1955a
The first Gutai exhibition in Japan marks the dissemination of modernist art through the
media and its reinterpretation by artists outside the United States and Europe, also
exemplified by the rise of the Neoconcretist group in Brazil.
ii the lilIlt issue of lie tournal (St/itt, published in October IY5Cs
this brief s itenwnt appeateci: the US artist Jackson l’of lock,
whom we highly esteemed, has passed away all too early ma road
.ieuident, and we ,iIe deeply touched. It. I. Priednian who was close
0 bun, and who sent us the news of this dcatli, wrote: ‘When
tccntly I Iotkecl through Pollocks library. I diseoveiecl issues two
pttmter its works lien were utintlueteilt vet rather urtmviitui,ml
s’ersituns of l.utntupean post Wtn abstr;ictiuun. It is mutt sit moelu his
own art as his mulependence of mind, his defiant’ of buretnmcnmuy,
“
his willougness to seize [lie tupptumtunity of a clean slitt’ ilftmrdetl by
the historical sit uiatittn of postwar lapin, mcI fits encotirmgeuiients
to beas rad cal as possible that explain tlue:tttrtictittn hetxertetl on
artists whim were a gemueratmmmmm yutnnger. I Tin interest in pu’rttmr
nlant_e mul in lie tlteat er- the lilly domimain where he was ms
iuiumuvative as lie other itmeumubers cut C ,titai also plaveul a
nid three of (mi/itt. I Was told fiat Ptillock was :nI enthusiastic
disciple of the C utam, for m it he had recognized a vision and a
itality close to its own. “1 its last sentence is suibtect to doubt, to
.ty the least (was Iriedman excessively polite, was his letter tam—
title in clchnoug the group’s mc tiVity.
It is this perfmurniative angle litmnm wInch (Sitam Ictickecl it l’ollock
that resuiltL’d mu cunc’ of the most interesting, affuett short livid,
‘‘cmeitmve numsiesclnugs’’ td twentieth-century art. lteu:otse they knew
aredwith?), and we should not make tot) much, as hn as Ihillock’s
imlerest in (utai is concerned, of the mtdtlball presence in his last
I Imipton studio mu the two October 955 issues oft ctuntdtntial
ipanese ournal among those of more hmmiiiliar nuagaYines about
(C
(dl
(it
mmiencan or I ii ropean art.
She retcience tells a lot, however, abunit what ltolfmuck repreiitedforthecohlahor:itoi’soitlue tutirnat (Sir ml was most prmih:mhly
lity, despite the feigned surprise of the statement quitted above,
into had sent it it the Amiteriran painterl: he was the imnagmnmry
‘mufience, the revered master. Just a decade uSer I liroshinia and
.igasaki, in a sclttiatphrenic Japan encloising Amnericanmiation at
lmm’eeOflomic level bitt resisting it at the cultural one (the two most
dden paths were a “ret tim fit order that c,mlled Sir the rehabili—
ion ofage—old Japanese practices on the one hand, or “socialist”
rt,mlism, on tIme other), this enthusiastic endorsement olan Amen—
iii artist was cleltbertttely shocking.
A :ieative misreadinq ol Pollock
lit Voshihara ( 19tt5—72), the mentor and financial backer of the
miii group, bad enthusiastically written about I’ollock in 951
‘in several of his paintings had toured Japan, and he woultl
pet sist in acknowledging his antI his friends’ debt. Btit more tItan
iii mutual contact with the works themselves, it was no chtuumbt the
uous photographs by F lans Namuth (191 5—9t)) 1J and Rudy
rckhardt showing Pollotk chopping and pouring paint that
uuzcd the young artists gathered around Yoshihama. By
imither 1954 (that is, at the tine of the group’s bmuindtition),
Itihara had ilmeacly acquired a national reputation as a
1
Hans Namuth, Jackson Po!IockpaintingAutumn Rhythm, 1950
111.4)1
Nonwesn’rn avant-qardEs
I 1955
373
next to not hing abotit the context that had prestlct over the inven—
tionotPollocksdrip technique, because they read it through cultural
codes that were utterly foreign to the American artistic ambience,
the (ut lit iI s were able to zero in on aspects i)f Po)lIOCks art
that would become available to ‘vVestern artists (notably the post
years later.
