#withoutreference

[pigeon-drawrs]

https://www.instagram.com/pigeon.drawrs

[everintheshadows]

#Proud : Day 24 of #28portraitchallenge I feel like the idea of standing proud normally means you look down on the camera. Although that starts to get mixed in with words such as pride, and arrogance. If you position a portrait for the idea “proud” how you would do it? Keen to hear some ideas! ________ 🎼Ame . . . ________ #portrait #portraitpainting #concept #withoutreference #proudness #standproud #drawing #illustration #emotions #eyes (at Sydney, Australia) https://www.instagram.com/p/CLtMIongtdj/?igshid=13bwa60c9gghv

[lacronicadeloesteblr]

Retrato realista de Sergos. Retrato a grafito. A4. (Diario de Sergos) En esta ocasión, he dibujado a Sergos sin una imagen de referencia, solo usando mis recuerdos. Realistic portrait of Sergos. Portrait in graphite. A4. (Sergos's Journal) On this occasion, I drew Sergos without a reference image, only using my memories. Darma inn meldus, temin, oldo, emdo inn. #ercleon #ercleonlore #arte #art #fantasía #fantasy #artistoninstagram #miarte #myart #miestilodearte #myartstyle #artoninstagram #dibujo #draw #dibujorealista #realisticdraw #sinreferencia #withoutreference #grafito #graphite #dibujoagrafito #graphitedrawing #diario #jaurnal https://www.instagram.com/p/CDI8LKXqKjO/?igshid=5d5lxhjyh08y

[dtrmyarou]

#doodle#doodles#linework#manga(?)#cartoon#drawing#sketchy##boii#withoutreference#imdoingitinthewrongway#drawing

[rangmisal-kalakar24]

#today #rangoli #2hrs #continuous #hardwork #withoutreference #1stcompetitionoftheseason #2017 #balgangadhartilak #shivolim

[kptquiesel]

Ok sorry for the shitty pic, but it's a #wip and I will make that look great. It's #link from #zelda he chases a #chicken little bit #zombie in my #fanart yes hope you like it! If you do feel free to comment or like it that would make me happy! 😊 which Zelda game did you play in the last time? #nintendo #animalloving #game #quillustration #supermilich #art #comic #artsy #instaart #sketch #sketchaday #draw #draweveryday #withoutreference (hier: Stubenhocker Fürth)

[mohammadt2300]

Best one yet! Meet Ally.

[vivis-art-it]

🧝🏻‍♀️Sorry for not posting in a while.🧝🏻 Exams are pretty stressful at the moment. I hope you like it. Which slide do you like most? #magic #elves #ocdrawing #procreate #art #drawing #fantasy #fantasyart #drewaguy #maledrawing #withoutreference #procreateart #procreateillustration #procreatedrawing #procreatepainting #procreateartwork #sketch #bicolour #magicthegathering #artlover #dandd #dungeonsanddragons #fantasyheadpiece #noreference #noreferenceart #kunst #elfe #artist #magic #fantasyartwork https://www.instagram.com/p/CRqGz99Ba7Z/?utm_medium=tumblr

[reportccs]

