Veiled Threat | Bitch Magazine

Veiled Threat | Bitch Magazine
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/veiled-threat
GO
Search
ABOUT US
BLOGS
MAGAZINE
AUDIO
VIDEO
EVENTS
DONATE + SUBSCRIB
Veiled Threat
The guerrilla graffiti of Princess Hijab
Article (/browse/results/content_type:article) by Arwa Aburawa, appeared in issue Art/See (/issue/45) ; published in 2009 (/browse
1 of 10
1/30/10 7:56 PM
Veiled Threat | Bitch Magazine
/results/date_authored%253A2009) ; filed
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/veiled-threat
under Art (/browse/results/taxonomy%3A3) .
Since 2006, the elusive guerrilla artist known as Princess Hijab has been subverting Parisian billboards, to a
mixed reception. Her anonymity irritates her critics, many of whom denounce her as extremist and
antifeminist; when she recently conceded, in the pages of a German newspaper, that she wasn’t a Muslim, it
opened the floodgates to avid speculation in the blogosphere. If her claim of being a 21-year-old Muslim girl was
only partially true, some wondered what the real message was behind her self-described “artistic jihad.”
In her online manifesto, PH declares that she “acts upon her own free will” and is “not involved in any lobby or
movement, be it political, religious, or to do with advertising.” The Princess insists that, like the ape-masked
Guerrilla Girls and Mexico’s balaclava-clad Zapatistas, by being nobody, she is free to be anybody. But as
liberating as this anonymity may seem, it does leave her work open to conflicting—and occasionally unflattering
—interpretations. On the popular blog Art21, (http://blog.art21.org/2009/02/26/wheres-all-the-rightwing-street-art/) critic
Paul Schmelzer points to Princess Hijab’s work as an example of right-wing street art, surmising that her
motivation is to cover the “shame of omnipresent (and often sexualized) ads.” Another blogger, Evil Fionna,
argues that if Princess Hijab were acting as a fundamentalist Christian, her work would be recognized as
“religious extremis[m]” that demonizes women and makes them ashamed of their bodies. And a commentator
on the anti-Islam site Infidel Bloggers accused the artist of urging women to submit to the “tyranny of Islam.”
These observers also allude to the uncanny similarity between the work of Princess Hijab and that of
conservative religious groups that have historically used less literal hijabizing to police the female form. In
Saudi Arabia, the 80-year-old government agency known as the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the
Prevention of Vice is tasked with, among other things, blacking out bare skin wherever it shows up. In line with
Sharia law, women in the pages of magazines, on billboards, and in other public images are painstakingly
covered up: Katy Perry may be sporting high-waisted hot pants and a tiny top on her cd cover, but once the
Committee gets through with it, she’s garbed in a long-sleeved shirt with matching leggings. (The group,
notorious for beating up men and women engaged in “immoral behavior,” have also made headlines for
banning Valentine’s Day and restricting the sale of cats and dogs, lest they be used by men to attract women’s
attention.)
And in the U.K. in 2005, the activists behind Muslims Against Advertising (MAAD) began daubing blobs of
paint on the underdressed models in street ads for the likes of Dove and Wonderbra, and in some cases ripping
down the posters altogether.
The ongoing conflict over hijabs in her home country does give Princess Hijab’s work an inescapable political
context, or what she calls a “shade of provocation.” France’s hijab debates first erupted in 1989 when three
high-school girls were suspended after they refused to remove their Islamic headscarves at a school in a suburb
of Paris. Successive years of controversy led to former President Jacques Chirac passing a bill in 2004 banning
“religious symbols” in schools on the grounds that they clashed with France’s cherished notions of
secularization; more recently, President Nicolas Sarkozy upheld the ban on burqas and headscarves in public
spaces, stating, “The burqa is not a religious symbol, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women.
I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic. We cannot accept
women in cages, amputated of all dignity, on French soil.”
But Princess Hijab insists that anyone confusing her work with that of either conservative culture-jammers or
Muslims supporting freedom of religious expression is missing the mark. “My work supports right-wing
radicalism like Taxi Driver support cabbies. I’m using the hijab for myself.” And looking through her catalog of
work, neither label seems right. If her goal really is to cover up the skin-flashing women in ads, then why leave
slinky legs on display underneath the painted-on hijabs? And if she’s aiming to make a statement about the
dignity of Muslim women, why hijabize male models in Dolce & Gabbana briefs with shoulder-length chadors,
leaving their tanned, oiled abs and legs even more preposterously exposed?