A Minimalist proponents of “antiform ) only fifteen
a American
have
did
But (;Ut’5 eccentric reading of Pollock
origin. twen beliire the group was formed, the (utai artists had
• endeavored o literalize Ian )ld Rosen berg’s (a ii t lii r ma list) not ion
that the Abstract Pxpressionist canvas is an ‘‘arena for action”
and that the pictures themselves are far less significant than the ges
tures that produced them. In fact, it is the new techniqtie adopted
in 1951 by Kazuo Shiraga (born 1921), who was to become the
most brilliant member of the groctp, that functioned as a catalyst:
abandoning his brush, Shiraga beman to paint with his feet 121, eon—
• ceiving of this bodily method as a radicalization of Pollock’s
horizontality. Upon seeing Shmmaga’s pictures, other artists such as
Shozo Shimamoto (horn I 928), who had been puncturing holes in
thick screens of pain ted paper, or Sabu ro M Liraka m i ( born I 925
—
2 • Kazuo Shtraga, Work II, 1958
Oil on paper, 183 a 243 (72 x 93
A iSfill
374
1955
• iim1,I,
I Nonwestern avani-gardes
• 111.19
who had been throwing balls dipped in ink, realized that they had a
don ble in teiest in com non: in order to ireven t a p roiteetionist
return to the traditional artistic practices of Japanese art (the
extremely codified calligraphy, for example), one had not only to
invent radically new nodes of engendering a ma rk, but also to take
advantage of the highly ritualistic nature of lapanese culttmre in
order to) transftrin the artistic act into a tnins’ressive intl ludic
perfimimnanee. It is this dual investigation that characterizes the
most interesting piocluctions of (utiii. ‘Ihe word itself is firmedl of
two characters: ‘‘gtm,” signifying tool or means, and ‘‘tai,’’ which
means hotly orsubstanec; it is translated as “concreteness.
Ihe inventiveness of (,ut;mm artists in their choice of mniitermnl and
wtirlcing method fir their paintings— most often rializecl during
their exhibitions (several of them outdoors) —is staggering. The
spectacularization of the production especially during the two
tirst years ol the group’s existence, almcist inevitably called for an
they insisted
emphasis on chance and contingency (like Pollock,
tied hand,
iilwavs
d
on severing the link that—via the brush——ha
Kanimyama
gesture, and inscription). ‘1cm app))’ paint or ink, Akmra
large paper screens, the gaping holes lie left deliberately assault i op
that icon of traditional Japanese interior architecture, the paper
partition 141. But soon the very theatricality of’ these actions devef—
opecl to the stage where, horn 1957 tin, (utai inciuntecl gimcliosc’
audiovistial shows whose main characteristic was, in a manner that
A
recalled l)adaist theater’, a pi’etlilectitm for the giotesdftie and an
iiiyressive stance iown’cl the aciclieoce (tist as in 1921 Francis
Picahia had blinded the Parisian public of lie ballet Rc’Idc’hc’ by
pointing mt it 37(1 rcitccinobile lights, Sacliiniasa Motcinaga lioril
t92I chased his spectators away with Ins ‘‘smoke cannon’’l,
It is, however, m its conception cit exhihititois as vast amuse
merit parks ccintailing pockc’ts uI oieditative spaces and delicate
sccilptural ichects (bat (lie (Nitai griiiil c’xtelfc’cl. In iisst’ c’cciicl
cicitclcnrshcivllimly IO5(cl,fiirt’.\iiuiplc’,llc’lcllikc’tlie first iralcint’
flirt-sI, tslcitcciiaga liting between the ti’ec’s loicgslit’et’, of plisi it
filled icith ciilorecl water dial lilterc’cl lit’ sims light; ,litlnci
‘i’cisliihn’a (born 0,13) tItle, a Icolc’ in tlic’’-, nul ic’lit’re lit’ ,ilnicist
hunt-cl an ulc_’ctric light; ,Sloni,niiciiii tiomstrilt tic) a catcc,rlls cit
planks, sripportt’cl be iinevi’n sprigs, oir which pt’ople isere ciiviteil
walk; knm,cy,iniatiplcc’d thningfi the c’otire grcnoicl with a SOt)
fluiit—lciii; strip ot’wliite vinyl, ,rcliirneil with hl,ic Is toiitprnits hit
niacle it looked like ,m rninr,iv and entlon up iii a Ii cc’. A sense ut
flliy
in-ruasive I ni’niy wiirl-s c’xlnbiteul 01 t uto ‘,lmciws were
dirc’etlv niviton; (lie spec dons tic Pirtltipitd’t, lint ,clso .i ;c’IOOnc’
interest in new iri,iterials (with a clc’tnotivc’ flit in,itii,ci for plistic,
which marked wiirltlwiulc’ lit’ pu’niucl ii) reciiilstrnt ticni ,iftc’r \Vuirlil
tti
ii
-0
W.irlhf,hotliotteiicccoihnoiieici,iiu.iplii’,iltuctlieciiic,iion-,,\c,isc.
