, every four to six weeks or so.
Q: Anything else?
A: Yeah. Tell your friends.
Via Transversalinflections I learned about Re.Press, an Australian publisher of Open Access titles in Philosophy. Their business model is based on a free Open Access edition in combination with print sales, the model at the moment many presses are experimenting with (amongst others: Open Humanities Press, Open Book Publishers, National Academies Press, fellow Australians ANU E Press, Rice University Press, AU Press, and Bloomsbury Academic.
Re.Press already established a wonderful collection of titles, amongst others The concept of model by Alain Badiou, Graham Harman’s new book on Bruno Latour and forthcoming titels on Walter Benjamin and on first love by Sigi Jöttkandt, also co-founder of Open Humanities Press. I especially like Re.Press’s statement from their website:
“In line with this ambition, re.press is itself a new kind of publisher. Attentive to the latest developments in contemporary technologies, re.press publications are available globally, wherever there is access to the internet. We seek to make as many of our publications as possible available as open-access files, free to anyone who wishes to download them. Our hard-copy books are print-on-demand, minimizing waste and cost. Yet our publications also maximize design values, boosting clarity and aesthetic qualities.”
They clearly state in there Open Access policy that they believe, as I concur, that the digital and the print fulfill different functions (at least will do so for the time being) making it possible for them to thrive side-by-side. And this dual existence can even strengthen (traditional) Humanities/Philosophy publishing and scholarly communication :
“Our academic titles are published under an open access licence ensuring 
the greatest possible exposure for our authors’ work through the almost unrestricted distribution channels of the internet. This does not mean that re.press is a digital publisher: we are a publisher of ‘real’ books that are available in bricks and mortar booksellers (as well as on-line retailers). However, our open access titles are also available free of charge in digital form. We do not consider the digital version a replacement for the physical book. On the contrary, we believe that the two mediums perform different functions, offering the best of both worlds. In fact, it is our hope that open access publishing will strengthen traditional publishing and scholarship more broadly by releasing ideas and thinkers from the constraints of the market. You can support our endeavour to make our books widely available as open access titles by encouraging your library to buy a print edition (from the usual sources) or by buying one yourself.”
Via the Re-press link section I discovered another very interesting ‘Ópen Access’ initiative, to be more precise, a record company, called Records on Ribs. They actually seem to bring into practice the Maecenas model I described before (and up to now thought to be kind of hypothetical): they give away their music for free (with Creative Commons licenses) and offer deluxe editions for sale and hope that community support will generate some extra revenues. So they actually take donations targeting the ‘good-music-loving-and-supporting hearts of their community.
I love their manifesto so I am going to publish that integrally here now. Read and weep:
Manifesto
Records on Ribs gives away it’s music for free. Records on Ribs is against nothing. We are not here ‘in reaction’ to anything. We are merely putting into practice what we believe. And this is what we believe… To sell music for profit is to deny its worth. It is to reduce it to numbers, spreadsheets, targets. Desire cannot be quantified thusly. Tapes, CD-Rs and the internet give us the opportunity to distribute music for free without losing significant sums of money.
Anyone could do what we are doing. A free for all. Brilliance obscured by an avalanche of mundanity.
So what? There is an avalanche of mundanity already in the shops, and it costs you £9.99 a go.
We only ask that you listen with open hearts and minds. And if one hundred, one thousand, one million people want to do the same as us then good luck to them. What a world that would be! Desire freed from profit.
We accept donations, but do not expect them. What we do costs us little, but we cannot avoid making a loss. Nor can the artists who have to buy equipment and take time to rehearse, perform and record. Any money you give us will go to loosen these burdens and will be gratefully received.
You can also buy lovingly crafted CD-Rs of our albums (made to order). We like to think they are objects worth owning, because we know you are all commodity fetishists when it comes to music, and an MP3 isn’t quite the same. We are hoping to do vinyl one day in the future.
All the best
The Records On Ribs Team
Are there more record companies working with such a model I wonder? And does it work, does it create enough revenue to be sustainable?
Via Tranversalinflections and Loewak I heard about the possible decline and fall of Salt Publishing, the poetry, short story and literary criticism publisher set up by Australian poet John Kinsella (who also launched Salt Magazine) in the 90’s. The financial crisis hit them hard, and they were on the edge off going overboard. In a final swan song however, Salt is fiercely fighting off its nearing end. They cried out help. And help came to the rescue. Not the kind of help you get from the bank or from raising book prices or from necessary cutbacks… No, help came from the community. Salt engaged the public, their customers – possibly the best thing an independent publisher can do in our present-day online network culture. Booktwo.org wrote about their efforts and gave them little chance, saying that ‘sadly, appeals for philanthropy are not a sustainable model’. I dare to differ. As I wrote about before whilst discussing Open Access business models, the Maecenas model, in which the community actively supports an artist (or a publisher in this example), might in some cases turn out to be quite profitable and in the case of Salt publishers perhaps even life-saving!
