Imperial Clothing by Donald Frazell – Part 1

Donald Frazell has allowed me to publish his article on art, culture and America. I’ll publish it in several posts though as it’s more lengthy than a usual post.

Donald is opinionated and happy to criticize the establishment, but they’re attributes that should be encouraged.

Imperial Clothing by Donald Frazell

Marketing The Cult of Individualism
This basically sums up the state of “Art” in America. Why? Because as with the Romans and British before us, America is a place of commerce, engineers and industry. We are a practical people, with one great genius. Selling a product. Coca Cola, Chevrolet, or the NFL, our marketing leads the world. It takes what it can use, from evangelism in religion, to music from our ethnic populations, to modernism for advertising; business brings to the world what it can convince them they need.

How has this affected Art in our country? From a weak history in visual arts, we institutionalized Art in academia. Fine Arts catered to the wealthy, bringing them the sense of luxury they required. Our crafts were democratized, simplified forms from countries of cultural birth, gaining a simple grace and sturdiness. On the streets and countryside, the arts of common people blended, taking from their neighbors what they could use, adapted to new environments, and flourished. Music, dance, furniture, housing, and house ware all grew and took on new character. The Fine Arts continued to emulate Europe, and also weak copies of arts from Asia. Only in the new fields of film and photography did we create new forms, ones that influenced the rest of the world. With our emergence as a superpower after WWII we convinced ourselves of our superiority, that our culture, and therefore our Art, must lead the world.

We created truly great collecting institutions in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Museum of Modern Art, and private collections from the Frick in New York City, to the later Norton Simon in Los Angeles. In the post war era, every city wanted a Guggenheim to promote its greatness, and, of course, market for business and tourism. We went on a building binge, architects from around the globe vying for commissions to create the newest edifice proclaiming civic pride, and individual immortality. Museums, as with NFL stadiums, are selling their naming to the highest bidder, ensuring commercial sales in the sports venues, and personal immortality in all the Arts. For Art is believed to be eternal. Marketing genius.

What to put in this exploding acreage of empty wall space? Most of the great Art of the world had already been bought, or stolen. From the collections of Morozov and the Steins, to the Elgin Marbles of empire, and grave robbers from around the world. As artists like Van Gogh and Matisse became known, celebrity reigned with the explosion of media during the twentieth century. A vast new source of material became available, as investment, and speculation, making even the worst study or sketch of “name” artists valuable. New “schools” vied for attention to be documented, promoted, and sold. A new industry was born. The old Academy had been destroyed by the Post Impressionists. Now, everything was fair game, no standards to be created, fought against, or reformed.

Mega shows blossomed in the 1970s, after the success of the King Tut traveling exhibit, just as the supply of new creative arts was drying up. Hype, and attendance money, ruled the day. Cézannes apple had been sliced into such small slivers, there was no substance left to Modern Art. Pop, disposable art born of media, and psychological fetishes took over. Horrible shows proliferated. Ads promoting the glories of Picasso raged at many Museums, based around one quality piece to be reproduced ad nauseum as bait. The rest of the show comprising of a few mediocre pieces, and a lot of trash. For while no artist ever created as much significant work as Picasso, no one created, and preserved, as much garbage also. And collectors, read speculators, have wares to hawk, and increase their investments worth. Minimalist navel contemplating exhibits “filled” nearly empty galleries, eye stimulating and mind numbing op art flourished. Pop posters enlarged from the newest rags were plopped on walls. Supposedly shocking sexual art, illustrating self-loathing and perversion, totally lacked in sensuality. The harder they tried to be “new” the more they seemed childish rantings. And critics wrote volumes about the supposed glories of exhibitionism, and pseudo-intellectual games about viewer-artist-gallery-museum-blahblahblah-relationships All to get attention for themselves, for career, and $.

Museum budgets expanded, fundraising exploded, monies from membership and museum shops became means of revenue, no longer education and appreciation. Advertising campaigns to bring in new viewers grew, special shows drew hordes, earphones attached telling them what to think and feel, explaining the artists motives and emotions, when such things are truly irrelevant. With rising insurance costs, tickets became exorbitant, and museums competed to get shows. Where taped messages led the masses to buying trinkets and posters demonstrating ones good taste in Museum stores. They had to compete with forms of entertainment, and so, became it. And people missed truly significant works.