in pou1t is lit’ /4’oi !)ii’5 of Atsirlco ‘l’,io,ik,r (hicric P1(2), a
costtnile imiade of sever,if clnien nic,rocli’scerit liimlli’, ,nicl colorc’il
neon tirlics n-ihwlncli slid wr.ij’jecl cei’sc’lt. iiskiiigi-lettrictoiiicn,
tOitlieiilieni igot aim i’xhibiticiiimlokvti iii lOSe.
By the tort’ ( nt,n teas pi-c’c’ritt’cl it tlic’ ,‘\l,crtlii lit ksoii I gillc’r oi
Nt’tv Ytrk in C )ctcdic’r 958, lricwr’ver, it hatl griiwic ‘,t,ifc’. ‘thc’ 01,011
caimseicitlos cleli,mcle iv.is ci shift ot c’rnfchmsis: om premt tint i.m ic-nIt
of Fi’c’ncli critic i\lieliel lipid’s visit ii lipit, dining uc’loClm this
(;nr 1924) used an electric toy car, Yastio Sorni Ilnirci t9), a
Vcr,ilor, Toshio Yoshicla (horn 1928), a sprinkling can held liii
ars tpip,nient
i rock p] aced on h is ccii va s, or he ii sed a ri] e, wh Ic Sb rai.i
red arrows to pierce poticlies cit pa nt.
Not surprisingly, the restilting pictures were otno pleat iritercst
SI i raga’s ii u merous “toot pac it in gs” a ic a no ii p thc’ very f’w l
cliii traces C)! those events that do not locik cltah widouhtetily
‘iiise the indc’xical footprints clearly register the temporality 1)1
,h1 let). But the Gutai artists knew as mcieh anti, initially at least,
Iteedid not particularly value these remnants, considering them as
nile crops for their performances or multimedia installations.
lit’ performances proper, later soniewhir t 0) st aken 1 y celehra ICC)
‘v A lan Kaprow as anticipating his happenings, also pay a direct
•Sute to Rosenherp’s trope of the ‘‘arena.” For the opening of’ the
Iii .t indoor GLitai exhibition, held in ‘lokyo in ()cttcher 1955,
ci ,iga threw himself ito a pile of wet mud, where he thrashed
1 no icc! half naked while the arid ience gatl mc’ red rc ici rid hi in 131. ‘I ‘lie
oc evening, Mu rakam i thu nderi ngly crash ccl t Ii rough a row of six
mi above his waitiii strrf,ice;S hinxiinoto smashed
cit cii! iii/iiiiiii’I in Paris had i11,o1.c’c’dl to pi’rsoclt’ thic’ni
that this was ci he their fccnte, tilt C ;mit.n artists ouiw cmcmmteiitm’,itc’if
their energy ccii pcmiritimig, ‘l’,uliie’s cvmict,mi miiarkc-tiicp ‘.tmitc’gv macI
cht’v,ist,itnie cffc’ctt mmci longer eommsiclc’i’c-ul litre nips, tIme mmimtc-ri,il
pi’cidtrcts ot(Smtai’s the,ctm’ic:s were exhihiitc’ci as ,mnttcntiiocitms, icle,d
izc’cl cbstracticcns, I i)clc’m’st,cncf,ibl\- tIme .\t,mr’tlm,i l,itksoo shin,
• clicinipicimm
-
t’timatecl by ‘l’aliic it lit- vei-\’ juncture wlmc’mu the moutmon iii ,mtticcii
pcmiuitmiic; hid lcecutmne trttt’rly ,mc,iuhc’itiic oi Aimmi-rica, w,us tire h,iclI
recc’ivetl, ‘the grucup nevc’n recuuserc’cf Iruuimi lii’ fi,isGu nit! slcucvis
clegeneritecl intcia c,mricatmo’euuf tseif, ( mmtam disbanded iiiilviit ‘(72
(at thc’clecmth cithim’cc Yuuslnim,mm’al, nit it hid lumimg ic’,t its fl,nime,
Geotiietry turned ugniust itself
It is iuitc’m’t’stincç to cciiitpare this talc’ with that ci) tfrc’ Neciccciicrt-tist
nicweinent which einergc’cl in Brazil at the end of hi’ fifties—-ost