So what happened? Salt used the combination of a community-cry-out-viral-tactic (nicely summed up in this Guardian blog post), using all kinds of social media sites to get attention, with the all-time favorite business technique of the discount (a one-time, one-month 33% discount on all titles), to gather enough money.
Their viral centered on a great idea (please buy just one book, right now) and a great WWF style video which you can see underneath.
And they got some famous supporters like Griff Rhys Jones helping them out, saying:
“Support the good work here. Don’t let Salt fall. If the recession is going to take things down, let it be motor manufacturers, let it be bad banks, let it be chains of fast food restaurants. We can lose a few of them, but we don’t have enough small independent and daring publishers like Salt. I think I can be a little more forthright than Chris and say ‘Just six books’. Buy dozens why don’t you? It’s a great list. And apparently you will help the economy in many subtle ways too complicated for studious folk like us.”
And then it happened, in one week more than a 1000 orders poured in from all over the world. Salt is not out of the red figures yet, but it is getting there!
My advice (and keeping in the spirit of the Maecenas model): add a ‘please donate money’ (any money you can spare!) button to the site (you never know…) accompanied by something like the title heading this post. To survive future drawbacks and to keep on profiting from the newly established community and client base, I would try experimenting with Open Access business models. Although not yet very common outside non-fiction (notwithstanding that SF, Paulo Coelho and Cory Doctorow seem to be doing fine), poetry seems to be an excellent genre to apply new experimental business models to. Your books will be better findable, the free online (or any form of hybrid model) can work as a marketing tool, it can gather enthusiasm, buzz, and, again, community. And since a lot of poetry lovers are, I would say, the kind of consumers of culture and literature that still feel a deep commitment to ‘the book’, to reading and to possessing the print book (of course not all of them, just think about all the forms of digital web-based poetry that no longer needs any kind of paper carrier), your print sales probably won’t go down and perhaps will even go up. Special editions, collectors items…, my mouth is already watering, spread the word. And, come on, did you ever see people printing out a poem or collating their own poetry readers? Could you imagine shelves with black-and-white print outs of poetry books, like those burned CD’s we all have lying around? Nah, I think that, at least for the near future, just like vinyl, a nice edition of a quality poetry collection can still be a money-maker.
But first, let’s go and help out Salt by buying that one book. Since I am both greedy and zealous, I’ll use that discount and will go for two: McKenzie Wark’s Dispositions (author of GAM3R 7H3ORY) and Louis Armand’s The Garden.
To end with the words of Chris Hamilton-Emery, director of Salt Publishing from The Bookseller:
“What I’ve learnt this week is that a small family business with a super team and a deep passion for books can use the web to unite very disparate communities. Tell the truth and you can build a global brand that personally unites people and, through literature, celebrates what it is to be human.”
Word.
Brett Gaylor, the director of the Open Source documentary RiP: A Remix Manifesto, is experimenting with the ‘Maecenas model’ (by others dubbed the ‘pay–as-you-like’ or Radiohead/NIN model) while launching his documentary online as a free download. I have written about RiP before here and since then the (CC licensed) feature length film has only gained more popularity and media attention.
WIRED dedicated a whole article, consisting of an interview with Gaylor, on the movie and discusses its business model, the release and popularity of the movie and the ‘copyfight movement’ Gaylor is involved in.
Why would Gaylor choose the Maecenas model? When we consider other possible free online content (or Open Access) business models, the Maecenas model does seem to be a more logical model than the model I wrote about yesterday which Bloomsbury Academic is applying to Lawrence Lessig’s book Remix. For in this model there is a clear cut end product, a printed book that can be bought to cover the costs for the production and the free online dissemination of the product. In the case of RiP, this seems a less logical path to follow: the whole idea behind this documentary movie is of course that there is no end product: in the process of continually remixing, reediting and mashing-up the material RiP consists of, the documentary could better be seen as a (continuous) project than a product. As WIRED states: ‘in the realities of remix culture, where there is no such thing as a final cut’. This of course does not mean that certain ‘snapshots’ of the documentary can not be ’materialized’ and sold as products to cover for the costs. And Gaylor does this too, releasing DVD versions of the movie and showing his documentary in a theatrical run at movie theaters and festivals. So in a way, he is betting on two horses. However, Gaylor’s alternative choice for the Maecenas model seems very interesting for the current project. In this specific case it seems like a very good idea to apply this community based model, where RiP collected quite a large network of remix collaborators and enthusiasts around its project core and attracted lot of similar minded folks interested in the goals and values Gaylor tries to spread and promote with his movie, who might definitely be interested in promoting this project further.
