The emperor’s new clothes

This is a picture of Cardinal Raymond Burke (via).

I’m sure that Burke could explain why he is dressed this way. I am not sure that I would understand that explanation.

Yes, I’m a Protestant from a very low-church Baptist tradition. And, yes, I’m sure that explains a measure of my befuddlement over this photograph. But not all of it, because, well, just look at it.

I can only guess that this is a ceremonial costume. It surely does not seem to be anything one might wear for practical reasons.

I mean, lots of professions involve particular or even peculiar and odd-looking outfits. Welders, for instance, wear visors, protective aprons and thick gloves. Surgeons wear masks, latex gloves and scrubs. Those are like costumes, but they serve practical purposes for the tasks that such workers have to do.

What sort of task might require this? What work could one be faced with that would cause one to stop and say, “No. No, I couldn’t possibly do that unless I were wearing a red satin train at least 20 feet long and some kind of antimacassar as a frock”?

So this must be ceremonial, which is to say that this outfit must be meant to be symbolic and meaningful.

I remain just as baffled by it. If this get-up is meaningful, what then is it meant to mean? What does such pageantry symbolize, signify or teach? I think it teaches several things, but I doubt those things are what Burke intends.

I have the unsettling suspicion that Burke’s explanation for this costume would have  something to do with ecclesiology, and thus, fundamentally, with Jesus.

This, even more than the sheer spectacle of the thing, is what confounds me the most. What I’m looking at here is a photograph of a man who, at some basic level, has accepted this calculus: Jesus, therefore 30-feet of flowing red satin and lace.

I imagine there must be many steps involved in that “therefore.” I do not know what all those steps might be, but I am certain of this much: many of them were bad steps — steps in a wrong direction. Or, at best, steps in a very odd direction.

 Update: To clarify, the point here is not to say “Ha-ha-ha — look at that outfit,” but rather one step back from that, which is to wonder how such a thing can be worn without the expectation that it will and must, inevitably, cause others to goggle at it — to marvel at it with questions and reactions that have nothing to do with solemnity or reverence or with the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

I’m not confused by the idea of elaborately impractical ceremonial garb per se, or even by the idea that such garb may require additional explanation. A bishop friend once complained that awestruck witnesses of Pentecost settled on a metaphor of “tongues of fire” and that 2,000 years later that meant he had to wear a funny hat. I get that. The liturgical vestments Burke is pictured in on his Wikipedia page might go against the grain of my low-church iconoclasm, but such lovely symbols don’t bewilder me. The extravagant explosion of red satin and lace in that photo above does.

It seems to be the costume for a role in a story I do not know, yet it is being worn in the telling of a story I do know — and I cannot imagine how it belongs in that story. I suspect that including it in that story changes the story in a way that this story ought not to be changed. This is a costume for a story about money and power. That’s not the story he’s supposed to be telling.

 

  • Beleester

    As a Jew, I’m used to my personal Weird Religious Shit deriving from two verses in the Torah followed by 2,000 years of oral tradition expanding on it. So my initial guess for that getup would be “Tradition, therefore 20 feet of red satin.”

    After looking on Wikipedia, I found that a cardinal’s usual outfit kinda-sorta-maybe resembles that. So my next guess would be “Incompetent tailor, therefore 20 feet of red satin.”

  • PurpleAardvaark

    I think it is intended to convey the message that the wearer is too important to even consider doing anything that would cause his garb to become soiled and that this garb costs more than you peasants earn in a month.  Kind of like a CEO in his $5000 suit.

  • http://twitter.com/mikailborg Michael O’Brien

    On top of everything else, I would wear a 20-foot red satin train a *hell* of a lot better than he’s doing.

  • nerdycellist

    I’m a high-church Anglo-Catholic – where the extreme ceremony and dress-up of the Catholic Church gets an added boost from an affirmed, proud and deeply religious gay clergy, and even I haven’t seen anything quite that flamboyant. One Easter our associate priest did have to wear a similar lacy apron thingy as part of his vestments, but I believe that is because he lost a bet with the rector.