Post Internet

Artie Vierkant is an artist active on the Internet and in physical space. His work can be seen at artievierkant.com and in the UbuWeb Film / Video Archive, ubu.com/film/vierkant.htmlPreface Being Post-Internet//This PDF is  to serve as an extended statement of artistic purpose and  critique of our contemporary relation toobjects and images in Post-Internet culture.   More than anything, it poses a survey of contemplations and openquestions on contemporary art and culture after the Internet.“Post-Internet Art” is a term coined by artist Marisa Olson⊘  and developed further by writer Gene McHugh in thecritical blog “Post Internet”⊖  during its activity between December 2009 and September 2010.   Under McHugh'sdefinition it concerns “art responding to [a condition] described as 'Post Internet'–when the Internet is less a noveltyand more a banality.  Perhaps ... closer to what Guthrie Lonergan described as 'Internet Aware'–or when the photoof the art object is more widely dispersed [&] viewed than the object itself.”  There are also several references to theidea of “post-net culture” in the writings of Lev Manovich as early as 2001.⊗Specifically   within   the   context   of   this   PDF,   Post-Internet   is   defined   as   a   result   of   the   contemporary   moment:inherently  informed by  ubiquitous authorship, the development of attention as currency, the collapse of physicalspace in networked culture, and the infinite reproducibility and mutability of digital materials.Post-Internet also serves as an important semantic distinction from the two historical artistic modes with which it ismost often associated: New Media Art and Conceptualism.New Media is here denounced as a mode too narrowly focused on the specific workings of novel technologies,rather than a sincere exploration of cultural shifts in which that technology plays only a small role.  It can therefore beseen   as   relying   too   heavily   on   the   specific   materiality   of   its   media.     Conceptualism   (in   theory   if   not   practice)presumes a lack of attention to the physical substrate in favor of the methods of disseminating the artwork as idea,image, context, or instruction.Post-Internet   art   instead   exists   somewhere   between   these   two   poles.     Post-Internet   objects   and   images   aredeveloped with concern to their particular materiality as well as their vast variety of methods of presentation anddissemination.It  is   important   to  also   note   that   “being  Post-Internet”   is   a  distinction  which  carries   ramifications  beyond   the  artcontext as a societal condition at large, and that it would be antithetical to attempt to pinpoint any discrete momentat which the Post-Internet period begins.  Any cultural production which has been influenced by a network ideologyfalls under the rubric of Post-Internet.  The term is therefore not discretely tied to a certain event, though it could beargued that the bulk of the cultural shifts described herein come with the introduction of privately-run commercialInternet service providers and the availability of personal computers.⊘Régine Debatty, Interview with Marisa Olson,  We Make Money Not Art (2008), http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/archives/2008/03/how-does-one-become-marisa.php⊖Gene McHugh, Post Internetblog (2009-10),http://122909a.com⊗Lev Manovich, Post-Media Aesthetics (2001)//Art is a social object.From the rise of a liberal market economy through the build-up and ubiquity of the “middle class,” art has matchedand excused itself with the social conditions of its production.  The rise of the “industrialized arts” gave way to loftynotions of art-after-object as late capitalism approached, all the while explaining itself as obligated to echo existingcultural conditions rather than move to shape them.  Where are we left now?  Art and arts pedagogy has become so inextricably linked with a variety of interpretations onthe Conceptual art doxa that it would be impossible to argue against any artistic gesture being automatically tied toits reception and the language surrounding it.  At least from a historical perspective, Conceptual art assured its ownlegacy by the overwhelming volume of language produced within and around it at a time when summary-through-language   was   the   easiest   means   of   disseminating   an   object   (profoundly   simpler,   even,   than   reproducing   aphotograph).We find ourselves in radically different times.  Increasingly the majority of both our cultural reception and productionis mediated through some descendant of a Turing machine—taken now both technically and culturally for Turing's“universal machine,” a “single machine which can be used to compute anycomputable sequence.”1   In culturalterms, assuming a certain level of access which does not yet exist in all cases,2 the ubiquity of these devices andtheir massively interconnected nature signifies two realities which are crucial to an understanding of art after theInternet.  First, nothing is in a fixed state: i.e., everything is anything else, whether because any object is capable of becominganother type of object or because an object already exists in flux between multiple instantiations.   