Flora Klein Fruhtrunk via Peter

Content

7 Introduction

8 Biography Günter Fruhtrunk

10 Fruhtrunk in the context of his time

36 Studies

66 ‘‘DA‘‘‘‘’‘’ ‘Das Ich muss ins Bild’ ‘The self must be in the image’

69 Aspects of colour6‘‘DA‘‘‘‘’‘’

69

5

nomen est omen.Son nom signifie : ivresse del'aube!La peinture de Fruhtrunk me rappelle l'ivresse de Nietzsche.Depuis des années il étudie là sur-peinture.Rève-t-il de peindre de la sur-peinture?Rève-t-il d'abreuver les étoiles?Il peint des coffres pour garder des étoiles filantes.Je connais des étoiles qui lui ont commandé des salles d'attente pour étoiles. La carrière des astronautes quelle triste carrière si je la compare à celle du peintre Fruhtrunk!

Jean Arp, FRUHTRUNK, October 1962

6

7

Introduction

This small book is primarily about the German artist Günter Fruhtrunk who was an important German painter of modern post-war Germany. His participation in the Venice Biennale 1968 and the documenta 4 in Kassel indicate the recognition that he received. Despite this acknowledgment Fruhtrunk, who committed suicide in 1982, remains relatively unknown today. His name became familiar to me through my father Peter, who studied painting under Fruhtrunk in Munich during the 1970's. Today Peter is an art teacher and lives in the Swiss alps, where he continues to paint in his studio — an annex in the garden of the house that I grew up in. Since I have been engaged in art myself I have begun to appreciate my father's work anew. Subsequently I have become interested in Fruhtrunk's œvre. A continued preoccupation with his work is what has lead me to write this text. I have written about Fruhtrunk and his work through Peter's accounts : all contents of the following text have been drawn from discussions between Peter and myself. Given my position, I feel that I have a unique advantage through which I am able to access Fruhtrunk via Peter — I am able to act as a sort of junction between the two. Writing this text has been a way for me to approach and understand the life and work of Fruhtrunk ; who, from my point of view, is the ‘father figure’ (artistically speaking) of my father. My intention is to create, to depict and to juxtapose the specific relationships between Fruhtrunk, Peter and myself. In short, this work is an attempt to bring form to this situation.

8

Biography Günter Fruhtrunk

The German abstract painter Günter Fruhtrunk was born in Munich in 1923. He lived and worked in Paris as well as in Munich, where he taught at Akademie der Bildenden Künste (which Peter refers to as Kunstakademie) from 1967 until his death in 1982. After having studied architecture for a year in his hometown Fruhtrunk joined the German army as a volunteer during World War II, fighting on the frontline in Finland. His reason for this decision wasn't political in nature, but — how he later suggests in his biography — seems to have been a way of escaping a difficult family situation with which he had almost nothing to do with for the rest of his life. As a soldier in the Finnish tundra, Fruhtrunk started drawing and painting watercolour landscapes. He suffered some injuries, specifically a severe head injury, which caused him pain throughout his life. After the war, he went back to Germany and began studying privately under the painter and graphic designer William Straube, a late student of Henri Matisse. In the early 50's Fruhtrunk started traveling frequently to Paris where he got to know Ferdnand Léger, who invited Fruhtrunk to work with him in his studio. In 1954 he was awarded a bursary from Baden – Württemberg, which enabled him to move to Paris. For Fruhtrunk the most important person he met during this period in Paris was Jean Arp. He worked closely with him and they built a close exchange and lifelong friendship. It was during his initial years in Paris that Fruhtrunk worked on his first non - figurative paintings and later the consistent influence of both Léger and Arp lead him, as he said, towards making ‘Konkrete Kunst’. Fruhtrunk started working with the Parisian gallery Denise René where, in 1960, his first important solo exhibition took place. In the late 60's he participated in documenta 4 as well as the 34th Venice Biennale. During this time, Fruhtrunk began teaching at the Kunstakademie in Munich where he became a leading figure during the 70's. At this stage in his life his health was deteriorating and the pain caused by his head injury was worsening. The constant pain

9

contributed to his depression and eventually led Fruhtrunk to suicide. He took his own life in his studio at the Kunstakademie in December 1982.

