Why Ronald Lauder Is Right About Nazi-Looted Art in Museums

 

LISHED IN 2014 BUT NOTHING HAS CHANGED, IN FACT THE SITUATION HAS GOTTEN WORSE,  IT’S AS PERTINENT TODAY, AS ANY LOOTING BY TERRORISTS AND ART THIEVES ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD

In his article titled “Lauder Editorial on Stolen Art and Museums Fails the Glass House Test,” Nicholas O’Donnell attempts to respond to Ronald S. Lauder’s editorial published in the Wall Street Journal on June 30, 2014, titled “Time to Evict Nazi-Looted Art From Museums.”

O’Donnell attempts to find legal shortcomings in Lauder’s editorial, which simply expresses the need for art museums to act responsibly by returning Nazi-looted artwork instead of raising technical defenses and mere pretexts to deny the rights of the claimants.

In his article, O’Donnell refers to the ongoing case brought by Léone Meyer against the University of Oklahoma, among other defendants, to obtain the restitution of La bergère rentrant des moutons (Shepherdess Bringing in Sheep) (Camille Pissarro, 1886), currently on permanent display at the Fred Jones Jr. Museum of Art in Norman, Oklahoma.

Although O’Donnell—counsel to David Findlay, Jr. Gallery, a defendant no longer involved in the case—recognizes that the recent court decision is limited to whether the Oklahoma defendants could be sued in New York, he repeatedly brings up a 1953 Swiss court decision involving Camille Pissarro’s La Bergère as grounds for why Léone Meyer’s claim should fail, and why Mr. Lauder’s argument is baseless.

O’Donnell’s argument fails the common sense test. First, no one disputes that the Nazis stole La Bergère from Léone Meyer’s family.

Second, the 1953 Swiss court decision was not decided based on a late claim, as O’Donnell argues, but was decided against Léone Meyer’s father because he could not prove the “bad faith” of the art dealer who acquired La Bergère after it crossed the Swiss border from France.

Third, prior Swiss decisions involving looted art have long been held as doubtful or baseless in several US jurisdictions. Even the Swiss government itself recognized in 1998 that the deck was stacked against claimants who wanted to file art restitution claims in Switzerland after World War II. New York courts have determined that “Swiss law places significant hurdles to the recovery of stolen art, and almost ‘insurmountable’ obstacles to the recovery of artwork stolen by the Nazis from Jews and others during World War II and the years preceding it.”

Finally, O’Donnell misses the point of Mr. Lauder’s editorial. As French government officials have recently stated in a public forum dedicated to France’s efforts to track and restitute looted art, the time for “clean museums” has come. Hiding behind technicalities and procedural loopholes to delay basic justice, i.e., restitution of looted property, is not morally appropriate, even less so when public institutions are involved.

Ronald Lauder is right. It is time for museums to do the responsible thing. It is time for museums to “clean” their collections of any tainted artwork by returning Nazi-looted artwork.

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/why-ronald-lauder-is-right-about-nazi-looted-art-in-museums

For more details please visit at http://www.albrechtdurerblog.com

What’s the Secrets in a Name?

Did Albrecht Dürer name his prints?

What are the names by which Dürer’s graphic prints are titled?  We can only really know the true meaning of any Dürer print by the title he himself gave it or if the subject matter is obvious on its face (e.g. a print about The Crucifixion).

Dürer produced 334 graphic prints on paper (105 engravings, three dry points, six etchings and 222 woodcuts). We can only be certain of the names of thirteen of all these prints from entries Dürer made in his Diary of his Netherlands Journey (1519). Many of these 13 names have not been respected by historians and are frequently now known by other titles, as labeled by the expert of the day. Thus the probability of the accuracy of these new titles is low, but more importantly, the inaccuracy of the interpretations of the subject matter is high.

ADAM AND EVA

Let’s look at a few examples.

One of Dürer’s most famous prints flashed in front of millions of TV viewers during the opening credits of Desperate Housewives. That print Dürer called Adam und Eva, which you see here:

That is the only name by which this print should be known. Instead, scholars most often refer to this composition as The Fall of Man, imposing an enormous amount of religious, mostly Christian, connotation upon it. That interpretation will never reveal the true secrets of this print.