One example, from the 1980s, was the second Van Gogh show at the Met. It was a truly wonderful show, having many of his works from Arles and with Gauguin. But as the hordes fought in bunches before the paintings, viewing by number from the audio stuck in their ear, not thinking for themselves, a truly significant show right next to it was virtually unattended. Two rooms held the complete watercolors of Cézanne. His works influenced the century as no other, the watercolors having particular inspiration on post war work. But as the hype machine had focused on the Van Gogh show, no one attended. Three times I viewed it, no more than two others in the room each time. Marketing told the public to come and see this one show, huge lines and hefty ticket prices kept people focused strictly on the special “event”. For people had disposable cash, and had been taught to appreciate art as a commodity, whether they understood it or not. The purpose of art never having been explained, the Trivial Pursuit generation saw all things to be used, to entertain, and personal desires given primacy. Not the accumulated knowledge of man, to be added to ones appreciation for life.

Read Part 2 of Imperial ClothingRead Part 3 of Imperial Clothing by Donald Frazell

About Dion

Australian artist and observer of things.. all kinds of things. I like a wide variety of art, from the weird and wonderful to the bold and beautiful.. and everything in between.


  1. Anonymous says:

    America’s only lasting contribution to the visual arts is cinema. Only America can make an American blockbuster like America does.

  2. dfimagery says:

    Actually, a good case can be made for photography as well, and that Paul Strand and Edward Weston wre the Cezannes of the silver print. Europeans were much better at human drama rather than natures forms of truth in chaos. Euros got the soul of man, from Cartier Bresson to Andre Kertesz. Just as Brits are best at stage drama, internal strive, each country and culture has its strengths and weaknesses.

    And Jazz is the twentieth century’s music. Europena music tried to adapt to modernism with radical time signatures and atonal, which wre adopted in some cases by advanced jazzmen, but could never get the structure and rhythm of the modern world. While Armstrong is the link between the aspt and future, as was Cezanne, Matisse lived through Miles Davis, and Picasso through Parker/Coltrane. Its time is over as well, sadly. Most now being dead.

    But times are a changing. I wrote this article in January, and the world has altered forever since then. This was the past, the future is about to be writeten, and is NOT in the garbage and self involved decadence of the last forty years.

    Search our human history, and feel what is occuring as we speak. Art is needed, now as much as when Modernism began, as it brought current scientific and natural truths into the realms of the human spirit. For Art replaced philosophy and religion, forces that were considered completely at odds could do battle on canvas, and resolved themselves, as we could see and feel what were seemingly diametrically opposed and contradictory ideas were all one and the same. It was the questions that needed upgrading. We have reached that point again. Now is the time.

  3. “Fine Arts catered to the wealthy, bringing them the sense of luxury they required.”

    Hasn’t fine art always catered to the wealthy? From my understanding of art history and movements, that hasn’t really changed.

    “Cézanne. His works influenced the century as no other”

    is it not true though that it took time for people to recognize this, just as it will take hindsight to recognize how contemporary artists influence the future?

    “But as the hype machine had focused on the Van Gogh show, no one attended.”

    Could it not be argued that when the hype machine focuses on a Cezanne show other influential works in a museum collection are virtually ignored?

    I mean I know what you are getting at regarding block buster shows and the machinery behind it at the expense of art appreciation, right? That is what you are referring to??

    What this first part leaves me wondering is this. Has any society ever really appreciated art? Are not some of your arguments against current art similar to the one’s made by art critics such as John Ruskin.

    well have to buzz, it is bedtime.

    Hope you don’t mind me sharing my humble thoughts and opinion :)


  4. donald frazell/ says:

    Not at all, I may be arrogant, but I aint stupid.LA is as frontin as it gets. NYC has lowered its values too miss having good debates, which is why it is so difficult in LA no one wants to make waves, its all about being “cool” But being cool means being you and knowing stuff without forcing it, only the OC is worse.