However, one of the additional problems of financing and even possibly profiting from such an inherent collaborative and community based project is how to divide the costs and the benefits? As Gaylor states in the WIRED interview:
“But since we have so many partners that helped us make the film, including theatrical and television distributors, it was a delicate balancing act to make sure the good faith they showed in making the film would be rewarded, that we wouldn’t undercut their efforts to promote and recoup on the film by giving it away.”
This of course also refers to the problem of attribution in such an ‘authorless documentary’ or collaborative approach: who will get the money? Will it go to Gaylor, (who of course in this case is still very much the master mind and creative brain behind the project) will it go to the foundation Open Source Cinema, which Gaylor has founded?
For Gaylor this does not seem to be the biggest problem however. His goal is to make the documentary as largely available as possible, arguing that that should be what copyright should be about in the first place. Gaylor in WIRED:
“We’ve gone to really great lengths to make this film as accessible as possible,” […]“It’s already on the Pirate Bay, and that’s great — it’s another delivery format. We didn’t put it there ourselves, though; we didn’t need to. Had we gone that route, it’s fairly likely, given the realities of the film-distribution universe, that we wouldn’t have these other opportunities to get the film to people who still watch TV, rent DVDs or go to movies, which is, in fact, most people. We wanted those people to watch this movie.”
When asked about his views on copyright he favors a balance between creating an incentive for producers and at the same time creating as wide accessibility to the consumer population as possible:
“The classic copyright ones: Providing an incentive, while at the same time ensuring the public’s access to the work. Ultimately, that’s what I, and most people in this movement, are pushing for — a balance. So the film release was a lot more “free as in speech” than it was “free as in beer,” because it was important for me that average folks could see the film on TV or in theaters. And eventually, after a limited term (measured in months!), the film will fall into the public/pirate domain and be copied freely.”
Gaylor also has some interesting thoughts about the future of remix culture and business models concerning movie distribution in such a context. He talks about going to the cinema as maybe becoming a (money making) experience event on the same scale as going to a concert. This could then serve as a way to cover for the costs that will be lost when the content will be available as a free download or as a pirated version:
“We’ll see how I feel about that in a year. The remixing is just starting to take off, and I envision a time when these sorts of interactions will create an environment where a theatrical screening is to filmmakers what live performances are to musicians. The ability to create something unique for a particular screening or event allows you to offer an added value to that audience member, as well as have something unique that’s different from what you can get on a DVD or online.”
And this is interesting indeed, while things might be increasingly online for free the logical option seems to be to charge for events that are unique and cannot be recreated in a ‘reproductive’ manner in an online environment. And this means that, paradoxically enough (or is it even that paradoxical?), Event becomes a capitalist commodity, whereas that what can be reproduced and spread easily online will more and more become available for free. Talk about turning around your business model.
I never burned books. Not as a ritual after graduation; not as a Dadaistic attempt to enstage some kind of surreal happening; not as a way to cleanse my soul from feelings of materialistic belongings. No. Books are holy to me. I would probably not even be able to burn a book (though I could kill an animal…).
Friday evening I attended a book burning. Alas, a metaphysical one. The Dutch philosophy journal Krisis celebrated its final paper edition and the launch of its online archive. This celebration took place at cultural hotspot and debate center De Balie in Amsterdam, where the cream of Dutch philosophy gathered to commemorate the passing of the old and the rise of the new, the transformation of Krisis from a print journal to an online, open-access journal for contemporary philosophy.
Eight speakers from Belgium and the Netherlands, both renowned (philosophy) professors as well as PhD and undergraduate students, where asked to give a short ten minute reflection on the occasion and on the evening’s theme of book burning, which, as the invitation states, ‘is a symbol of the bonfire of our journal’s digitalization, but will be elaborated in different directions: censorship, (in)tolerance, privacy, virtuality, digital utopia and iconoclasm’.
The people selected to deliver a small speech were Ellen Algera, Jos Biemans, René Boomkens, Maarten Doorman, Heleen Pott, Casper Thomas, Rosa van Toledo, Georgi Verbeeck en Frank van Vree.