or it was similarly born out of thit
(an was slackening
A
u
•
-iii
Noi,wesicrii civcciii—qardes
1955
375
4 • Saburo Murakami, Passage, October 1956
I’cclorm1jncr
t, ofa canonical trend of
\‘Vestern modernism, this time the geometric abstract art that had
with the retro
A been institution;ilizecl in the thirties. It all started
spective of the work of Swiss painter, sculptor, and architect Max
ed
Bill at the Museu de Arte Moderna in Sio Paulo in 1950, follow
de
Rio
of
le
Bienna
first
the
at
by his reception of the Grand Prize
which
(in
Art”
rete
Janeiro in 1951: enthusiasts of Bill’s “Conc
ly
everything had to be planned by arithmetic calculations) sudden
reinterpretation, from a peripheral outpos
376
A iO7b
• 15371,. 194i,, iSbic
1 955
I Nonwestern avant-gardes
-
-
-
flooded the tiny Brazilian art world, which had been, until then,
recalcitrant toward modern art.
Returning to her native Brazil in 1952, if tee a year in Paris (where
she had studied with lernand Lege’r), Lygia (lark (1920—88) quickly
assimilated Bill’s rationalist catechism and soon began to sap it from
gy,
within. Noting that Bill often borrowed his torms trom topolo
this
sci
to
appeal
raphic
iconog
purely
she resolved to go beyond his
entific held. Her first mature paintings (1954) were modular jigsaw
reliefs calletl (,‘ocooii 61 antI Cu)it(isi—it’/Icfr, in homau4e IC) \/ladimir
puzzles in wool in winch slit’ eiitleivoietl to give a positive role to
the black interstices (empty joints) bet wuen the color blocks, and to Atatlin, all tlatint from 1959, in which she translated the perceptuial
instability of her piecetling works into the real, phenomenal space of
transform the frame nit) a pictorial element: as she insisted at die
our senses (Oiticiea soon proposc’tl his own vemsion, which he called
lime, her iiiil was to undo the empty/lull, inside/outside opposi
Sfnu(ioi Rt’Io’/ ) l’.,ich (ou000 is marIe of a sinile rectangular sheet ot
tiOnS upon which pfaiiamgeouit’try intl rit uiumialisiii ait’ hiisetl.
the
ambiptitnis
distiivc’ry
spaces
mc’tal partially edit and fuiltled (but not ctit titit—inithing is deletetl
of
Her next step, lmiliowiiig her
nor ackled) so dial its frontal prportuon, whatever its prott’ction in
iii Josef Albers’s “d,t,iIt,niI (ousit’/Itii,iius, was a series of pictures
is always a stluare (liidiin,so to speils, ni interior space that
(or rather wood reliefs) in which a sclriare nit’ehuiieally puiitt’d ni
[lit’ lieliolcler discovers when steppuigasitle). the hurl t’iigenrlers tfit’
a matte blatk is hindered on one or several uI its sides (and some
tantasy tif ruihiltlnit antI of the plane as a conlprt’ssion of volume,
times divided) y a recessed white line winch functions mole like a
itfea developetl further in the (‘ontom—ri’Iii’fs, where void is smtl
an
to
illusitiiiisti—
she
had
nianaed
these,
In
like
lr,one.
a
tinge thaii
o ehecl between layers of)ilaek or white boards.