If we analyze the landscape in which Dürer placed the two figures, it really does not even seem to represent the Garden of Eden. The action takes place in a very dark place and Eva is feeding the forbidden fruit to the snake. This doesn’t follow the storyline of the Jewish Torah or the Christian Old Testament, for the snake never eats the forbidden fruit.  So why does the snake eat it here?

Who were Adam and Eva?  Adam was the first man and Eva was the second woman (Lilith having been the first) of both bibles, so if we adhere to interpreting this composition as being about a first man and a second woman, we ultimately arrive at the truth.

THE RIDER (DER REUTER, wrongly known as Knight, Death, and the Devil)

Another print whose real title has been totally ignored can be seen here.

Dürer’s title for this print was the Der Reuter, which means “the Rider.” However, it appears that sometime around 1867-1875, this composition was labeled with the title, Knight, Death, and the Devil, a name that has stuck ever since.

While the man riding the horse is dressed in armor and is most likely at least of the social status of a knight or higher, Dürer would have called this print Der Landsnecht, the German word for knight, if he was truly representing just a knight.

But he didn’t.  He specifically indicates that this armored figure is “riding” solo by the title.  His title selection doesn’t even give an inclination as to who the other figures are in the composition or why they are there unless the figures have something to with with a lone rider.

Neither are the other two figures actually depictions of “Death” or of the “Devil.” The figure known as “Death” on the left holding the hourglass is a very fleshy figure wearing a crown with slithering creatures, who happens to be missing a nose. The figure on the right has only one horn and holds a weapon of war, a pike, which is not how devils were depicted in medieval times.

When we interpret this print using its real name, The Rider (a sole rider), we then realize that we are looking at an armored Rider of some social rank of at least a knight, but probably higher (we find that out because of the noseless figure), riding by a crowned noseless figure (a king), and a figure that looks like a pig with one horn holding a weapon of war.

SEA MONSTER

Let’s look at a third example. The  1498 print you see here:

Dürer titled this print the Meerhwunder, the “Sea Monster” and thus we have to interpret this print about something that was known as the sea monster in the Renaissance.  That creature was the dolphin, and while the dolphin is a smooth-skinned sea mammal, it was depicted with scales in medieval times, like this:

And we have to stick to an interpretation that this print is about someone or something that was a “monster” of the “sea.”   Most historians interpret this print in light of the Greek and Roman revivalism that was occurring in the Renaissance.  Yet no scholar has yet successfully interpreted the meaning of this image utilizing all the symbols in this composition.

AND THEN THERE WERE THREE

Through the use of very skilled optical techniques and devious placement of the figures, we find that Dürer actually depicted three figures in this composition: the man with the horns and beard, the naked woman wearing a Milanese headdress, and the scaly Sea Monster. That allows us to understand that what is really happening is the sea-monster dolphin carries the naked Milanese woman whom the bearded man is attempting to rescue.

Thus we are being told a story about some personage associated with a dolphin, a rescuing man associated with horns on his head, who rescued some “naked” woman and is also associated with some Milanese woman.

The other 10 prints for which we have names from Dürer’s Diary follow the same pattern. They all have clues within the composition that tell us Dürer’s true meaning, which got lost when scholars re-titled the images. For all the remaining images for which we really don’t know the names, we have to abandon the “retitles” if we are to find all the secrets that Dürer left us.

I will speak in depth about the clues in the above prints in future publications, as well as many others. But in the meantime, I have given you the major clues about these three prints in case you would like to do some Dürer sleuthing on your own.

BUY THE BOOK!  CRIMES IN THE ART: THE SECRET CIPHER OF ALBRECHT DÜRER

www.amazon.com/Crimes-Art-Secret-Cipher-Albrecht-ebook/dp/B00FNWKYMO

For more details please visit here

Secrets of the Duerers’ Prodigal Son

We do not really know the title of this print because Dürer did not assign this title; it is the opinion of a past historian.

This penitent motif of the Prodigal Son was new for the Renaissance and it was not known to be a money maker for artist/printers.  Before this rendition, the proven motifs that sold well were scenes of the man reveling or in compromising situations.  Dürer took a radical economic risk with this image before he was famous, and unusual move for a young merchant who could not yet support a workshop with apprentices.