  • The_L1985

    “What sort of task might require this? What work could one be faced with that would cause one to stop and say, “No. No, I couldn’t possibly do that unless I were wearing a red satin train at least 20 feet long and some kind of antimacassar as a frock”?So this must be ceremonial, which is to say that this outfit must be meant to be symbolic and meaningful.”

    I can explain the vestments of an ordinary priest in the Catholic Church. The color is related to the liturgical season, and it’s just one outer robe over ordinary clothes (plus dog-collar).  Generally, traditional symbols of Jesus (especially the cross and/or
    Chi-Rho) and the Eucharist (often just a wheat-and-grapes motif) are
    appliqued on.  The deacon wears a white robe with a sash that matches the priest’s robes (again over ordinary clothes) so you can tell priest and deacon apart.  After Mass, the robes are taken off, and the hard part of the priest’s job begins:  shepherding the flock, feeding the Lambs and Sheep, performing the works of mercy detailed in the story of Matthew 25:35-36, hearing confessions.  During that main part of the job, the part that goes from Sunday afternoon to Saturday night, the only article of clothing that sets the priest apart from any other man in a suit is the clerical collar.

    This emphasizes that Mass is special, just as wearing your Sunday best does.  Everyone is wearing something different, as a reminder of the transformative nature of Jesus’s sacrifice and as a way of showing respect in such a formal church setting.  It also gets you into a more worshipful mindset, simply because “these are my church clothes.”

    I can handle a cardinal dressing like that during Mass, as in this picture*.  However, I would be deeply disturbed if he were wearing it on the street.  There’s no good reason to do that–it’s just plain showing off, and as you said, it makes it harder to do the “dirty work” of actually tending to the laity in the world.

    There are plenty of good reasons to wear fancy ceremonial garb during a Mass or jubilee celebration, or other official Church functions that are of a ceremonial nature, like electing the next pope.  There are no good reasons at all to wear something that looks like royal robes day-to-day.  Even real kings and queens don’t do that.  It’s a case of situational context.

    Priestly robes are kind of a universal thing–only Protestant Christianity appears to have done away with them altogether.  It’s part of getting into the ritual mindset.

    * I’m assuming that the reason that the cardinal is dressed in more layers of robes than an ordinary priest or bishop is simply for reasons of rank. I don’t like how far the decorative trend has gone, but I’m pretty sure there are interesting tradition-related reasons for it.

  • Becca Stareyes

    I’m going to agree with Beleester: tradition — especially since 1000 years ago the Church was as much a secular power in Europe as the actual secular powers — therefore lace and red satin.   (Though this particular implementation is a bit unfortunate.) 

    But I was raised by a pair of lapsed Catholics.  While I was baptized and still haven’t gotten around to asking to have my name removed from the rolls, I come from the tradition that sees the church as a thing your parents or grandparents did on Sundays and mostly the equivalent of any other society that takes itself far more serious than outsiders do.

  • Abra

    On the contrary, I think this conveys exactly what he intends — to some people, the “good/real Catholics” because he shares Ratzinger’s desire for a “smaller, more faithful church.” It has only a very loose connection to the Gospel: Jesus founded the church with Peter at the head, therefore those who are successors of Peter have authority given directly from God and everyone else better get in line.

    Burke’s priority: he is deeply committed to the top-down, unquestioned authority of the magistrate model of the Church hierarchy that existed pre-VII and has consistently tried to claw back VII changes. The pomp and circumstances is just part of reestablishing and communicating the priesthood’s, in particular the bishops’, and even more in particular the cardinals’ (the so-called Princes of the Church) status (and privilege) in the Church. He seems to have missed the “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all” part.

    For the record, I am a lapsed Catholic (2nd largest denomination in the US — lapsed Catholic) who lives in Burke’s former archdiocese.

  • caryjamesbond

    The best part?  The “feck off” look he’s throwing the camera.  

    “Oh, and YOU never got dressed in the dark? Yeah, yeah, the peace of the fuckin’ lord be with you to0, punk.” 

    He’s an American Cardinal, too. If he was from, say, Spain, I’d say it might be more of a traditional thing- the Spanish have a tradition of….unusual…dress in some religious contexts. The word “capirote” comes to mind.  