ialiy torque the plane, an accoiuiplisliinent she i eriliecl in a tontio
Ihat pkoie has a s’oltnnt’, mid hit this volume can beopt’necl
railed 1.utt’oi l-i,’t (I )5il), a black disk htirtlererl by an interrupted
up las a tocoon) is it lit ecuc’ of Clark’s most tt’lebr,itt’tf worlcs,
white line. Because the i lute line laterally tlissolves into the
the ,lnio,otc if l9Nt ‘I 15, 71, treestantlin ‘,trtitlores molt’ of
,tim’roundinu white wall, we retrain ruin the estaltist liibit of
hnigetf plait’s of nietalstliat out’ can mnlipulite to pit’ [lit’ senlp
iosing the cotit’, antI the black area tends to shift visually in depth
tore various sfiajit’s )uvhit’o stored, ni ,‘ioooii/is icrterthi’ flit just
with the hut’, mit’ area ieeetlim wInk’ tIlt’ ot her seen] iut to
ike lie suis1it’uidecl sculptures of Aleksantfr Rodelienkof. Ifit’
protrude toward us. It is this perceptual to intl frii, conceived as a
artmcttlatttoi amid disposition of tIle metal plates thett’riimiiie a set
“‘tippressuuumi of thu plane,’ that propel Ittl (lark to secede publicly
from Bill’s school and to flituitl “Neocuncretisnio,’’ with several
othluissibilitiesthiat ire often mniforeseealili. In thirst’ first flartici—
patuiry tstirks, ( larlc troispmised liei tuipeuhunital iiivestifit timid
ii linger artists, iii March I
(coiicertlo1i lit’ piis’hle ,iluuufitiuimi ut lit’ reverst’ salt’
lroiii
nitive
ii
emerge
f
this
besides
lark
major
only
fifuure
The
into the nimude if relations l)etwet’ii subject intl uihjett: oeitfir’r is
nuent, Háliui (titicica ( tL7 ‘itt), rallied ti the cause only after the
passivt’ nor entirely l’ree, hue ,tunoiud is cmuilteivd’ml is an or,mmosiii
euiblication of the roup’s iiianitestti penned by [lit’ pot’t and critic
fiat remtts,ivithiitsowiiliwsiiidliniitatiumos,tiuthieiiumivenient’,of
(i’rieira Gumllar (this text was entirely based in ( Ink’s rt’interpieta
vhoc’vt’r niaiiipim)utes it to nnitlity it’, rioli;iir,ition. Often it
lie lenses of
Ion of the tr;itlition ofuoinetric alsstraetuuimi tluotih
ilit’ phenonieooloup’ ol pt’ictptioo, often c1ootiin tlnirice tslerleau
it’ClLniC’s certon esttiit’s or tiiit’xpc’tt’chl torus itself inside omit;
tli,iluittie between ,‘lotoitm/ nirl “fn’fmolufer’’ is at tune.s exhiil
discovered
recently
mid
[lie
‘inry’s pfiilosoplueal work, which slit liatl
armtu,at touts trustritimiug but it always nnclermnnies hi’ notuoi
ihiiclssvotiltI rt’ni.iin i liteltint interest ),‘liie puibhirititin oftht’ tleo
icretist manilt’sto etiiiicidet! with (ok’se(iboritiuoi oii st’ric’s ni
•
i.ygia Clark, installation in the Brazilian Pavilion at the Venice Biennale, 7968
id tn He tool intir iii tilek eu whii
Annst’i’ Ciii In scusi CII) the p(ii]h
Clam
IC)
i_li
C 1)
IC)
c-I
that tine cottlrl es er he it Ciott it ii i ii t me (it lieu,
tnittiIni Ii ttiu- Iit)i)III
Ii I uuuuuuu
——
Aii)’ii)’I
Nonwesiern uvini-qarcies
I [955
377
6 Lygia Clark, Cocoon, 1959
:tct x :iti tt
in, iii,, 3t)
7• Lygia Clark, Animal, 1960
a Ii
x it
From painting and sculpture to (he absence of objects
tt (pliorl)’
It is at this puncture that Clark iiventecl the (,‘oiii,iiIui,iil
marks
961
in
which
translatable as ‘‘l’railim,”” Wulkiiii’, aluiii ),
ot a
liii
j
ng
her de finit i s’e ía rewel I It) teomet nc art a nd the hed
both
could ehaiaeterize
tiend iii her work and in that of O:tieica that one
as the progressive disappearance of the itt obtuet as such. (In tither
res (Ii
words, perhaps because of their total diste arci for the strictu
st
ncret
Neoco
of
the
he art market, the logical development
began
killowecl a path rigorously inverse to that of ( titai: they
pictures and ended with props that were nothing ifncu m.tnip—
with
to Itil l’s
ulatecl. ) The ctt,o:ti)itt,ulo ret ti tied One more t I inc
ia thur
but
,
pology
Pu
of
oders
wo
I
in ki tuat IC) 0 with the morph c ilogica
nce that
than being an obeet it is ecinceived as an existential experie
St rip, a
ItIS
Moeh
has to be lived t li rough: the basic material is a paper
(Ia rk ‘s
sli ape that Bill had t 11 a ii y times carved in gra iii te. It crc are
porn
do—it—yoursel ii nstrticttons: “lake a pair of scissors, stick one
strip.