While this image is explicitly depicting a scene about the Prodigal Son among the Swine, it appears that the composition has a disguised alternative meaning about one history- changing vote made by the Nuremberg City Council in 1496 (the local government, controlled by 46 Nuremberg families known as the Patricians). The Nuremberg Jews, legal property of the Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian, who was their protector, were not completely subject to the Nuremberg City Council’s authority. The Patricians had been lobbying with Maximilian for years to expel the Jews, ready to fill their economic functions (banking and cattle trading). Suddenly in 1496, Maximilian agreed to this exodus but refrained from actually signing the writ of expulsion until 1498.  When the Jews were ultimately expelled in 1499, these Patricians took over their real estate and businesses.

The pigs appear to be Hungarian boars, known for their ferocity.  Five large pigs and five small pigs are depicted.  The organization of the City Council was very convoluted, but the top five positions of the City Council were selected by five “Electors”, also Council members, once a year.  It appears the five small pigs represent the Electors of the City Council and the five large pigs represent those they elected to the top positions.  In 1496, the ten men responsible for the expulsion of the Nuremberg Jews were the five Electors (small pigs) Niclas Grolandt, Ulrich Gruntherr, Peter Nützel, Gabriel Müffel, and Hans Tetzel the Elder, who elected (large pigs) Paulus Volkamer, Gabriel Nützel, Ortlöff Stromeyer, Anthoni Tücher, and Hieronymous Schürstab.

Scholars have posited two theories as to whom the kneeling man represents. He is considered to be either a self portrait of Dürer or to be an “Italian” because of the moustache and the shape of the nose. If it’s a self-portrait, the question is raised as to why Dürer would have considered himself someone who needed to beg forgiveness for being among these “swine” and depicted himself as such. If this is an “Italian,” this could be a veiled reference to a member of the City Council, whose surname meant “the Italian,” Jacob Welser.  In medieval German, “wels” was the word for “Italian,” so Welser meant “the Italian.”  The Welsers were an extremely wealthy and powerful Augsburg German dynasty, who sent Jacob Welser to establish their businesses in Nuremberg  in 1493.  Because of Welser’s wealth, the City Council had no choice but to induct him into the City Council in 1494, where his presence as a controlling interloper was much resented by the native Patricians.  Welser was involved in the vote for Jewish expulsion in 1496.

 

The double wheel and the rooster in the middle of the print, and nailed-down snake tail below the harrow at the left side of the composition are insignia from the arms of, respectively, the Nuremberg families of Volkamer, Rummel, and Münzer. Paulus Volkamer was the “President (the Losunger in German)“,  of the City Council in 1496. Hieronymous Münzer (whose insignia shows up in other Dürer prints) was first elected to the City Council in 1493. Hans Frey, a Rummel relative and Dürer’s father-in-law, was first elected to the City Council in 1496. Dürer appears to want to single out these men’s role in the vote of expulsion particularly. The hind quarters of a bull at the left of the image seems to be Dürer’s derisive commentary on this political event.

The landscape is a depiction of a particular Nuremberg farm called Himpfelshof, located west of the city walls. We will never know exactly why Dürer chose to depict this farm, but the area west of the Nuremberg city walls was populated by Jews.

A turnip is depicted in the lower center of the image.  This root vegetable was a common Hungarian emblem, suggesting an association yet to be understood.  It was also a common symbol of contempt, possibly indicating a personal comment.

For more details please  visit at http://www.albrechtdurerblog.com

THE GALLOGLASS by Durer-Do you belong to a Warrior Clan? OR BETTER?

IT’S TAKEN A WHILE TO CRACK THIS MYSTERIOUS DRAWING, MUCH RESEARCH WAS REQUIRED TO LEARN ABOUT GALLOGLASS AND WHO WAS THE KING WHO OWNED IRELAND IN 1521?

THE SEARCH HAS BEEN SO FASCINATING AND SO DIFFICULT, IT’S TIME FOR ALL YOU SCOTS, IRISH, ENGLISH, IBERIANS, GERMANS, BASICALLY ALL OF EUROPEANS INCLUDING EASTERN EUROPEANS, AND THEIR DESCENDANTS,  TO LEARN HOW IMPORTANT THIS SKETCH OF GALLOWGLASS, KERNS, AND SOLDIERS BECOMES IN REVEALING THE TRUTH OF WHO YOU ARE!