    Cezanne WAS extremely well known at the time of his death, to the public as well as artist, who followed him far earlier. His retrospective in 1907 created huge waves Picasso saw it and took one of his bathers as a direct composition for Demoseilles. one of his smaller five bather paintings, an near exact duplication of poses. But as Picasso said, we all steal, we all are collectors in our heads, but it is not plagarism, as its impact and emotional intentions were completely different.The Impressionist came to eventualy rule, it took a decade or two, but contemporary art has had four decades, adn failed miserably. Name me ONE artist who will be known as more than a social footnote in one hundred years.
    we are at the end of a gilded age, same as in the late nineteenth century.
    I do like Anselm Kiefer, he took his peoples history, and made it humanities concern, not by political dogma and individual particulars, but to the huge emotional damage and horror of what had happened, getting straight to the heart of darkness. To steal from ConradHere, Hockney his created some beautiful works, once he jettisoned his old stiff nbeurotic style, and after doing stage design, followed Matisses way, with beautiful color cutouts. His drawing sucks, yet gets applauded, incredible..
    After Johns and Rauschenberg, not much has happened, but the followng generations took the obviousnes sof their work, not the heart, and made silly statements, but nothing comes from nothing. Artsits are horribly ignorant now, no real education, I ama history major, and almost all true artists started as something else first, and so learned something about the world. few if any ever graduated from a inward looking self adulatory art school. The world is out thee, you cant create equivalents of it without first understanding it. Schools are all self inclosed places for study of data. artist dont do that, we grow and learn in the real world, or not at all. school.

    Fine art is and always ahs been sepearate from creative art, which is why thre is so nmuch confusion. People bought things like Maurice Denis during the early 20th century, only afew bought Matisse and Picasso, jsut about no one Gaurguin, til he died. Rather average people bought their works, except morozov and schukinga dn the Steins for the picassos adn Matisse works. But may others were middle class people, works was cheap. You did not have this horrible business climate focused on sales we have now, it was very political and in major newspapaers constantly, as political groups sided with one artist trend or another. no one does now, as artist have no insights into the deepest heart of humanity, we are hollow, surface, privileged decadence, and so strictly for the upper classes, not those who really get the work done. It is defanged, with a few rather obvious political cartoons and posters, harmless realy, jsut teh signs of immaturity, not stubborn responsibility, seeing taht truth lies everywhere, not jsut with them. Easy to dismiss, as it is childishness.

    And blockbusters are fine, but crticsi instead of asskissing need to give real reviews, that Cezanne exhibit was FAR more important than even van goghs. It was amazing, adn missed completely. Sad. Retards.The professions critc class I mean, they are al looking to make a living, not love what they are reviewing, except as an excuse to hobnob with the wealthy, anddn party. Stealing from that tiny punk Prince, we have partied like its 1999 for decades. The party is over.

  5. “ame me ONE artist who will be known as more than a social footnote in one hundred years.”

    Vermeer went unnoticed and was forgotten for 200 years and only came to attention when an art critic wrote an essay about him. So I think it depends on how one evaluates the legacy of work in 100 years time.

    While I agree there is a lot of hollow art, I remember reading Ganguin and his buddies making the same remarks about the current art.

    While I agree that art is a mega business that promotes sales and investment first there are some fabulous artists out there quietly getting on with it and creating work that is deep and from the heart and soul.

    I do agree
    there is an element that is often missed in art schools. Passion. Oh yes there are some students who have it, but I found that many were more in love with the idea of being an artist.Having that burning passion transcends everything.

    Still I am not sure I go along with your assessment of contemporary art. There are always farewells to gilded ages and new one’s coming along. Just as Cezanne and impressionists marked a new era and an end to a gilded age, so too are contemporary artists. One may not like them, just as many despised the impressionists during their lifetime, but they are making their mark too. However I don’t think traditionalists will ever accept them.

  6. donaldfrazell/dfimagery says:

    Gauguins comments were about thos like the contemporary artists of today, its a joke when these art school types lie in lofts, renovated luxury pads, and want to seem creative. Artists always work in isolation, only when actually poor do they have to find cheap abodes, and usualy far from one another.
    Again, name me one relevant contemporary artist, besides the three i have mentioned. There are quality professionals, fine artists doing nice wallpaper, like Jim Dine. Fewer and fewer it seems. Contemporary art is making ridiculous money, for garbage, jsut as the post impressionist rebelled against. None gradauted from an art school, all the contemporary artists of the late nineteenth century did. THATS the comparison. Art has been ignored because of its irrelevancy, but now, things are changing, and real concerns are at hand. We must adapt, quickly, and find new values, art is part of that process, and msut step up. But msut jettison the baggage of the past decades. Ones of idleness, and sloth. decadence.
    Art is about We, not I.
    It is time for the strong to step up, making art for teh strong, the opposite has been the case. And true strength, like intelligence and goodness, crosses class lines.