10

Fruhtrunk in the context of his time

A significant and personally dramatic moment for Fruhtrunk was his return home from war ; he arrived in Munich with plans to visit his mother who, for unknown reasons, refused him entry into their family home. He had never had a close relationship with his mother, nevertheless this incident affected him and he was subsequently never to see her again. Peter remembers that Fruhtrunk mentioned in passing that his mother would have wished to see him before she died — a request that he refused. Fruhtrunk's accounts of his time as a soldier and the time he spent in Paris were brief. When he spoke about the past he would only do so sparingly and would generally avoid anecdotes. In Peter's perception, Fruhtrunk had the nature of a wounded person. To Peter, Fruhtrunk's oversensitive and aggressive behaviour exposed a sense of trauma. Peter describes him as someone who was sceptical towards even the slightest notions of ideology. He strictly refused any kind of tutelage and paternalism and refused to tolerate restrictions of freedom, on both a societal and personal level. Peter remembers that Fruhtrunk reacted defensively to any threat towards the notion of liberty. He was an unapproachable character who had the tendency to create a distance between himself and others. He also disapproved of intellectual harmlessness or comfort ; Peter tells me that Fruhtrunk had the tendency to react to any sense of passivity in a polarising manner. During the post-war period, whilst Munich was recovering, holding little prospect for young artists, Fruhtrunk decided to spend most of his time in Paris. His time in Paris coincided with the emergence of existentialist philosophy. Thinkers such as Sartre or Heidegger were important for him and he would often use them as references in his class at the Kunstakademie. Munich at the time, having been destroyed during the war, was undergoing huge redevelopment. It was during this period of economic growth when the student protests of 1968 took place, paving the way for new movements such as the environmental and

11

liberal party ‘die Grünen’ which emerged in the 1970's. Peter remembers that Fruhtrunk was astonished by the students' failure to confront the past although, through Peter's eyes, they did, albeit in a superficial way. In answer to a question about Fruhtrunk's position towards the past Peter explains to me that Fruhtrunk tended not to talk about the war in a direct way ; he felt that Fruhtrunk's position toward the past was expressed through how he behaved and through his character in general. As I understand, Fruhtrunk was seen as a critical figure, who's position was formed through the time he spent and the injuries that he sustained during the war — made visible by the scar that he wore openly on his forearm. Peter explains that Nietzsche's famous expression ‘what doesn't kill you makes you stronger’ — which is now recognised as a commonplace phrase — was relevant for Fruhtrunk. Peter emphasises the importance of the way in which Fruhtrunk utilised his experience of the past as a catalyst, which functioned generatively (rather than desructively) and contributed directly towards the production of his work. It seems to me that the effects of Fruhtrunk's past experiences directed his working attitude. His extreme personality and sensitivity was explicit in his work. It is clear to me how Fruhtrunk's character and what he stood for went hand in hand with his practice as an artist.