the
of
length
the
along
ously
into the surface and cut continu
would
hich
cut—w
ting
preexis
lake care not to converge with the
gone the
cause the band to separate into two pieces. When yoti have
to) the
or
leti
circtot oIthe strip, it’s up to you whether to cut to the
.
right ot the cut you ye already made. The idea ot choice is capital
The
The on ue meaning of this experience is in the act of doing it.
refines
it
strip,
cut
the
you
that
work is your act alone. To the extent
is so
and redoubles itself in to oi terlacings. At the end t lie pat Ii
trail.”
narrow that you can’t open it forther. It’s the end of the
fcr the
What’s left, a pile ot paper spaghetti on the tloor, is ready
act is
wastebasket: “There is only one type ofcttiration: the act. The
and
before
exists
g
Nothin
o.
iluoiul
that which produces the Ctuiiti
378
1955
Nonwestern asant-gardes
‘it
SIt)
74
‘i
al ‘‘not to
nothingafterwarcls, writes (lark, adding hit it is essenti
md what
know-- -while you are cutting- --whit yttii are going to cut
is not
you have already cut.” Anti then: “t:ven it this proptisition
al in
skeptic
ns
iem:i
tine
if
etcH
and
art,
ctinsideiecl as a work of
elation tot tvhat it implies, it is neci’ssar’ to t1tt it.”
ped, thioimgh—
Irom the (,‘iniioiltioidii, ( Ink ,oid ( )iticica develo
s nituractive pictice hat
(iLit the sixties antI beyond, a ctm)iie
n itt the object per Se,
steered away not ttnly ruin any consioleratiti
perftirnianee, not
(till
cality
theatri
of
any lotion
but also turn
ed nitmltilile “partiempiilts—
even in the “primpositntns that involv
to use the words that now respect ivelv iepliced ‘cibleet’’ and
very
“beholder’’ in their liumuelotis texts). More important )‘et, the
e
concept itt the artist gradually became irrelevant tas “art” becam
sitiotis
a kind of therapy or social work): the Neocimncrc’tists’ prtmpo
Rosen—
to
again
retc’r
to
”
action,
might very well lie ‘‘arenas for
mif an
berg’s dtnnagc’, but not ms vehicles for thc’ expression
it is
ioab,
tIle
autllort,tl subject. It a cathartic liberation is indeed
hat o1 the participant.
it ii: ii ii it fit At tNt.
tate .1. q,,,,’’.,
Orbara ye,, Berioiz, and Klaus Woiberi tecist,
(i_k,,iia,i,,,ii i3,,tt,,i,t,,,i,,,iy, ‘‘i’t I,
ii:,,,,
i1nnueI 1. Borja—Viflei ted). ,,;,,,t;f,,i.
it (
,, ,,,
I,’’)’ I I’ll,:,
I,,., F,,,,,, Ark,,, i.ipi’. I
t,,I,,, ‘iii
Guy Brett ci at., ikh,r 0,1,,,,,, )tvl,,e,,,,t ii,, kL,tk,’, AU
‘i’ll
LygiaCtark, “N,,-.iaht,,,,,I itr iii,, ii, (r,h,r ii,, it .ii,,im,
i,aI,
‘iii.,, Ca,,, SN,
Rosat,nd Krau,,s and Yve—Atain Fiots, i ,q,,’l,.i
‘,
‘i,,,,
1 Sari,,. i’!?)
ui, [I,,. I iii,,, I .rr,q r,’ .l.qiur’ .,‘Il,i
Aiexan,lr,, Monroe I,, CS,,,i,,,,y it,, Skit ri,,,,,,
‘iii,
Al,,,u,u’
ft
,,i
ii,,,,,
ttl,’c
t
,\tt,, ‘III, :;, i,,,,, ,l,j.,.-r t It,,;t,
Haroid Rosenberg,’ ii,, A,,’,,,,.,,, A, ii,,, I’,,r,i,-r’,: ‘)rtt
,,‘,,,,
it,, ,,ii)i,r I’d,.’
I