The latter is aschema already intuitively arrived at by artists in recent history, prompting writers as diverse as Rosalind Krauss andLev Manovich to proclaim a “Post-Medium Condition”3 and the rise of “Post-Media Aesthetics”4 (Krauss using it as avessel to decry art marooned in medium specificity, what she calls “technical support;” Manovich uses it to offer asketch of how one might categorize different types of art in an environment without traditional notions of “medium”).The former, an art object's lack of fixity in representational strategy, is less often explored.   This is not to say thatartists are not involved in exploring the relationship of many copies and variations of a single object to one another.Artists  like  Oliver  Laric  and  Seth  Price  routinely  present  multiple  variations  of  the  same  object—Laric's  Versionsexists as “a series of sculptures, airbrushed images of missiles, a talk, a PDF, a song, a novel, a recipe, a play, adance routine, a feature film and merchandise,”5 Price's Dispersion “[taking] the form of a widely reproduced essay,an artists’ book, a freely available online PDF, as well as [a] sculpture.”6   These works are emblematic as Post-Internet gestures and have surely been influential in different ways, but step only lightly away from the tautological1Alan Turing, On Computable Numbers, with an application to the Entscheidungsproblem, in Proceedings of the London MathematicalSociety, Series 2 Volume 42(1937)2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_digital_divide3Rosalind Krauss, Reinventing the Medium from Critical Inquiry Volume 25, No. 2 (1999)4Lev Manovich, Post-Media Aesthetics (2001)5The Real Thing, interview with Oliver Laric by Domenico Quaranta, Art Pulse Magazine (2010),http://artpulsemagazine.com/the-real-thing-interview-with-oliver-laric6Lauren Cornell, Seth Price artist page in The New Museum's Free catalogue (2010), http://www.newmuseum.org/free/#sethpricerationale   of   Conceptual   art   (typified   in   Joseph   Kosuth's   1965  One   and   Three   Chairs,   an   arrangement   of   threeversions of the same object, each signifying “chair,” and language surrounding the piece to assert that nothing isbeing missed and the art is in the idea—Kosuth's “Art as Idea as Idea”).  In the Post-Internet climate, it is assumed that the work of art lies equally in the version of the object one wouldencounter at a gallery or museum, the images and other representations disseminated through the Internet andprint publications, bootleg images of the object or its representations, and variations on any of these as edited andrecontextualized by any other author.The less developed stratagem for pointing to a lack of representational fixity isthat of taking an object to be represented (to be more direct, presented) as another type of object entirely, withoutreference to the “original.”  For objects after the Internet there can be no “original copy.”Even if an image or object is able to be traced back to a source, the substance (substance in the sense of both itsmateriality and its importance) of the source object can no longer be regarded as inherently greater than any of itscopies.  When I take a moving image and represent it through an object (video rendered sculpturally in styrofoam forexample), I am positing an alternative method of representation without ever supplying a way to view the source.  Asource video exists.   The idea of a source video exists.   But the way the object is instantiated denies both thenecessity of an original and adherence to the representational norms that follow the creation of “video” as bothtechnical device and terminology.The possibilities for these transformations, alternative methods of viewing “media” which essentially amounts to anarbitrary assemblage of data, has thus far been most thoroughly examined in the field of “information aesthetics,” afield as distanced from Post-Internet art as it is close to design, cartography, and indexing.  Its fault is in its attemptto  encapsulate   large   amounts   of   data—practical   information,   experience—into   an  aesthetic  and   understandableshorthand.  In other words, information aesthetics provides in one object both a representation and the componentswhich make up its source in an attempt to illustrate or arrive at knowledge.   While Conceptualism as outlined byKosuth   may   be   limiting   in   its   reliance   on   art   propositions   as   enclosed   tautological   systems,   its   foundations—delineating progressive art with the same zeal Greenberg applied to ascribing modernism its “purity”7—hold true:“art’s viability is not connected to the presentation of visual (or other) kinds of experience.”8  For us to receive a pieceof art and determine from it some piece of empirical information about the world at large would seem almost abewildering proposition, even in a cultural climate where we have accepted that the singular qualification for themoniker “art” is the intention of any one individual to label it as such.//The second aspect of art after the Internet deals with not the nature of the art object but the nature of its receptionand social presence.To be “progressive” in art is a fundamental impulse which which seems to pervade the majority of our judgements ofthe quality of art propositions.   This leads to the use of such terms as the “avant-garde,” which in the twentiethcentury held as its central project the delineation of a cultural space for art to occupy in relation to “mass media.”However the nature of mass media is now profoundly different, in that we are both its subject and the engine behindit.Attention has always been a currency, but with the proliferation of networking methods and infinitely alterable andreproducible media, that attention has diverged and become split amongst anyone and everyone who wishes to7Clement Greenberg, Modernist Painting (1960)8Joseph Kosuth, Art After Philosophy (1969)seek it.  