2 of 10
1/30/10 7:56 PM
Veiled Threat | Bitch Magazine
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/veiled-threat
In fact, Princess Hijab asserts, her dressing up of billboards is a symbolic act of resistance meant to reassert a
“physical and mental integrity” against what she calls the “visual terrorism” of advertising. Arguing that the
human right of expression has been displaced by publicists, advertisers, and the machinery of capitalist,
commodified culture, she offers that, “My work explores how something as intimate as the human body has
become as distant as a message from your corporate sponsor.”
“Like that poster of Farah Fawcett,” she continues, “with her teeth clenched in fear above her perfect polyester
swimswuit. When she revealed her cancer, we had to see her and her body as something capable of tragedy. It’s
that sort of re-humanization that I aim for with hijabization.” Princess Hijab later admitted that this example,
and equating wearing the hijab with physical suffering, was a clumsy one, but wanted the point to stand: Her
work attempts to remove the hijab from its gendered and religious context and convert it into a symbol of
empowerment and re-embodiment.
Equally central to her work is the goal of social equality. She notes that, in France, “You’re always being asked
your origin, which religion you follow. It’s something that is very French, actually; you don’t see it in New York
or Berlin.” Hinting that she is a racial outsider in France, Princess Hijab states that she is never taken at face
value, but instead pushed into a homogeneous social group and then judged by a corresponding set of
stereotypes. With stratification by gender, religion, place of origin, and sexuality, she asserts, comes groups that
are closed off from one another’s experiences. Even during her time at university, she recalls her modes of
expression being explained away by her origins: “I would be told [that it was] ‘natural,’ given my background,
that I would work on [one] topic and not on another. I felt trapped.” But by highlighting everyone’s potential
“outsider” status by imposing the hijab on public figures, PH asserts that she is “trying to create a connection
with and between people.”
3 of 10
1/30/10 7:56 PM
Veiled Threat | Bitch Magazine
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/veiled-threat
Back when Princess Hijab was believed to be a Muslim, blogger Ethar El-Katatney of Muslimah Media Watch
(http://muslimahmediawatch.org/2008/12/princess-hijab/) noted, “I’d actually love it if it turns out she’s not a Muslim,
because it lends credibility to the idea that the dislike of being exposed to ‘visual aggression’ is not necessarily
rooted in religious belief. Fed up with women being used to sell products, hijabizing ads could be a way to ‘take
back’ women’s rights to their bodies.” Indeed, in Princess Hijab’s marked-up art, the headscarf is an agent not
of covering but of exposure—of the oppressive nature of the advertising industry, of the displacement and
disempowerment of women who are repeatedly told that they are not good, skinny, beautiful, sexy, or rich
enough. It’s work that owes much more to Adbusters (https://www.adbusters.org/) or No Logo
(http://www.naomiklein.org/no-logo) than to the Taliban.
Though Princess Hijab’s work has gained international notice, like much street art it still actively resists a
simplistic reading. And that she uses such a contested icon to wreak artistic revenge on the dual constructs of
advertising and social prejudice means her work is ultimately as much about the interpretation of others as it is
about her own intent. “People are confused by me,” admits PH. “Some say I am pro-feminist, some say I am
antifeminist; some say I am pro-Islam, others that I am anti-Islam. It’s all very interesting—but at the end of the
day, I am above all an artist.”
Arwa Aburawa is a freelance journalist based in the United Kingdom.
Hey, if you value this content, please consider donating (/donate/give-now?utm_source=article-pitch&utm_medium=textbanner&utm_term=donate&utm_content=text&utm_campaign=donate-block) . We aim to keep content free and accessible for
everyone, but that system only works if the folks who are able to support us do so. Any amount is greatly appreciated
and valuable. Thanks!