  7. donaldfrazell/ says:

    By the way, I am not being facetious, I am truly curious. I have been out of the art world for twelve years raising my kids. The last year i have hit almost evrey gallery in LA, adn my god thre are dozens of them out there, ones for the rich, vanity galleries for rich kids, and those which are more stores for home decor.
    I simply havent seen anything but more of the same, only worse. Stagnation. Self worship. Boring. If someone out there is good, PLEASE let me know. Been to the arts showcase at Santa Monica airport, all old stuff, or whatever new marketable trash is making the rounds. Like pop music, the artist is expendable, and easily replaceable to bring up newer cheaper produce, the producer run the business.
    But times have changed completely, and art MUST reflect growth in society, who we are, how we wil continue to build on the past, and not collapse in anarchy. For there is no chaos in nature, but there is in mans soul.

  8. Donald, I know you won’t agree with me, but Lucian Freud will without doubt be celebrated in 100, 200 and 500 years time (assuming our planet doesnt get tired of the parasites running all over it). His art is timeless.

    I think the (now dead) English painter Euan Uglow did some great work (he doesnt seem to be so famous though).

    Peter Doig may last.
    Georg Baselitz might.
    I hope Anselm Kiefer does.
    Jenny Saville does some good stuff too.

    There’s really only ever a handful of artists remembered from every period of art, and I think we have a handful of artists that are worthy of being remembered, so that’s all we need ;-)

  9. donald frazell says:

    I did agree with you Dion, Freud is of his time, defines who we are, or more precisely, who the Brits are. it carries over some, but more of your culture tahn ours or teh worlds. It is good, and will be noted for centuries, if museums still exist then. But limited. Like a George Grolsz.
    Kiefer is somewhat more successful, even though working with strictly teutonic symbols and history, but most good artists do. Braque was strictly French in language, Ruffino Tamayo native Mexican. Yet both took their cultures into the realm of total humanity, and can be felt and comprehended in any culture, by those who are sensitive to visual communication. For not al are. Some are better with words and either prose or verse. Some music, some cooking, sculpture, architecture, stage, gardens, or any other forms of human endevore, stretching our human limitations, with passion.
    Baselitz always looked like upside down Kirchners, a one trick pony, as was the guy who painting the screaming Titan pope witha side of beef behind him. Damn I forget names, getting old I guess.
    Dont know the others will check them out.
    Yes, little has happened, becasue teh fundamentals of whowe are have not changed much in the last fifty years. Technology has made things faster adn easier to retrieve information,but our ability to process it has not grown much, perhaps retreated as we are inundated with info, most of it useless.
    Huge groups of artist come about not because of individual talent, but changes in our hman world. The ancient Hellenes, renaisance, modernism, jazz from armstrong on til Miles retired the first tmie in the 1970s. That is by far the most underappreciated form of art in human history, by the “intelligentsia” anyway. The rest of us get it. Feel it. Can flow with it. Other than that it has always been isolated artist, Velazquez, Goya, but all accompanied some at least local cultural change.
    And theses are jsut Euro cultures, i love japaneses screens adn scrolls from teh Early shogun age on, prints are overated adn water down versions. I love the rebuilt lodges from Indonesia at teh Met, very spiritual, you feel nature and the eternal, as with precolumbian Americas,what has survived of African art, most were made of perishable substances, adn lsot much. Jewelry from scythia, I ama world history major, adn art taht connects us to life is everywhere. But now we are far too connected to stuff, and our tiny craniums filled with electronic junk. The teenagers now are a mess, jumpy, addicted to nonstop stimulation and instant gratification. We all wer but not like this, as a parent and mentor I have to slow them down, get their tortured passions in check so they can grow. Marketing scum, selling them crap, so their souls dont develop. They are rebelling against it now, not wanting to be little goerge bushes, but it is so damn hard being a father now. I lost one son, but gained others.
    As to the vemeer business, I looked him up in my ancient Encylopedia Brittanica. He did well in his lifetime, was voted master of his guild twice, but died with dozens of unsold artworks, and left his wife in financial trouble. thats sad. But reality for most. His works diappeared as far as his name, he didnt sign many, but were known and thought to be by other paintesr, so his work lived. Thats all that matters, besides making enough money to survive and work. who cares about being “immortal”? As an artist, I jsut want to add something, make life intense,mfeel it fully. Being famous is far from what i want, I want to be left alone and work, and be with those I love. Vermeer did well, and has always been appreciated, if under others names.