Fixed (which is to say, physical) media once imposed an economy to the image and object, a value drivenby scarcity which necessitated a one-to-many system of distribution.  Over time this spread and democratization ofimage and object production tools has led to a perpetual iconoclasm, each successive volley of formats breeding anew dogma and its own particular set of aesthetic principles.   Hyperreal tableau photography gives way to thefetishized imperfection of the polaroid, tape hiss is abandoned for ironic autotuning, &c.What has remained through each iconoclasm is an inability to fully break the mentality imposed by a one-to-manysystem of distribution.   The continual use of “They” in language: “They should make a second one, They shouldhave done it this way, They should stop doing this,” &c., can be seen as sort of philosophical litmus test in whichour method of discussing cultural production continually falls short.“They” implies an alienation from production, a continuous deferral to action.  It is a vacant critique, either proposalfor the perpetuation of the same image unchanged (“They should release this on another platform”) or proposal foran iconoclasm which will never take place, the genesis of the proposition being encased entirely in a passive modeof reception.  This deferral is an act which accepts dogma, accepts a dominant image paradigm as an unchangingabsolute rather than the result of a complicated history of new approaches.   “They” venerates this absoluteness,sanctifies   it,   while  its  opposite,   “We,”   postures  towards   the   creation   of   an   alternative   and   constitutes   an   actualschism;   Baudrillard   writes:  “One   can   see   that   the   iconoclasts,   whom   one   accuses   of   disdaining   and   negatingimages, were those who accorded them their true value, in contrast to the iconolaters who only saw reflections inthem and were content to venerate a filigree God.”9Open questions.The use of “We” is not to advocate solely for participatory structures of art but to insist on a participatory view ofculture at large, and ultimately of taking iconoclasm itself as a quotidian activity.  Whereas in previous times it was9Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation (1985)legitimate to conceive of culture as a greater system with impassible barriers to entry and a finitude of possibilities,culture after the Internet offers a radically different paradigm which our “They” idiom does not allow for.  This is notto say that we have entered a fully utopian age of endless possibilities but simply to claim that culture and languageare fundamentally changed by the ability for anyone to gain free access to the same image-creation tools used bymass-media workers, utilize the same or better structures to disseminate those images, and gain free access to themajority of canonical writings and concepts offered by institutions of higher learning.10These   are   conditions   endemic   to   Post-Internet   society,   allowing   for   a   ubiquitous   authorship   which   challengesnotions of the “definitive history” or the “original copy.”  Just as Barthes' proclamation of the “death of the author”isin fact a celebration of the “birth of the reader” and the “overthrow[ing of] the myth,”11 culture Post-Internet is madeup of reader-authors who by necessity must regard all cultural output as an idea or work in progress able to betaken up and continued by any of its viewers.With this comes new issues, though.  As Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker point out, “the mere existence ofnetworks does not imply democracy or equality ... [we] suggest [that] rhizomatics and distribution signal a newmanagement style ... as real as pyramidal hierarchy, corporate bureaucracy, [&c.].”12While art may no longer have to contend with an idea of “mass media” as a fixed, monolithic system, instead it mustnow   deal   with   both   itself   and   culture   at   large   as   a   constellation   of   diverging   communities,   each   fixated   onpropagating and preserving itself.  This condition is espoused in the writings of Nicolas Bourriaud as “constructingarchipelagoes ... a voluntary grouping of islands networked together to create autonomous entities” as a means ofproclaiming that “the universalist and progressive dream that governed modern times is in tatters.”13   ElsewhereCritical Art Ensemble (CAE) explain similar ideas, expressing culture as already beholden to a “bunker” ideology, aself-preserving and replicating tendency towards the formation of specified bureaucratic structures, a tendency CAEpinpoints equally in “community-based art”14  and traditional mass media.  CAE write, “While mass media brings itsviewer the world,the world is also held at bay while the viewer commits h/er gaze to the screen, forever separatedfrom others andfrom communal space”15Increasingly though, mass media and the world of “the screen”  is  our communal space.   And with it comes newfragments with their own particular hierarchies.  As reader-authors navigating these fragments, where now would wefind a space within which to delineate “art”?  Or, if the new “mass media” is as distributed and varied as our socialnetworks themselves, and in fact driven by them, is that delineation even necessary?  