SO WE START AT THE BEGINNING, FOR THIS IS SO CONVOLUTED, YOU’LL BE LOST  UNLESS WE START AT THE BEGINNING, AND IT’S  SUCH FUN!

For nearly 100 years after the arrival of the Normans in 1169AD the old world of Gaelic Ireland was in retreat. The Normans brought to Ireland superior weapons, the long sword, lance, Welsh crossbows, and iron helmets, and chain mail protecting much of the body. This was in contrast to the native Irish with their axes and short swords and dressed in linen tunics. To halt the Norman onslaught the remaining independent Irish Chieftains needed a new weapon and they found it in the mercenary warriors from the Western Isles of Scotland. These Gallowglass or ‘foreign Gaels’ had served as elite warriors in the Western Isles of Scotland for over 100 years prior to their arrival in Ireland.

The first 160 Gallowglass, who appear to have been from Clan MacDoughall arrived in Ireland in 1259AD as part of Dougall MacSorley’s (King of the Hebrides) daughters dowry in her marriage to Aedh O’Connor, the then King of Connaught. The Gallowglass fought like the Normans protected in mail coats and iron helmets,

But they were notable with their characteristic two handed axes and Claymores (a large 2 handed sword). This trickle of warriors became a flood as many mercenary Gallowglass Clans either sought new lords after backing the losing side in the Scottish wars of Independence or just somewhere to ply their trade, and given the battle against the encroaching Normans or the constant inter-Clan warfare there was always a demand for the services  in Ireland.

Many Clans like the McCabe’s and MacSweeney’s transplanted completely to Ireland.  The MacSweeney’s vacated their homeland around Castle Swin on the Argyll peninsula in Scotland for life in the service of the O’Donnell’s in Donegal. Others remained seasonal travellers appearing in the spring and summer offering their services to the highest bidder (everybody appears to have decided that making war in autumn and winter in Ireland was a bad idea). While others like the MacDonald’s/MacDonnell’s’ and MacNeill’s established territories in County Antrim in the northeast of Ireland to complement their lands in Scotland (the MacNeill’s appear to have been the new occupants of Swin Castle vacated by the MacSweeney’s). County Antrim provided the shortest crossing point between Scotland and Ireland and the presence of Scottish Clans there may have been an attempt to monopolise this lucrative trade.

What is certain is that the tide had turned, the Norman Conquest had lost momentum, and the Irish Chiefs with the aide of their new weapon rolled back the Normans.

14th and 15th Centuries a stalemate developed, with Ireland divided into spheres of influence as reflected in the medieval ethnicity map of Ireland. There was a mini Gaelic revival and although not all the Normans adopted Gaelic ways and customs, the habit of hiring Gallowglass was adopted by all, including the English authorities who’s rule was restricted to the area known as ‘The Pale.’ Some of the Gallowglass Clans had by this time become independent establishing their own territories.

But who were these warriors who effectively changed the course of Irish history, and how can you tell if you are descended from them?

Clues as to the origins of the Gallowglass can be found in the surname of the first to arrive; the MacDoughall’s, who’s surname translates as ‘son of the dark foreigner.’ This indicates that they were descendants of Vikings (foreigners) who settled in the western highlands and Islands of Scotland, who had intermarried with the Gaels they found there and adopted their Gaelic language and customs, but had still retained the fearlessness and fighting prowess of their Viking forebears. So if you know what to look for you can reveal whether you are directly descended from these fearless Norse-Gaels. I ONLY INCLUDED THIS INFORMATION BECAUSE IT MAY STILL BE TRUE, HOWEVER EXTREMELY RECENT DNA STUDIES OF WHO EXACTLY POPULATED BRITAIN HAVE SHOW THAT THEIR IS ALMOST NO VIKING DNA INFLUENCE IN BRITAIN.  Apparently the Vikings struck, and looted and moved on. We don’t know yet whether the Viking intermingling with the Galloglass clans is valid.