13

14

15

17

19

21

22

23

25

27

29

31

33

34

Günter Fruhtrunk

6 Günter Fruhtrunk, Epitaph für Arp,1975, acrylic and casein on canvas, 192 × 191 cm

13 Umkehrende Reihe, 1962 / 63, oil and acrylic on laminated wood, 140.5 × 124 cm

14 – 15 close up of Umkehrende Reihe

17 Konstantes Gelb, 1965 / 69, acrylic and casein on canvas, 270 × 188 cm

19 Zwei Grosse, zwei kleine Reihen, 1966 / 67, casein on canvas, 180 × 127 cm

21 Rote Vibration, 1968, acrylic and casein on canvas, 164 × 116 cm

22 – 23 close up of Rote Vibration

25 Umsturz, 1976, acrylic on canvas, 104.5 × 83 cm

27 Plissement, 1962, vinyl on canvas, 135 ×127 cm

28 – 29 close up of Plissement

31 Emanation, 1975, acrylic on canvas, 160 × 140 cm

33 Emanation ( Etude II ), 1975, acrylic on canvas, 160 × 140 cm

36

Studies

Peter, my father, who grew up in the German speaking part of Transylvania, began to study art in Bucharest when he was fourteen. In the spring of 1973, at the age of nineteen, he and his family migrated from Romania to Germany. His intention was to continue studying painting in Southern Germany, near to where his parents had settled. Whilst engaged in a one-year German equivalent for his college degree, he applied for a place in Fruhtrunk's painting class at the Kunstakademie in Munich. He was subsequently granted a place as one of only two accepted students on the course. At the time Peter, having newly arrived from a communist Romania, was relatively uninformed about the German education system or indeed contemporary artists such as Fruhtrunk. During his studies he came to realise that the class he had entered was well suited to him and that his initial decision to study under Fruhtrunk, however preliminarily unknowing, was in fact the right one. This seems to have been reciprocal for Fruhtrunk himself — after a year with his students, he would decide whether he was interested in continuing to work with them. Peter in this case was asked to continue. Whilst at the Kunstakademie, from 1975 onwards, Peter painted mainly simplified house, fish and flower motifs with an emblematic or symbolistic character. He was interested in making paintings that contained these symbolic forms, or as he says Sinnbilder — as a setting in which form and content were sympathetic. At the time the practices of both Fruhtrunk and Peter shared an intention to simplify and concentrate forms. Whilst Peter's paintings were more atmospheric, Fruhtrunk's concentration was directed towards the internal mechanics of the painting and its structure. Within his compositions there was little space for association. Peter's paintings, in contrast to Fruhtrunk's, were representational. Fruhtrunk followed Jean Arp's abstraction, ‘Konkrete Kunst’, whilst Peter felt close to the motive-charged abstraction of Brancusi. Fruhtrunk's class at the Kunstakademie consisted of roughly

37

twenty students that studied across four years and worked in two large studios. Fruhtrunk was present every Tuesday afternoon when he would frequently give a talk to his class. Peter recalls these talks as monologues on themes in which Fruhtrunk was personally engaged. The topics would vary from concerns that he had with his own practice as an artist, to philosophy, to what he saw happening in class. Points of reference would often include Hegel and Sartre as well as political authors of the time, such as Ivan Illich. It seemed to Peter that Fruhtrunk's Tuesday afternoon talks were primarily about developing his own thoughts rather than engaging in discussions with his students. Now and then, he conducted lectures at the Kunstakademie that were open to the public as well as to the students. In the article ‘Aufstieg und Fall des Günter F ’, Florian Illies describes Fruhtrunk's last lectures as existentialistic performances. Peter tells me that Fruhtrunk's interaction with the students was relatively sporadic and frequently took the form of unannounced studio-visits. Generally Fruhtrunk kept a professional distance to his students and strictly separated his private life from his role as a teacher. It seemed that his demeanor as a teacher was impulsive and direct. In some cases Fruhtrunk happened to be offensive towards students. He accepted no followers or randomness. Peter felt that every conversation and interaction with Fruhtrunk was reduced to the essential. Fruhtrunk's class was known for students who painted in a similar way to their teacher. As mentioned before, Peter wasn't one of them. Peter recognised that there were students who painted differently to Fruhtrunk — who respected this, regardless of his own particular approach. Occasionally Fruhtrunk initiated exhibitions at school with his students. The students were asked to hang some works in the auditorium of the Kunstakademie — a semi public space where each student was invited to clarify his or her position. Fruhtrunk once brought one of his own half-finished paintings to the auditorium where he put it up for discussions alongside the works of his students. Peter

38

remembers that Fruhtrunk's capability to perceive and read an image was immediate and precise. He was able to articulate his readings to the students in a way that would encourage them to clarify the mechanics of the work for themselves. It seems that it was important for him to accompany the development of a work and its processes rather than seeing the paintings themselves as a result. Fruhtrunk had high expectation of both himself and of the people around him. He brought an intensity and rigorousness to the class which was, for Fruhtrunk himself, a character trait that appears in his own work. Fruhtrunk discouraged superficial or secondary discussion ; through this attitude it was clear that there was no time to waste. Peter thinks that Fruhtrunk had trust in the idea that if someone wanted to paint they would find their way, with or without the company of a teacher. However, Peter assumes that Fruhtrunk must have felt a limitation in fulfilling his role as a teacher ; not only that the time he was able to accompany a student was too short but also that Fruhtrunk must have sensed that his own life was limited. Peter finished his studies under Fruhtrunk when he was 27 years old. After which he took another course at the Kunstakademie in order to achieve a qualification that enabled him to teach. Whilst Peter was in his last year, Fruhtrunk called him as he wanted to see his recent paintings. At the time, Peter used to paint in his apartment where he lived together with my mother Ursula who, at the time, was pregnant with my brother Emil Michael. Emil was born in Munich in 1982, the same year that Fruhtrunk died. Peter was both pleased and astonished about Fruhtrunk's intention to visit him. It was rather unusual for Fruhtrunk to incite personal contact with his students or, as in Peter's case, ex-students. In the summer of 1982 Fruhtrunk visited Peter in his apartment where he showed him his latest works, the beginning of a series of sunflower paintings. It was the last time that Peter and Fruhtrunk saw each other. For most of those around him, Fruhtrunk's suicide was unexpected. In retrospect Peter understood that Fruhtrunk must