    Or maybe this is just an ill-timed gust of wind. That blew aside his fabulous robes. To reveal his even more fabulous under-robe robes.
    Or it might be a hold over from the Middle Ages/Renaissance when “Cardinal” meant roughly the same thing as “robber baron.” 

  • RavenOnTheHill

    It is called a “cappa magna,” which means great cape (or cope—same word.) It is a show of wealth from who knows how long ago.

    Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cope#Cappa_magna.

    The cappa magna is not strictly a liturgical vestment, but only a glorified cappa choralis,
    or choir cope. That is to say, it is not used when vested as a
    celebrant at a liturgical service. It is worn in processions or “in choir”
    (i.e., attending but not celebrating services). Its colour for
    cardinals is ordinarily red and for bishops violet. Cardinals and papal nuncios are entitled to wear a cappa magna of watered silk.

  • http://twitter.com/shutsumon Becka Sutton

    Okay that’s his choir dress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choir_dress#Roman_Catholic_choir_dress) though that ferraiolo (cloak) is really unfortunate…

    From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_%28Catholicism%29#Vesture_and_privileges

    “When in choir dress, a Latin-rite cardinal wears scarlet garments — the blood-like red symbolizes a cardinal’s willingness to die for his faith.  Excluding the rochet — which is always white — the scarlet garments include the cassock, mozzetta, and biretta (over the usual scarlet zucchetto).”

  • Magic_Cracker

    Obviously, he’s about to fly around the Earth to reverse its rotation to before Vatican II.

  • Enoch Root

    Your own

    ..portable

    ..cathedral.

    Someone to hear your prayers, someone who’s there.

  • nomen nescio

    As others have pointed out, honest-to-goodness liturgical vestments (even including the much-maligned maniple and pre-Vatican II pontificalia, like buskins and gauntlets) generally continue ancient Roman “Sunday best” qua clothing for the Eucharist. Moreover, their general splendor and hierarchical nuances really do stem from the traditional notions, common to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, (a) that the Eucharist, amongst other things, represents the perfection of the rites of the Temple of Jerusalem, and (b) that the bishop is actually the ordinary celebrant of the Eucharist in his diocese and a symbol of the sacramental unity of the diocese = local church, with his priests celebrating the Eucharist as his deputies, in his absence.

    That said, stuff like the cappa magna (seen in the photo) continue mediaeval and Renaissance-era ceremonial clothing of an essentially secular nature, which had far, far more to do with temporal power than with anything else — whatever one might think within a Catholic context about the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms, Paul VI probably had the right idea when he systematically did away, in a separate reform, with purely ceremonial confections like the cappa magna.As for Cardinal Burke, to be absolutely fair, he’s only decked out with cappa magna and galero when solemnly celebrating Mass for a certain (canonically licit) traditionalist group which either does everything consistently according to the pre-Vatican II books, or has an interesting tendency to Baroque affectation, depending on your perspective…

  • Christopher Mauney

    He’s wearing an oversized red garbage bag over a repurposed table cloth, symbolizing poverty and thrift.  What’s not to get?

    Anything else that explains this getup would just be silly (er…more silly).

  • Matt Herrera

    As a former Catholic turned Agnostic, is it OK for me to make the obvious Avengers reference?

    “Doth Mother know thou weareth her drapes?”

  • connorboone

    You know, Fred, I expected better of you.

    If you want to talk about the things that the Catholic leadership is teaching that are destructive and horrible, great.

    But pointing at Catholics and saying “Look at how *weird* they are!” isn’t terribly helpful.  It is othering, and it isn’t very nice.

    I’ve read up on, for instance, the secret Mormon rituals that go on in the temple.  I think they’re weird, sure, but that’s the thing about rituals – they look weird to the people on the outside.  My family has rituals that would look weird to people on the outside – that’s because I’m an atheist and my wife is an eclectic pagan.

    This is on the level of making fun of Mormon magic underwear, or mocking Native American rituals. 

  • AnonymousSam

    Yes, yes it is.

    Personally, flamboyant displays like this just sadden me. They remind me that what the church worships is its own history, not Christ. They have nothing to do with Christ, only what authority and spiritual presence Christ has supposedly bestowed upon them.