Ironically, the most radical and“progressive” movements of the Post-Internet period would be those who either pass by either largely unnoticeddue   to   a   decision   to   opt   out   of   any   easily-accessible   distribution   networks,   or   else   would   be   composed   of   acommunity of people producing cultural objects not intended as artistic propositions and not applying themselveswith the label of artist.1610The majority of texts researched in preparation for and cited within this writing are available as free PDFs on the Internet through somecombination of Google searches, AAAARG.org and Gigapedia.com.  For more see this interview with Sean Dockray, founder ofAAAARG.org, The Public School, Telic Arts Exchange, and more: http://127prince.org/2010/10/04/sean-dockray-interview-by-randall-szott/11Roland Barthes, The Death of the Author (1967)12Alexander Galloway and Eugene Thacker, The Exploit p.13 & 39 (2007)13Nicolas Bourriaud, The Radicant p.185 (2009)14Critical Art Ensemble, On Electronic Civil Disobedience p.39 (1996)15ibid., p.3716For a case study in a networked community engaged in artistic production without adherence to self-proclamation as “artists” see BradTroemel's anonymously released essay What Relational Aesthetics Can Learn from 4Chan (2010), http://www.artfagcity.com/2010/09/09/img-mgmt-what-relational-aesthetics-can-learn-from-4chan///The “bunker” of art and artist persists, however.   The goal of some Post-Internet practices is to engage with thisproliferation of  images and  objects—“general  web  content,”17  items  of  culture created  without  necessarily  beingdescribed as art—and proclaim an authorial stance by indexing / curating these objects.   These projects are aswide-ranging as Jon Rafman's “Nine Eyes of Google Street View” project18 and some of the earlier works done bySurf Clubs19 and their participants, among them Guthrie Lonergan who was one of the first artists to release worksin the form of YouTube playlists.   Artists after the Internet thus take on a role more closely aligned to that of theinterpreter, transcriber, narrator, curator, architect.This is often broadly ascribed to traditions of artists dealing with the banal, the everyday: “surfing as art” articulatingquotidian Internet-user “tactics”20  or the artists acting, essentially, as ethnographers who would chart and explainthe new variety of images found within visual culture.21  I would argue for a slightly different case.In his essay On the New, Boris Groys writes:...   art   can   [become   unusual,   surprising,   &c.]   only   by   tapping   into   classical,   mythological,   andreligious   traditions   and   breaking   its   connection   with   the   banality   of   everyday   experience.   Thesuccessful   (and   deservedly   so)   mass   cultural   image   production   of   our   age   concerns   itself   withattacks   by   aliens,   myths   of   apocalypse   and   redemption,   heroes   endowed   with   superhumanpowers, and so forth. All of this is certainly fascinating and instructive. Once in a while, though, onewould like to be able to contemplate and enjoy something normal, something ordinary, somethingbanal as well. ... In life, on the other hand, only the extraordinary is presented to us as a possibleobject of our admiration.22But just as any object is conceivably any other object, our ubiquitous authorship marks a point in cultural productionat which the extraordinary is now also the ordinary—the myth is also the everyday.  In many of my video works, Imake a point to appropriate imagery from recent popular films, mass media spectacles made with all of the fervorand resolution of an empire that only partially realizes its own decay.  The striking thing about these images is nottheir content but their availability and the context within which they are now received.  Where once an experience ofcinema was that of receiving an absolute, fixed icon—a definitive copy, inaccessible and precious—that is now farfrom the case.  Cinema now becomes encapsulated, transferrable and transformable in the same vain as everythingelse, a “file” to be treated with all the levity we reserve for any other file.The images I deal with in my work, authentic unauthorized copies of spectacle films, thus represent the absolutecollapse of the mythological and the quotidian into a single indistinguishable whole.The   goal   of   organizing   appropriated   cultural   objects   after   the   Internet   cannot   be   simply   to   act   as   a   didacticethnographer but to present microcosms and create propositions for arrangements or representational strategieswhich have not yet been fully developed.  Taking a didactic stance amounts to perpetuating a state of affairs of artpositioned in contradiction to an older one-to-many hierarchy of mass media.  For the new hierarchies of many-to-many production, the cultural status of objects is now influenced entirely by the attention given to them, the waythey are transmitted socially and the variety of communities they come to inhabit.Thus in the same way that all cultural images and objects become general—the film Independence Day being notdissimilar in homogeneity and degree of spectacle from any individual's photos of their newborn child on Facebook—so too does  the authorial stance  of  the artist  become  general.    