39

have been preoccupied with his suicide for many years. It appeared to Peter that he had staged his suicide. Fruhtrunk was found dead in his studio at the Kunstakademie where he had hung his last painting ‘Sinnenfundament’. He had ingested the poison potassium cyanide which, in German, translates as Zyankali or ‘Blausäure’ — a word which not only describes a poison but also a pigment of blue colour. For Peter it wasn't by chance that Fruhtrunk choose a public building in which to commit suicide. It seems to have been a clear decision for Fruhtrunk to end his life, not in a private surrounding, but in a place where the public eye would not be able to look away.

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

57

58

59

60

61

63

64

41 Haus, 1979, oil on canvas, 100 × 100 cm

42 Scheintüre, 1981, oil on canvas, 65 × 65 cm

43 Tor, 1982, oil on canvas, 100 × 100 cm

44 Sonnenblume, 1982, vinyl on canvas, 110 × 110 cm

45 Sonnenblume, 1982, vinyl on canvas, 110 × 110 cm

46 Rose, 1983, vinyl on canvas, 110 ×110 cm

47 Blume, 1983, vinyl on canvas, 110 × 110 cm

49 Puppe, 1982, vinyl on paper on cardboard, 75 × 50 cm

50 Tor, 1983, vinyl on canvas, 110 × 110 cm

51 Tor, 1983, vinyl on canvas, 110 × 110 cm

52 Tor, 1985, vinyl on canvas, 110 × 110 cm

53 Tor, 1984, acrylic on canvas, 110 × 110 cm

54 Tor, 1983, vinyl on canvas, 110 × 110 cm

55 Tor, 1983, acrylic on canvas, 110 × 110 cm

57 Ohne Titel, 1989, acrylic on canvas, 110 × 110 cm

58 Ohne Titel, 1988, acrylic on canvas, 110 × 110 cm

59 Ohne Titel, 2012, acrylic on canvas, 200 × 123 cm

60 Ohne Titel, 2012, acrylic on canvas, 200 × 123 cm

61 Ohne Titel, 2012, acrylic on canvas, 200 × 123 cm

63 Ohne Titel, 2011, acrylic on canvas, 45 × 40 cm

Peter Klein

66

‘‘DA‘‘‘‘’‘’ ‘Das Ich muss ins Bild’ ‘The self must be in the image’

Fruhtrunk built his own pictorial language which is characterised by a strict system of rhythmically arranged diagonal or vertical organised colour-zones. It seems to me that behind the totally controlled geometric, abstract compositions appears a primarily unexpected, explosive expressivity. Fruhtrunk worked towards a concentrated pictorial language which, Peter tells me, was typical to his approach. Peter explains that for Fruhtrunk, maintaining such a strict pictorial system was challenging. One of the issues that he dealt with was the process of intensifying and honing this pictorial language, a process in which resistance to distraction and deviation was fundamental ; a key preoccupation. An implicit concern for Fruhtrunk was whether he was able to continue within such rigorous parameters without exhausting their generative potential. Peter remembers that Fruhtrunk unified both ascetic severity and high emotionality ; a dichotomy of attributes that felt controlled. This dualism — mirroring the way in which Fruhtrunk's personality and attitude fitted hand in hand with his work — created a specific tension. Peter explains that in his work Fruhtrunk brought extremes together without attempting to unify opposites (as Peter explains, unifying opposites tends to lead towards forms of neutralisation). Fruhtrunk dealt with dualisms such as strictness and expressiveness which, rather than suffering from the effects of neutralisation, strengthened each other in turn. I understand that, to Fruhtrunk, the moment of reflecting on an image [ Bild ] was central and that he believed that an image is not something one imagines or makes up in ones mind. Rather, the development of the image was lead by a process of responses towards colours, forms and sufaces. Fruhtrunk required something that provoked him to reflect ; the sensual, visual process itself being the central theme. Peter tells me that Fruhtrunk emphasised that his paintings are images [ Bilder ] — they are never a representation [ Abbild ]. To Fruhtrunk art was not in any way an illustration of philosophy. His position reminds me of what, in his essay ‘Paragraphs on