Firstly one can examine surnames, history records the most notable Gallowglass were from the Clans of McCabe, MacDonald/McDonnell, MacDougall/McDowell, MacRory, MacSheehy, MacSweeney, and McCoy. But this was a trade that continued for over 400 years and many Scots Clans got in on the act, so how does one identify other Clans and surnames associated with Gallowglass? Luckily these Scots-Gallowglass can be readily distinguished from the later Scottish settlers that flooded Ireland as part of the Plantation of Ulster in the 16^th and 17^th Century. This is simply because these later arrivals were Protestant and spoke English, in contrast to the Catholic faith and Gaelic language of the native Gaels and earlier Gallowglass. Religious and language differences meant that these two people rarely mixed which was reflected 300 years later in the 1911 census that showed that Planter surnames could readily be identified based on their 88% Protestant religious affiliation. So if you have a Scottish surname and recent Irish ancestry, and that surname demonstrated a protestant religious affiliation significantly less than 88% in 1911, then your ancestors may well have been Gallowglass.

WHAT’S IN YOUR DNA? WAIT FOR THE SHOCK!

But this surname and historical approach is flawed, leaving one with statistical probabilities. For conclusive proof one must explore commercial ancestral DNA testing. The ancestral DNA test that can establish your Gallowglass-warrior credentials is the Y-DNA37 test. This test looks at the Y chromosome which is passed from father to son through the generations. What you get with the results of that test are the names of people with whom you share a common male ancestor. Typically one will match many individuals with many different surnames, but how can one share a common ancestor with people with different surnames? The answer is quite simple; when one’s direct male ancestor first took his surname approximately 1000 years ago, his neighbours some of whom he shared ancestry with, crucially picked other surnames.

AND HERE’S SOMETHING TO BLOW YOUR MIND BEYOND BELIEF.

HERE’S WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED AS DEFINITE JEWISH HAPLOID GROUPS, WHICH INCLUDES Y-Dna37 testing. YOU’RE ALL JEWISH IF YOU ARE GALLOGLASS and apparently from the lineage of KING DAVID OR FROM THE PRIESTLY CALSS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN DESCENDED FROM AARON, MOSES BROTHER!

Y-DNA67 HVR2 R1b1a2 J 0(PRIESTLY CLASS ISRAEL)
Phillip W Kearse
Y-DNA37 HVR2 FF R1b1a2 J 1(PRIESTLY CLASS ISRAEL)
John Caro
Y-DNA37 R1b1a2 0(LINEAGE OF KING DAVID)
Mr. Hopkins Davis Stanley
Y-DNA67 HVR1 R1b1a2a1a1b4 H 1(KINGS OF MANN AND ISLES)
James Patrick Gunn
Y-DNA37 HVR1 R1b1a2 H 1
Alon Barak
Y-DNA37 HVR2 R1b1a2 HV 0 *************RABBI IN ISRAEL NOW)

HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

MORE TO COME!

BUY THE BOOK

 For more details please visit here

Master Forger Wolfgang Beltracchi Saw His Painting in Albertina Museum

The notorious German art forger, Wolfgang Beltracchi has claimed on a German talk show that he “recently” saw one of his paintings hanging in Vienna’s Albertina Museum. Beltracchi made the claim on the ZDF show Markus Lanz.

He was recently released on probation after serving three years of a six-year prison sentence for creating 14 fake artworks purported to have been painted by the likes of Max Ernst and Heinrich Campendonk.

Last year Beltracchi made a similar claim on the Austrian TV show Talk im Hangar-7, suggesting that one of his fakes may be among the Albertina’s collection, without divulging which work it was. At the time it was speculated that the fake may have been Max Pechstein’s paintingLying Female Act with Cat (1909), from the collection of expressionist expert Hermann Gerlinger. The painting was part of a 2007 exhibition at the museum.

Salzburger Nachrichten reported that in response to Beltracchi’s latest claim, the director of the Albertina Museum, Klaus Albrecht Schröder, told the Austrian radio station ORF-Radio Ö3 that he intends to get in touch with the forger to ascertain whether he was talking about the painting featured in the 2007 exhibition or a different artwork.

“I will make contact and ask if it is the painting from the Gerlinger collection or a different artwork,” he said. “Of course we want to know. I said at the beginning that the prosecution made a grave mistake not to use the case to discover all of the fakes.”

https://news.artnet.com/in-brief/master-forger-wolfgang-beltracchi-claims-he-saw-his-painting-in-albertina-museum-26

For more details please visit at http://www.albrechtdurerblog.com

BEYOND HILARIOUS! PORN HAY BALES IN AUSTRALIA!