Comments
4 of 10
1/30/10 7:56 PM
Veiled Threat | Bitch Magazine
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/veiled-threat
15 comments have been made. Post a comment. (/comment/reply/2524#comment-form)
While the art almost makes a (/article/veiled-threat#comment-10670)
Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on November 19, 2009 - 5:48pm
While the art almost makes a good point. I disagree with the message. I love the fact that the hijab and the
burqa are equated with the dehumanization and objectification of models on billboards. It isn't clumsy, its
brilliant. The hijab and burqa do not empower anyone, they make people as anonymous and objectified as those
billboards do. I would like to reference psychological research on anonymity, deindividuation, and group
behavior from Kugihara (2001),Robert L. Dipboye (1977), Zimbardo (1969) . It is more likely for those wearing
anonymous clothing to loose their sense of identity and assume the identity of their group either allowing them
to act more extreme in either a passive way or aggressive way, under their collective identity. Is there a better
way to subject control over others then to rob them of their individuality? (i.e. klu klux klan, the Nazi's, the
Zimbardo Prision Experiment)
While the art almost makes a (/article/veiled-threat#comment-10672)
Posted by Yeah (not verified) on November 19, 2009 - 6:01pm
While the art almost makes a good point. I disagree with the message. I love the fact that the hijab and the
burqa are equated with the dehumanization and objectification of models on billboards. It isn't clumsy, its
brilliant. The hijab and burqa do not empower anyone, they make people as anonymous and objectified as those
billboards do. I would like to reference psychological research on anonymity, deindividuation, and group
behavior from Kugihara (2001),Robert L. Dipboye (1977), Zimbardo (1969) . It is more likely for those wearing
anonymous clothing to loose their sense of identity and assume the identity of their group either allowing them
to act more extreme in either a passive way or aggressive way, under their collective identity. Is there a better
way to subject control over others then to rob them of their individuality? (i.e. klu klux klan, the Nazi's, the
Zimbardo Prision Experiment)
Feeding the frenzy (/article/veiled-threat#comment-10886)
Posted by Saudi Feminist (not verified) on November 23, 2009 - 6:51pm
I am so tired of Westerners who have taken up the hijab and burqa as a sign of oppression. What you so
casually refer to as 'dehumanization and objectification' is so typical of this pop culture xenophobia and
ignorance. I hate to bring this up as it's been used to the point of being a cliche but the Virgin Mary appears
veiled in every single aesthetic representation I've ever seen of her. Has she been dehumanized and
objectified?
As a Saudi Muslim (albeit not very active) woman, the "burqa" (which by the way is exclusive to
Afghanistan and is not worn in Saudi Arabia), is cultural and traditional aspect of life here that is is
HONESTLY NOT THAT BIG A DEAL.
I think just the fact that I am commenting on this article on the Bitch Magazine website kind of blows a hole
in your theory or that of Kugihara, Dipboye, or Zimbardo that I have lost my sense of identity and am acting
out in 'either a passive way or aggessive way'. That theory is kind of ridiculous. It's an item of clothing,
people. That would be akin to me saying the same thing about everyone who wears jeans.
I applaud this artist for using a symbol that is so commonly misconstrued as oppressive in a different light.
I don't know her intentions but I thought it was powerful statement that is best left to subjective
interpretation.
5 of 10
1/30/10 7:56 PM
Veiled Threat | Bitch Magazine
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/veiled-threat
I am now going to re-chain myself to my stove and continue popping out babies and being beaten by my
terrorist husband. I'm sure that's an image of Muslim/Arab women you're all much more comfortable
propagating.
A range of remarks (/article/veiled-threat#comment-10938)
Posted by Anonymouse (not verified) on November 24, 2009 - 10:55pm
Just a few points, as bullets.
1) Virgin Mary - 2000 years ago. Your point would be slightly more relevant if the Catholic Church were
still advocating that every woman dress like the Virgin Mary.* In fact, a closer analogy would be in
relation to nuns (about whom I'll speak quite generally now, as I'm not one myself, so don't have a great
deal of inside knowledge about their experience). Nuns are covered up as a symbol of their dedication
to God, and abstraction from the "real world", shall we say. Often, at least to my understanding, nuns
take new names from the traditional female names of the faith. Might this not speak to Anonymous'
point regarding deindividuation?
*The idea that women must cover their shoulders and wear skirts/shorts below the knees in order to
enter Churches is somewhat different, although does spring to my mind, and might be of relevance to
any comparison.
2) "As a Saudi Muslim (albeit not very active) woman, the "burqa" (which by the way is exclusive to
Afghanistan and is not worn in Saudi Arabia), is cultural and traditional aspect of life here that is is
HONESTLY NOT THAT BIG A DEAL."
Sorry, but where is "here"? If "here" is Saudi Arabia, then your point seems sort of a tautology, as you've
already said the item is exclusive to Afghanistan. It being "NOT THAT BIG A DEAL" would be related to
that, would it not? Perhaps you could elucidate the point for me? That in Saudi Arabia, no-one has
strong feelings on the burqa? I'm not sure that makes a difference to the discussion either way, to be
honest...