Any  sorting  of  images or  aspects  of  culture,applied with a declaration or narrative gesture, becomes not dissimilar to our experience of everyday life, regardless17http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=site:rhizome.org+%22general+web+content%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=1bde53b2ade8e60318http://www.googlestreetviews.com19See Marcin Ramocki's Surf Clubs: organized notes and comments (2008), http://ramocki.net/surfing-clubs.pdf20A term adopted from Michel de Certeau's L'invention du Quotidien (1980)21See Hal Foster's The Archive Without Museums (1996)22Boris Groys, On the New (2002)of the degree to which the images are spectacular.  What comes to matter is not that an artist has presented someaspect of the spectacle and how it fits neatly into some aspect of a linear historical trajectory.  What matters is thatin the presentation they have created a proposition towards an alternate conception of cultural objects.//If,   in   Post-Internet   culture,   artistic   production   must   deal   with   arrangements   and   representations   of   images   andobjects taken from any cultural context, how do we conceive of sorting the artists themselves?  How do we judgethe spaces in which this work is exhibited, on the Internet and off?As Lauren Christiansen writes, “with today’s burgeoning potential for digital mass viewership, transmission becomesas important as creation. Contemporary online artists are aware of this fact and seek to actively make use of itspotential.”23   As artists come to self-sort and form international communities based on mutual investigations, it isabsurd to think of being able to act with any curatorial agency in selecting from the vast array of “contemporaryartists” without being in some way tied directly to those artists' social networks.  The methods of transmission theseartists use become imbricated with the work they create, who accesses it, and the spaces they ultimately show in.  This is a complicated turn, as communities are for the moment more likely to form based on aesthetic principlesthan conceptual or ideological ones.   Whether these aesthetic principles mean a preference for sleek geometricshapes with gradient overlays or mean a preference for a particular blogging platform, the underlying segmentationis the same.  Posting an image of a gradient implicates an artist within a particular aesthetic mindset in the sameway that having a Tumblr adheres an artist to a particular format of transmission.  In either case, the architecture ofthe Internet—an arrangement of language, sound, and images in which imagery is the most dominant, immediatefactor—helps facilitate an environment where artists are able to rely more and more on purely visual representationsto convey their ideas and support an explanation of their art independent of language.   This is a crucial point ofdeparture   from   recent   art   history,   as   arguably   it   marks   an   abandonment   of   language   and   semiotics   as   basemetaphors for articulating works of art and our relationship to objects and culture.24This should come as little surprise as, especially after the Internet, the far more instantaneous and safe method ofcommunication is through imagery.  Dealing with language can too forcibly illustrate the thoughts behind an image,or belittle a work if the text is not as clever or aesthetic as the image itself.   Language can also be excruciatinglylimiting for those who trained to think beyond the fixity of “mediums,” especially as the involvement of language inmost average Internet use comes down to having a keen memory for appropriate search terms, keywords, tags: asimple but nevertheless grossly limiting architecture.23Lauren Christiansen, Redefining Exhibition in the Digital Age (2010)24Haim Steinbach describes his relationships to objects as such: “objects, commodity products, or art works have functions for us that are notunlike words, language. We invented them for our own use and we communicate through them”—interviewed by Joshua Decter, Journal ofContemporary Art (1993), http://www.jca-online.com/steinbach.htmlDeprecated tagsFurther, it marks a denigration of objects and our relationship to space: if an object before us in a gallery is only oneof an infinite multitude of possible forms that object could take, its value to the viewer becomes little more than acuriosity.  The viewer can judge it only by visually and conceptually relating it to every other project they are aware ofby said artist and the other artists within their aesthetic community.The strategy employed by myself and others towards this physical relationship has been to create projects whichmove seamlessly from physical representation to Internet representation, either changing for each context, built withan intention of universality, or created with a deliberate irreverence for either venue of transmission.  In any case, therepresentation through image, rigorously controlled and edited for ideal viewing angle and conditions, almost alwaysbecomes the central focus.  It is a constellation of formal-aesthetic quotations, self-aware of its art context and builtto be shared and cited.It becomes the image object itself

[xibivisualarte]

Deseño. caneta nanquim. 2015. 

#artprotagonist #artantagonist #drawmoviment #girlsdrawinggirls #canetananquim #nanquim #withoutreference #freedraw #blackgirlsinart 

[couryielle]

but when will we get to meet horufionurlorrimeulineamaratulankritunah vantamporerketaryamakarmegicapeixahhakeijonitramyrope, the ancestor of tavrisoleriterezepetamzeequiuradikarnayaferi vantamporerketaryamakarmegicapeixahhakeijonitamyrope