Günter Fruhtrunk

67

Conceptual Art’, Sol Lewitt writes: ‘The philosophy of the work is implicit in the work and it is not an illustration of any system of philosophy. ’ Fruhtrunk's class was given the nickname of ‘die Streifenmaler’ directly translating as ‘the stripe painters’. Fruhtrunk treated the term ‘stripes’, as a description of the forms in his paintings, as derogatory. Fruhtrunk preferred to describe these forms in terms of ‘Farbbahnen’ or ‘colour-lanes’. Peter explains that for Fruhtrunk a stripe constituted a section. In Fruhtrunk's terms a section was something material, something physical. Peter adds that Fruhtrunk understood the ‘colour-lanes’ in his paintings to be colour-energy ; perhaps something with less direct tangibility than that of any physical material. I think if colour-fields or ‘colour-lanes’ are considered in terms of energy, the surface of a painting and it's borders can become relativised. In turn this provides a situation in which the primary visual information of a painting is no longer limited to its surface. Hereby the material ingredients of the painting i.e., canvas, stretcher, paint etc., begin to function collectively as a vehicle for an intellectual process. Fruhtrunk recognised that the interruption of a colour-zone at the borders of a painting generates a visual tension. This moment releases energy. The painted surface stands in a tensional relationship with the format. Peter explains that the harnessing of this energy is another central moment in Fruhtrunk's work and that he was concerned with the ways in which energy can be released — how colour, form and border meet, how they confront each other and what they evoke. Fruhtrunk's ‘colour-lanes’ invite the spectator to switch between two oppositional perspectives. On one hand these lanes are restrained to the frame of the painting, on the other, there is an implication that they could continue outside of the frame infinitely. The colour-zones themselves are sharply framed and momentarily

68

accentuated by an additional lane. These ‘colour-lanes’ sit alongside each other and create a visual interplay. The effect of this interplay forces the eye to move constantly across the composition, which Fruhtrunk explained as ‘Sehbewegung’ or ‘vision-movement’. His high-contrast palette of bright, acrid colours against dark tones, creates a further visual challenge for the spectator. Peter remembers that Fruhtrunk used the expression ‘Geistige Batterie’ or ‘mental battery’ to talk about his paintings. Peter supposes that Fruhtrunk used the metaphor of a battery to describe the energetic aspect of an image as an inexhaustible, intellectual [ geistig ] energy storage. In his poem ‘Fruhtrunk’, Jean Arp makes an analogy to this idea :

‘Il peint des coffres pour garder des étoiles filantes’ ‘He paints chests to keep falling stars’

A chest, implying a limited space, holds the potential to contain. In a broad sense these attributes are adoptable to the idea of a canvas. In the instance of Arp's poem, the chest contains something un-retainable — falling stars. He seems to imply that the content of Fruhtrunk's paintings are not restricted to the limitation of their ‘objectness’. Here Jean Arp suggests that Fruhtrunk's paintings retain the ability to transcend their objectness, in an exchange for something ethereal in nature.

‘Geist’ in terms of Hegel's ‘Phänomenologie des Geistes’ translated as ‘The Phenomenology of Spirit’