  10. Other than his pictures of the queen, I think Freud is a world artist. He paints his own backyard but it’s a backyard that could be almost anywhere.

    I like Grosz too, but I think he’s a minor artist compared to Freud. But I do put Lucian on a pedestal.. so you know my opinions are distorted.

    Baselitz might be a one trick pony but he’s an interesting pony. I love ponies that make paintings that look like paintings. I want paint thrown on, splashed around and dripping off the canvas.

    The guy that painted the screaming pope was Francis Bacon. He’s an interesting little pony too ;-)

    In regards to over-stimulation and advertising and where society is heading, I really recommend the movie called “Idiocracy” It’s a stupid movie but there’s so much truth in it.

  11. Donald Frazell says:

    Already raised a bunch of teenagers, dont need to see anymore manipulation by marketers, that set is highly susceptible, and they know it.

    I dont get Baselitz, turn them right side up adn they are jsut run of the mill expressionist stuff, nothing interesting, I dont feel any insight into man, jsut a guy painting upside down people.

    Bacon did like three good paintings. Made his rep on them. Not like say, diebenkor, who we talked about. He made most his money off that one style, the Ocean Park series, but his drawing is excellent, made good prints too, far better than your other British buddy, Hockney. But do like his paintings once he opened up to color, and stopped the stiff and neurotic drawing.
    Love Tamayo too, the Mexican Braque, but thsoe guys are really Modern painters, no contemporary, and Hockney really went back to Modernism to become a good artist.
    I really believe the only reason Modernism died, was the marketing of it, you ahd to come up witha signature style taht everyoen would know immediately, or so the critics and gallery owners said. They wouldnt deal witha Picasso, too many styles, gives thema headache.
    Cut options and experimenting, I do disagree with your boy Hughes about the shock of the new, that was to the audience, but nnot what the painters were going for. But were forced to do by the market later. Thats what killed it. it is stil relevant especially now. We need to go back to our roots, in all its forms, adn look at great art and then our own, do we measure up? If it does not illcit the same level of emotion, and tegrated intelligence, not dumb mind games like Duchamp, then it is a failure adn move on, as Cezanne said when he placed his hands together backward, fingers interlaced, there can be no holes. Even open canvas as he used towards the end is not a hole, but the stuff I see now is nothingut. Stripped of relationships, art is just decoration.t needs layers of different organs, sinew, nerve endings skin, and bone, to become alive. Matisses Red Dessert is the most alive painting I havever seen, it takes over a room. Stuff these days just sits thereDeadthings.

  12. Donald Frazell says:

    You ARE a Brit, aren’t you?:) These painters all have much in common, psychological drama, comes with the English pedigree, from Shakespeare on, all the best in British art has been playwrites and works that delve into mans inner being. Even adopted sons, like Conrad and Freud. Like Hemingway said about Conrad, his writing is all wrong, but is so right. Being Polish and English after his teens, his language was awkward, but got deep into mans psyche. Even Coppola couldnt mess it up too much in Apocaplypse Now, as visual as the story was literary. ALMOST works.

    Most of these works are centered, in vast space, with limited color, drawn and layered in lines, and blobs of earthtone. Isolated, alone, like Giacommetti, but my favorite English painter by far is Turner, pure drama in swirls of color, and the 18 th centuryl andscape guy, damn my memory is going. His works shouldnt work, but do. The Huntington had some of their works, and the Frick in NYC had alot of great Turners.
    Try Goyas last works, all earthtone, and with fear and passion, but usually offset, with masses ballancing the isolated figures, like Dog in Quicksand, and Maid and Bed.

    Me? Too American, love big and movement and music, and French, need color, harmonies of richness, as rich as humanly tolerable, before exploding into chaos. Layered, and finding the order in what some may consider anarchy, as Cezanne said, when color is at its richest, form is at its fullest. And love to experiment, far too much for these conservative, scary gallery people, who want predictability to market.