  • LL

    Fred may be above this, but I’m not. They’re not the only weird ones, BTW, but the elaborate dress of the upper-echelon Catholic hierarchy? Weird. Vaguely creepy (maybe I’ve seen too many “ultra religious people who belong to a cult/are in league with Satan” movies). 

    Now the stuff most priests and nuns wear, I got no problem with. But this flowing robe stuff … ick. But that’s just me. Maybe if he looked like our popular portrayal of Jesus, with relatively humble robes made of relatively humble cloth, rather than looking like he’s wearing the Vatican Fall 2012 haute couture line, it wouldn’t seem so … offputting. I understand they’ve been wearing this junk for a long time, but still. And I also think the Mormon underwear stuff is weird, too. 

  • walden

    great use of the word antimacassar…
     

  • nomen nescio

    If this were Cardinal Burke in a chasuble or cope, even with the biggest, shiniest, pointiest mitre ever on his head, I would agree with you 100%, for those are honest-to-goodness *liturgical* vestments whose splendor actually would make sense from the theological framework where the received liturgical tradition is Tradition with a capital T, e.g., Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy.

    Something like the cappa magna, however, is arguably fair game, but I would agree that there’s a definite danger of coming across and saying nothing more substantial than “teehee, Romish superstition.”

  • LL

    Ok, this one probably wins the thread. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Matt-Herrera/100000106872183 Matt Herrera

     I think it’s less a case of “othering” Catholics so much as it pointing out a symptom of that destructive Catholic leadership.  The same leadership that claims to speak with Christ’s voice, that claims to represent  the most vulnerable in society, is here seen wrapping themselves in gaudy robes that reek of opulence and power.  The clothes are a hint to where the Church’s real priorities lie.

    They also happen–to paraphrase myself quoting Tony Stark–to look like Grandma’s drapes.  And that’s kinda funny.

  • caryjamesbond

    This is on the level of making fun of Mormon magic underwear, or mocking Native American rituals.

    A)  mormon magic underwear is pretty objectively silly. 

    B)  comparing the members of two small minority religions to a group that BY ITSELF qualifies as the second largest religion in the world is….not so much. Not to mention he’s making fun of Cardinals. It’s not like he’s making fun of what they wear in the slums of Rio.

    C) “But its my SPECHUL TRADITION ERMAHGERD” does not mean your special tradition isn’t dumber than a sack of nickles.
    C2) “but my spechul tradition of oldness” is not a magical weapon to silence everyone else in the world. If its that special and old, it’ll stick around beyond a few pointing, laughing people.

    D)  The entire point of Fred’s post is in that second to last paragraph:

    “What I’m looking at here is a photograph of a man who, at some basic level, has accepted this calculus: Jesus, therefore 30-feet of flowing red satin and lace.”In other words:

    “This man claims to be following the teachings of a guy that said ‘if someone asks for your cloak, give him your shirt too’ by wearing 20 feet of the most expensive cloth he could find….LOLWUT???” It’s conspicuous consumption from the last person who should be doing it. 

    E)  That outfit, objectively, looks really, really, REALLY stupid.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    Like most ceremonial things Catholic, it’s meant to remind those who gaze upon it of all the grandeur they can expect to see in heaven, as imagined by a fourth century  Roman.

  • cjmr

    That *is* ceremonial dress.  And HIGH ceremonial, at that.

    Normally Cardinal Burke, like most cardinals, wears either a red cassock and skullcap, or black clericals with red banding and a red skull cap.

    Fred, this is totally unlike you.  And beneath you.

  • http://mordicai.livejournal.com Mordicai

     Yep; this outfit says just what Ricardian politics would say: “I have conspicuous wealth & therefore unlimited power.  Accept my authority, because as you can see by my high status display, I am far, far above you.”

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    “Princes of the Church”? Hmm. Somewhere, another ‘s’ must’ve gotten in because that looks more “Princess of the Church”. 

  • Morilore

    Yeah, I can’t get behind this.  The cardinal may be a douchebag, but the crazy costume is awesome.  Crazy costumes, generally, are awesome.  And people other than douchebag cardinals like to wear crazy costumes.  “Haha look at the weirdo in his weird dress” makes me feel like I’m back in middle school.

  • Jim Roberts

    Crazy costumes paid for by parishioner funds are less awesome, though.