see p. 5

69

Aspects of colour

For Fruhtrunk, colour was always an energetic moment. Throughout the majority of his œvre, he was occupied by the effect of colour itself rather than its materiality. He spoke often about colour in terms of its ‘emanation’. Primarily he focused his attention on what he called the ‘Kraftentfaltung’ or ‘power-development’ of colour. In his early work Fruhtrunk experimented with a textural paint application. However he later eschewed this and began, parallel to his painting practice, realising his images through silkscreen. This technique was appropriate as the application of paint through silkscreen produces a uniform field of colour, by replacing the brush stroke with a mechanical finish. The focus on the colour-value, rather than on the painted surface, is concentrated. This allows the colour-fields to evolve in a direct and pure manner. However in his paintings Fruhtrunk was never interested in reaching a point in which he denies the hand completely. The ‘colour-lanes’ had their respective direction, which remained visible through the effect of the brushstroke. In this case Fruhtrunk didn't intend to emphasise this effect and neither did he intend to deliberately deny it. During Peter's studies, there were student's who started painting in an accentuated and gestural way. It was clear for the young artists in Fruhtrunk's class that an image [ Bild ] had to have a certain dynamic. One of their concerns was to do with the presence of the hand or the brush in the painting. To what extent can, or should, a tensional force within a painting be created through the ductus? Or said differently, how visible should the hand be? Referring to this, before Fruhtrunk's late works were publicly visible, Peter remembers a conversation in which Fruhtrunk asked him whether an artist of his generation saw a possibility for, and necessity in, a gestural way of painting. Peter tells me that it was a rather rhetorical question and that it was likely that Fruhtrunk was primarily interested in provoking a reaction. Perhaps it was because Peter painted in a specific way and held a position that differed from most of his fellow students ; he was neither a ‘konkreter Maler’ in the way that Fruhtrunk was, nor

70

someone who painted gesturally. Fruhtrunk reacted towards gestural paintings and began to give more importance to the presence of the hand and the brush. He accepted the appearance of the brush-ductus in so far that the handmade mark and how he led the brush became visible. Simultaneously the application of paint became more textural. As seen in his earlier paintings, Fruhtrunk never ‘coloured’ the lanes — the forms were filled with the brush following the length of the lanes across the canvases. In the late 1970's and very early 1980's, this typical cross-traversing of the paintbrush over the canvas, this 'travel', became more explicit. In some works the materiality of the colour-pigments, of which Fruhtrunk used to prepare himself, gained more visibility — Fruhtrunk began to embrace the incidental effects of the brush and its mark. The ‘colour-lanes’ adopted the width of the respective brush. The colour-fields were no longer so clearly defined and the framing of the colour-borders no longer existed in the way that they did before. It was known that Fruhtrunk's painterly change took place at the same time that his health was deteriorating. Peter feels that it would be an over-interpretation to reduce the changes in Fruhtrunk's late work to the effect of his unstable health — in the way that many critics of the time tended to do so. This kind of interpretation, says Peter, does not do justice to the work itself. To me, Fruhtrunk's later works indicate that his previous way of painting was not a mere dogma. He was free to change direction within an already specified field. Regarding his characteristic, strict parameters, his late paintings were works that gave new importance to the notion of ‘taming’. It was a way of painting in which he deliberately gave up part of his control by embracing the accidental. It seems to me, that in his late work Fruhtrunk finds a way of dealing with geometric abstraction, which I experience as surprisingly free and clear.

73

74

75

77

79

81

82

83

85

87

89

91

93

94

Günter Fruhtrunk

73 Expressives Grundmotiv, 1981, acylic on canvas, 207 × 191 cm

74 – 75 close up of Expressives Grundmotiv

77 Gleichnis, 1978 / 79, acrylic on canvas, 192 × 190 cm

79 Dechiffrierung, 1981, acrylic and tea on canvas on laminated wood, 61 × 52 cm

81 Die Illusion vom Grund, 1980, acrylic on hard wood fibre, 153.5 × 140.5 cm

82 – 83 close up of Die Illusion vom Grund

85 Unterscheidung 1980, acrylic on canvas, 245.5 × 191 cm

87 Das Dringliche, 1981, acrylic on canvas, 193 × 190 cm 89 Bild, 1982, acrylic on canvas, 207 × 192 cm

91 Innenraum, 1980 acrylic on canvas, 180 × 160 cm

93 Sinnenfundament, 1982, acrylic on canvas, 225 × 195 cm

Günter Fruhtrunk

All images are drawn from

the following books :

‘Günter Fruhtrunk’

published by Peter-Klaus Schuster,

Prestel-Verlag, Munich, 1993

‘Günter Fruhtrunk

Farbe Rhythmus Existenz’

published by Friedemann Malsch,

Kunstmuseum Liechtenstein,

Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern, 2012

Peter Klein

All images photographed

by Peter Klein

Thanks to :

Samuel Jeffery, Peter Klein,

Sarah Klein and Vera Ryser

Flora Klein, ecal, April 2013