    I can see where you are coming from, and like alot of it, but still, leaves me missing much. As I said, I am looking for god, what makes us what we are, these artists seek our fears, and vulnerabilities, I am far too aggressive for that. But they are legit.

  13. Am I a Brit? I’m Australian.
    I’m going through a stage where I seem to like a few Brit artists though.

    I have very eclectic tastes and like all the artists you mentioned Donald.

    Also, my opinion is that if youre looking for god in art you have to be holding your tools of trade more often than not. The paintings left behind are mere footprints in the sand.. they can be a recorded conversation with god.. but I have never seen god in a finished painting.

    I guess it all depends on your definition of god though.

  14. donald frazell says:

    Again, it is our concept of god, of the eternal of what is lifes meaning for man, taht is always arts goal. Always has been, the particular dogmas or name of god is irrelevant, it changes with time, so must art. This also means the concept of who we area s a people, Modern art took us on as a race, our entire planet, not jsut Europe, or Asia, or one culture within it.
    One msut be true to ones own upbringing, so one must create from what one knows, not fantasy. But the best artists are the ones who can make it universally felt, for art is passion, and that passion must be for mans growth, as we are all part of it, not just ones persons desire for power or glory or eternal life. Those are meaningless. For we all return to the dust from where we came. Its what we left behind to move man forward that counts, not our name or personal economic well being. Great art surpasses that, as can nature itself. Anyone who doesnt feel extreme and similar passions entering Yosemite Valley as when under the Sistine ceiling simply has no soul. Or is very afraid, for they show we are part of so much more, and fear will make us retreat, embracing our being a small part of so much more should make us ecstatic, and our soul sing.
    But artists are afraid of using such terms theses days, and so is pretty much useless. This is the biggest topic of all to man, yet we avoid it, why? That is the reason for arts downfall, mans materialism cannot save us, we all die. Our coming to terms with our lifes meaning is all, for art in modernism replaced philosophy and religion, to resolve lifes contradictions, which are truly only mans distorted questions. Ask the right questions, and it become apparent, not so much in words, but spirit. Of course, cant say that in the art world theses days either, cowardly not to address wha is so fundamental to man.

  15. donald frazell says:

    I see you also are drawn to a particular color palette, or lack of one. Earthtones only, ones are internalized, very British. But I see black and browns as color, often enrich them with reds and yellows, use greens as Cezanne did to cool, enrichen, and give volume. I like an interior source of light.
    Black is a very strong color, not a background, and can be used to bring forward, not recede or as baclground,. Soulages did this, Matisse, Picasso, as Spaniards are very skilled with earthtones. Use clayreds and dull blues with somber greens often. Picasso definitely had a Spanish color palette, with a French sensibility.. I tend to have an American color palete, with a very French sensibility, as being the only European country with both a northern and mediteranean weather and countryside, they had more of a range of colors and sensibility to light, as when Klee went to Africa and learned color. It is harmony, and Cezanne provided the way to true rhythmic complexity, which Euros lacked. With strong melody of line added, it broke forth. See little of any of this today, weak line, insipid color, no overall flow or rhythm. I like music and poetry first, to trigger ones sensibilities, not trying to illustrate them or document inner turmoil, we all have that, and each must connect o ones own life, and the outside worlds, I see only the illustration of the artist. Boring. No one is more important than anyone else.
    Here in California we are similar to france, we have both, and dessert. But have used color badly oftne, except the earlier painters, as diebenkorn was from the midwest, but appreciated our lgiht, as did Matisse when he saw it. Strange as we have not used the full potential of our weather, usually again internalized and limited, Sam Francis did well, like his prints much better than paintings, which tend to dry out, become muddy in the mind, but why we are so bad, is mind boggling. Probably because of Hollywood, which is based on illusion, and drama, mostly petty. And mistaken quality for box office. And of course, marketing, we are damn good at that.

  16. I think you should just stop going to museums altogether. It’s clearly not working for you. You’ve gone to dozens and still can’t find anything good. OR…alternatively…just move to the Southeast. Maybe some folk art will do you good. Not “made for/by the rich” at all.


  1. [...] is Part 2 of 3 of Imperial Clothing by Donald Frazell. See Part 1 of Imperial Clothing here or Part 3 [...]

  2. [...] is Part 3 of 3 of Imperial Clothing by Donald Frazell. See Part 1 of Imperial Clothing here or Part 2 [...]

Speak Your Mind