  • thebewilderness

    It is fascinating to me to see the way the sumptuary laws have been embraced over the years. The red carpet parade at the Oscars, the pomp of a royal court presentation, and religious organizations select, all seem to be saying similar things about themselves.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Mormon magic underwear isn’t twenty yards of cloth that costs ten dollars a yard, though. This isn’t “ha ha, look at those Others, don’t they look stupid”, this is “these people say they want to help the poor, but then they spend two hundred dollars on fancy clothes”. With a side of “don’t they look stupid”, yes, but the point is the wasteful spending and the hypocrisy.
    And I suspect ten-dollars-a-yard red satin is the cheap shit, which I can just about guarantee you is not what that cloak is made of.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jrandyowens Randy Owens

    Because he’s fabulous in it.

    Alternatively, there’s the explanation that bloodstains don’t show up so prominently on red cloth.

  • connorboone

    But the hypocrisy of finances is nowhere in Fred’s post.  Fred’s post is entirely about “What would possess someone to wear that on purpose?”

    It’s pointing at the cardinal and laughing at him because he’s dressed funny.  There is nothing that Fred wrote that had to do with the cost of the outfit.

    If we wanted to talk about what the cardinal is teaching to his congregation or the agenda he is using his office to advance, that is fair game, especially if he is doing it in the name of his particular religious denomination.

    Likewise, I don’t criticize the Mormon church for magic underwear, for the outfits they wear within their Temple services.  These are their rituals, and that is their business.  Someone’s religious rituals only become subject to mockery when they cause harm to others – see also polygamy (as practiced by the Mormon church in times past) and baptism for the dead.  Those are valid points of mockery and derision, because they are wrong.

    And when the Mormon church throws its financial might behind Proposition 8, well, that’s a valid target for criticism, as well.

  • EllieMurasaki

    What I’m looking at here is a photograph of a man who, at some basic level, has accepted this calculus: Jesus, *therefore*30-feet of flowing red satin and lace.

    I imagine there must be many steps involved in that “therefore.” I do not know what all those steps might be, but I am certain of this much: many of them were bad steps — steps in a *wrong* direction. Or, at best, steps in a very odd direction.

    You really think Jesus would have approved of spending two hundred plus dollars on looking fancy?

  • connorboone

    No, I don’t.

    But that wasn’t what Fred said.

  • EllieMurasaki

    So what was Fred saying in that bit if it wasn’t “Jesus wouldn’t have approved of the expensive cloak”?

  • AnonymousSam

    If you invoke the name of Jesus followed shortly by an explanation of why that means you need to wear a ludicrously expensive costume which is purposefully unlike what anyone else would ever dream of wearing, then yes, it’s pointing out a theological oxymoron about humility and pride, charity and greed, not just making fun of the outfit.

    Fred has just updated the post-

    Update: To clarify, the point here is not to say “Ha-ha-ha — look at that outfit,” but rather one step back from that, which is to wonder how such a thing can be worn without the expectation that it will and must, inevitably, cause others to goggle at it — to marvel at it with questions and reactions that have nothing to do with solemnity or reverence or with the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

    I’m not confused by the idea of elaborately impractical ceremonial garb per se, or even by the idea that such garb may require additional explanation. A bishop friend once complained that awestruck witnesses of Pentecost settled on a metaphor of “tongues of fire” and that 2,000 years later that meant he had to wear a funny hat. I get that. The liturgical vestments Burke is pictured in on his Wikipedia page might go against the grain of my low-church iconoclasm, but such lovely symbols don’t bewilder me. The extravagant explosion of red satin and lace in that photo above does.

    It seems to be the costume for a role in a story I do not know, yet it is being worn in the telling of a story I do know — and I cannot imagine how it belongs in that story. I suspect that including it in that story changes the story in a way that this story ought not to be changed. This is a costume for a story about money and power. That’s not the story he’s supposed to be telling.

  • LL

    He actually looks kinda uncomfortable in that picture. It’s possible he doesn’t like that shit, either, but his predecessors wore it, and if he didn’t, people would talk. You know, the other, catty cardinals. “Well, look at Burke, thinks he’s too cool to wear the sacred vestments!” (or whatever the hell they’re called). 