WELL FOLKS APPARENTLY AS SPRING IS SPRINGING, THE HORMONES ARE RUNNING AND THERE’S SO MUCH RIDICULOUS STORIES ABOUT PORN ART, THE WHOLE WEEK MIGHT GET DEDICATED TO IT.   IT’S CRACKING ME UP!  THIS IS FROM ARTNEWS, DO THEY HAVE ANYTHING BETTER TO DO BUT TRY TO SELL YOU ART ONLINE, MAKE YOU FEEL LIKE A BOOBY NOT GOING TO THEIR ART SHOWS? AND NOT KEEPING UP WITH DEEP INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING SUCH AS THIS?

AND FOR YOUR PLEASURE:

An Australian farmer is defying police demands that he remove a supposedly pornographic hay bale sculpture.

Bruce Cook, who lives near Kerang, Victoria, was instructed to nix the sculpture, “depicting a bull serving a cow,” which has been deemed offensive and pornographic by some locals and officials, according to.

Cook tells the paper he has received “massive public support,” adding that he erected the sculpture on Good Friday as “a bit of fun.”

After a passerby reported the sculpture to the authorities, Cook received a call from the police telling him he had to take it down or face charges of publishing pornographic images. “I couldn’t believe it,” Cook said. “How could anyone be offended by something that happens out in the paddocks for real every day of the week? It’s just nature.”

Cook said he “told the copper to piss off.”

The Weekly Times is now polling readers, asking, “Is the hay bale structure offensive?” The paper says according to its poll, 96 percent agree the sculpture is not offensive.

Dozens have stopped to admire the sculpture, and Cook says he plans to illuminate it at night. He said that while most people have been supportive, he has received a threat or two from people who say they’re going to burn it or knock it over.

Cook says he believes there is a petition circulating to support the work, as well as a Facebook page: “We say the hay stays.”

Added Cook: “We live in a farming community and of course animal breeding is all around us but this is really just a smutty joke.”

ART AT IT’S BEST!

For more details please visit here

HILARIOUS! JAPAN ARRESTING FEMALE ARTIST who dares to claim her VAGINA!

WHAT AM I MISSING HERE? AREN’T THE JAPANESE FAMOUS FOR THEIR EROTIC ART?  OH, THAT’S THE PROBLEM, IT HAS TO BE A DOMINANT MALE WITH A SUBSERVIENT FEMALE, AS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE JUST DEFINED MARRIAGE IN THE USA HISTORICALLY. OMG, A JAPANESE WOMAN CLAIMS HER OWN VAGINA TO DO WITH WHAT SHE WANTS!

IT’S ALL OVER A KAYAK!  WOW, A FIT WOMAN ARTIST! READ ON FOR THE ABSURDITY! ANOTHER OF ARTNEWS DEEP INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING.

Japanese artist Megumi Igarashi, who operates under the artistic moniker Rokude Nashiko (translation: “reprobate child”), was indicted last week on charges that she distributed “obscene” data in the form of a computer code that would allow other people to use a 3D printer to make their own copy of a kayak based on her vagina.

Igarashi has been has been arrested twice this year for the project—the first time in July for attempting to raise funds online to construct the kayak, and the second time in December for allegedly distributing the code to numerous people. In the aftermath of her first arrest, she was freed from prison after an online petition that drew more than 21,000 signatures.

JAPANESE LAW FORBIDS DEPICTION OF GENITALIA?  THEN WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITH THEIR PAST ART “TREASURES?”

Japanese obscenity laws forbid the depiction of genitalia, which instead must appear censored or pixelated in film and photography. Despite this, Japan has a booming pornography industry, a strange dichotomy that Igarashi’s artwork and subsequent legal troubles have highlighted on the world stage.

HAVE WE ARRIVED AT THE ULTIMATE ABSURDITY,  OBSCENE COMPUTER DATA?

The artist will plead not guilty to the charges, but if convicted could face up to two years behind bars and a fine equivalent to $20,755.

“I cannot agree with the police’s decision to label the data as obscene,” Igarashi said in a July press conference. “To me, my vagina is like my arms and legs. It’s nothing obscene.”

For more details please visit at http://www.albrechtdurerblog.com