And what a selection it was! Whoever thought philosophy was dull and boring would have changed his or her mind completely after Friday’s event. The talks delivered, each from a very different viewpoint, were both fresh and provocative, and at the same time personal and contemplative.
Georgi Verbeeck showed, using the example of the Library of the University of Leuven, how book burning can sometimes have a positive effect. The strive of the aforementioned library to overcome its multiple burnings and other misdealings, lead to a certain reputation and a will to emerge. In this struggle, the library came out as a winner.
Ellen Algera gave an elegy for the (burned) book using Heidegger’s concept of being “ready-to-hand” and applying it to the use of books. The digital offers all kinds of benefits to the book, from a worldwide public to the possibility of multimedia, interactivity and the wisdom of crowds. However, Algera emphasized what gets lost in an online environment; the possibility to make annotations (or the possibility to internalize the books or the thoughts therein by means of annotating); the tactility of the book; its boundedness. To Algera books are not merely information carriers but objects of thought that portray a sense of meaning in certain contexts or practices. For her the merit of book burning lies exactly here: it is a metaphor for detaching oneself from the text.
Maarten Doorman reflected, on request, on the burning of the library of Don Quijote, whose books (according to his housekeeper) were the main reason for his insanity. Doorman stated that the current practice of superabundant book production has led to an overflow of books. This profusion has, in a way, the same destructive force as a book burning where it leads to massive information overload (and accompanied insanity). Krisis going online can thus be seen as a sort of cleansing ritual.
Jos Biemans talked about the fire from within, quite literally even, for he explained the process of iron gall ink corrosion, which is for instance threatening the music scores of Bach’s Matthäus passion which are kept at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin.
Next Rosa van Toledo tackled the night’s theme as a physical process: the transformation of one substance into another. Seen in this light, a book burning can be a synonym for the way we handle knowledge. Words are being used or processed; they are carried from a certain medium to the mind and are internalized into the body (incorporation). Our body burns knowledge, forms a knowledge metabolism, internal combustion. In the mass media, Van Toledo argues, our bodies or our senses are approached in a fragmented manner (we hear, see, and touch seldom in one integrated experience). For Van Toledo however the interconnection of our senses is essential for the digestion of knowledge. She finds this total conjunction of sensory experiences in the theatre, in which the body is the medium. Recalling Antonin Artaud she there re-finds this total self-awareness of the body as a unity now capable of full knowledge absorption.
Frank van Vree gave a plea for the acknowledgement of digital utopianism as a new (contemporary) form of ideology. He draws on H.G. Wells 1938’s writings on the world brain, in which Well’s foresees a future world encyclopedia which will contain a complete planetary memory of all mankind. Van Vree sees this utopian thinking strongly reflected in the digital culture, where the digital is presented as a new way of thinking, a new world, in which information can be free, the medium democratizes and the digital revolution will free knowledge and information from its industrialization and profit making middle men. It will offer an open domain, a virtual transcendence of identity. Van Vree traces this digital utopianism back to the 1990’s but stated that after
15 years it is still going strong. The apparent ideology in this kind of thinking lies in the fact that one can argue that the Internet did not really change that much and for a large part is still a continuation of the ‘traditional non virtual life’. And this traditional ideology and thinking is the one the digital utopia wants to burn down and is building its own pyres for.
Casper Thomas discussed the discrepancy between the virtual and the real when it comes to our personal data. We hold certain schizophrenic ideas: personally we build up walls between ourselves and our environment, whilst online we share every minor detail.
Heleen Pott’s speech on Fahrenheit 451 revisited, mentions the positive aspects of the digitization of books: books are bad for the environment, publishers are making books increasingly expensive, books are heavy, it takes time and effort to read a book (in comparison to reading the online summary or watching the movie). She mentions the book Fahrenheit 451 from Ray Bradbury and the fact that book burnings can be seen as a way to create new jobs and a sense of togetherness or belonging. Her plea goes out to start with putting Darwin’s Origin of species on the pyres.