    Just to give the guy in the extremely elaborate dress the benefit of the doubt. 

    He’s wearing enough red fabric there to clothe 6 teenage girls at prom. 8 if a couple of them don’t mind looking slutty (and apparently, many of them don’t). 

  • EllieMurasaki

    He’s wearing enough red fabric there to clothe 6 teenage girls at prom. 8 if a couple of them don’t mind looking slutty (and apparently, many of them don’t).

    There are ways to phrase your critique of the cardinal’s outfit that do not involve shaming young women for dressing in a manner that displeases you by its connection to female sexuality.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     Yeah. Fred doesn’t treat Catholics any different than anyone else when he’s making a substantive complaint about the poltical stance of the church. But the catholic church seems to be the only one where he feels okay *also* occasionally taking these shallow digs at their trappings, and that makes me kind of uncomfortable.

  • nomen nescio

    Bravo, Fred, for your clarification. While there’s actual theological content behind the liturgical vestments in the Wikipedia photo, theology with which one can agree or disagree depending on one’s take on the nature of the Eucharist and of the Church, there is no such theological content behind irredeemably princely finery like the Cappa Magna in the photo here, cutesy a posteriori allegorical justifications notwithstanding.

    At the end of Vatican II, Paul VI solemnly laid his triple tiara on the High Altar of S. Peter’s Basilica and donated its value to the poor, never to pick it up again. I’m just a lapsed, left-wing Catholic who probably has no place in the Roman Catholic Church of Cardinal Burke (let alone the Throne-and-Altar fantasies of the good folks who kit Burke up like this every once in a while), but I do still hope, perhaps against hope, that Montini’s beautiful gesture will someday truly reverberate…

  • LL

    You take these comments way too seriously. 

  • gocart mozart

    Wow!  You can fit two, maybe three altar boys under that getup.

  • LL

    See, now, THAT’S more like it! From slutty prom goers to an altar boy joke. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    Words have meanings and context and connotations and some of those hurt people. This isn’t even connotations and implications, this is denotations, this is literal meaning. You think that teenage girls who wear prom dresses that reveal much cleavage or much thigh are doing something wrong, compared to teenage girls who wear more modest prom dresses, and that the first group of girls ought to be ashamed of themselves. You said as much flat out. That is an offensive belief and kindly do not voice it again.

    I do not care whether you think I am overinvested in attempting to ensure that other people do not say hurtful things, as long as you do not say hurtful things.

  • EllieMurasaki

    That joke strikes me as inappropriate as well. I can’t articulate why, though, and it’s different from your prom-goers remark in that prom-goers wearing revealing gowns are not doing anything wrong, while we all know what many Catholic hierarchs are doing with far too many children and teens is most certainly wrong.

  • Abra

    You have vastly underestimated the amount of money spent on Cardinal Ray’s vestments. Even at my local Catholic supply store, the cheapest chasuble  costs $300+ and they aren’t Prada (Ratzinger’s preferred designer apparently) — why, they cost that much, I have no idea. Their construction is along the lines of a table cloth with a collar and most parish priests’ chasubles are made of similar material.

    Someone put together an estimate of what a different set of Burke’s vestments cost — $30,000. That was without the capa magna.

    http://www.richardsipe.com/Burke_Gallery/Looking%20sharp%20for%20Jesus%20-%202003.pdf

  • EllieMurasaki

    I figured I was, but my only point of reference for how much all that costs is the price of red satin at Jo-Ann’s. Thirty thousand, Jesus fuck, that is more than I make in a year, what is keeping them from doing the ceremony in an outfit only marginally more special than everyday wear and using the rest of the money to provide a paycheck to someone on the long-term-unemployed list?

  • LectorElise

     Bravo.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    According to the Gospel of John, Jesus wore a seamless gown on the eve of his crucifixion.

    So extravagant garb isn’t right out.

    Are you really saying that fancy dress is inherently against any legitimate interpretation of christianity?

    The basic idea behind the catholic ceremonial garb is “We’re going to go stand before God, so we want to look the best we can,” and to communicate to the parisioners “This is a big deal. It’s about greatness and majesty.”  It’s about looking otherworldly because the thing you’re doing is otherworldly.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X