René Boomkens lecture was entitled (in a rough translation) ‘The article as a smoldering clod of paper’. He sees a symbolic book burning taking place in academia were the sell out of the scholarly monograph is on the rise. Boomkens mentions the fact that never before so many books were bought and read. Even though for years critics of new media have feared the loss of reading abilities and even of the ability to think in a linear and logical way (because of the so-called fragmenting nature of the image culture), books are still going strong. The university does not endorse this development however, for it has started a symbolic book burning. Books no longer count as real output in the academic business. There is an increased pressure to produce more journal articles and books are no longer seen as relevant publications by many a university bureaucrat. An assassination of the book is taking place; the book is becoming a subversive item, a monograph writer a rebel who scorns academic output quota. Boomkens states that university magistrates have began to fear the book because of its costly time to produce, (let alone its time to be read) and its blasphemic ability to develop more than one thought during an argumentation. But this is what philosophers do; they write slow, complex, and time-consuming books. And in this way books offer a radically other epistemological approach than for instance the new media. The special merit of the book lies exactly in its complexity and layeredness. And as Boomkens concludes, this subversive medium that is the book should be heralded for this.
A final note on Krisis’ business model as an Open Access journal. It seems they have partly embraced the Maecenas model. Next to a subsidy from the Prins Bernard Cultuurfonds and some revenue from (hopefully) some future subsidizers and advertisements, they are hoping to gain some financial support from yes…, you! You can help them out by becoming a friend of Krisis (can’t find a link to that at the moment) and get updates and newsletters and the likes and maybe contribute with a little money to support their ‘fairly-paid editorial assistant and a professional copy editor’.
Donations are welcome here.
Happy days for Creative Commons and NIN! Trent Reznor managed to make a huge profit selling his bands 2008 album Ghosts I-IV online, topping Amazon’s best selling list for 2008. Strange enough, the album was legally available for free at the same time (even on the same website). This nice article over at Ars Technica gives one possible reason for this phenomenon (next to obviously the much heralded ease of using Amazon, and might I note the lack of awareness of many law abiding citizens of the existence or workings of sites like The Pirate Bay, where the album could also be downloaded legally for free). According to the article in Ars Technica, the music lovers bought the album on Amazon because ‘fans understood that purchasing MP3s would directly support the music and career of a musician they liked’. (One wonders though, wouldn’t the ‘fans’ buy the album from NIN’s website rather than from Amazon?). It’s like the Radiohead model all over again (didn’t NIN invent that basic model anyway?) but now even better! The same article makes the suggestion that small indie record labels could probably profit from this model too: use that dedicated fan base that does not mind to pay a little extra money to support their favorite artists.
It looks like we might be slowly returning to the old Maecenas system, or Maecenate, when it comes to culture, flourishing as it did in the old Rome of Virgil and Horace, and still visible today in many a countries’ subsidy system, stimulating (historically) mostly the so called ‘high arts’ which in some cases and some countries have known some kind of patronage or state subsidy for ages (the Dutch system is a good example in this respect).
What seems clear however is that this new digital Maecenic culture will be quite different in many respects from so called subsidy systems. It will be way more ‘democratic’ for one, no longer favoring art picked out by committees of wise experts but directly benefiting those chosen by the public to merit their money. It will also not be a ‘traditional’ Maecenic culture in which a few rich people out of philanthropy and the goodness of their hearth give their money to the arts or the projects they endorse. This new Maecenic culture will probably be upheld by large communities of people of all income classes, all offering a little money to support their favorite band, artist or cultural entrepreneur (think of those small labels again).
Now is this a bad development? Does this mean that, might such a system in the future prevail, all art should be foremost about marketing, about creating a sustainable community and those with the most fans get the most money? Not necessarily. Sure there will be large communities supporting crappy artists, but as NIN shows (which although definitely a big band you will find harder to categorize as ‘mainstream’ like you might do with for instance Radiohead, and by the way, both bands have been credited with making qualitatively high and good music according to ‘artistic standards’, whatever they are), ‘alternative’ bands can also make an income this way, maybe supplementing this new kind of business model with added value products, merchandising and intensive touring, so it does surely also offer possibilities for those small little indie pearls out there.
Finally, and I will go in to this some more in the future for sure: could this model work for books? Why not? Some have tried already: Cory Doctorow is one of the most successful examples of this model. He has given his books away for free for years already and has made a lot of money with this scheme. The difference between music and books in this day and age of course being that the made the profit from his printed books, whilst the digital versions are available for free online. And a lot of these print sales can be explained by the by some felt ‘awful screen reading experience’. But with the rise of digital books and with Kindle editions being available of a growing amount of various book titles, competition will begin to rise between free digital books and paid for digital content in this segment of the media market too. And why not help out good old Cory and his mates by sponsoring them in the good old Roman way, thanking them for their generous sharing of their cultural creations in an alternative way? I know some artists who would like such a model…. Interesting times, interesting developments….
Recent Comments