3) As a related point, I seem to recall reading that there was some public outcry relating to KAUST, the
new university where women are unveiled on campus and education will be more "Westernly co-ed"
(shall we say) than anywhere else in the country. That would suggest that veiling is still something of a
big deal culturally and traditionally in Saudi Arabia, even if the burqa is not at the core of it? I don't
pretend to speak from a position of great knowledge regarding Saudi Arabia, but I don't think you paint
a particularly balanced/representative picture of it simply by saying, "Well, hey, I'm a woman from
Saudi Arabia, and I'm here on this blog, so that means that the principle of veiling women is equivalent
to the wearing of jeans."
4) Aside from which, I actually don't particularly like jeans, and avoid wearing them myself, as I DO
think that they're unimaginative and deindividuating in some sense. The practicality of them (hardwearing cotton weave, etc.) provides, in my view, something of a better rationale for their ubiquity than
exists for veils, but perhaps you can enlighten me as to the practicality of such garments and the reason
why they might have become so "fashionable"?
5) I don't think that your being an exception to the point necessarily completely invalidates the point
entirely. It just suggests that there needs to be greater caution in regard to generalisations.
6) Your final paragraph sounds very much like it is about trying to shame people into shutting up and
putting aside their subjective interpretations in favour of your own. I personally don't hold that image
dear to my heart, and I know lots of Muslim/Arab women who do not reflect it.
6 of 10
1/30/10 7:56 PM
Veiled Threat | Bitch Magazine
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/veiled-threat
Thank you for your (/article/veiled-threat#comment-10942)
Posted by S.F. (not verified) on November 25, 2009 - 1:39am
Thank you for your (extremely eloquent) reply. In reference to the Virgin Mary comment, my point
was simply that the hijab is not exclusive to Muslims and therefore should not be viewed as a
byproduct of our supposedly backwards culture and lifestyle, which is consistently how it seems to
portrayed.
Although this is not relevant to the issue at hand, I disagree that nuns taking new names as part of
their commitment to Jesus and the church is an example of deindividuation. Like you, I have little
understanding of nuns but I always took it more as a shedding of their old identities and an
embracing of the new devout presence in their life. Which doesn’t make them lesser individuals.
In response to your question, ‘here’ is Saudi Arabia. In my experience with the Western perceptions
of the Middle East (I spent some time in the U.S. as an exchange student last year), it seems that
they are constantly using the hijab as an example of how uncivilized and anti-feminist my religion
and country are. When I say that the veil is not a big deal here, what I mean is simply, it’s a part of
our life. It’s as normal for me to grab my veil as I run out of the house as it is for you to grab your
purse. I’m always shocked by how much controversy surrounds a piece of cloth. It’s like trying to
create a problem out of air. Hope that clarifies my original point.
I’m going to assume that your comment regarding KAUST (which by the way is a huge step for a
country that is less than 100 years old), is based on what you’ve read and heard in the news. The
individuals who led this ‘outcry’ regarding this advancement in secular higher education are part of
the few and the extreme, who unfortunately, are quite powerful in Saudi Arabia. My point is that
the veil is not a big deal here because it is so deeply embedded in the social and cultural fabric.
Which is why it is offensive to some to see the freedom that KAUST has offered it’s female students.
I personally think it’s a wonderful advancement (but that it’s not going to last).
I think you’re oversimplifying my comment with this statement: "Well, hey, I'm a woman from
Saudi Arabia, and I'm here on this blog, so that means that the principle of veiling women is
equivalent to the wearing of jeans."
I am not one of few feminists in the country, I am one of the many, although maybe not the most
eloquent. My whole point was that it’s utterly ridiculous for people who have no understanding of
this part of the world to make so many biased and ignorant judgments about a piece of clothing. I
don’t care how many studies have been done. I feel like people have this misconception of the
Middle East and Islam and only do enough digging to give their theories the most shallow
justification possible. At the end of the day, no one wants to be proven wrong.
Finally, I would never assume to push my opinion on people. I just felt that few Saudi women would
ever get a chance to see this article and since I had such strong feelings about it, I decided to
comment. I was quite frustrated so that was perhaps not the best mood in which to voice my
perspective. Either way, thank you for your reply and for giving me a chance to form my own
response.
We do live in a decadent (/article/veiled-threat#comment-11437)
Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on December 11, 2009 - 12:30am
We do live in a decadent world where substance is neglected on behalf of appearances. I really think
it's sad and that there are issues more important than clothing items. I do believe that people
7 of 10
1/30/10 7:56 PM
Veiled Threat | Bitch Magazine
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/veiled-threat
should have the freedom to wear what they want. The muslims who want to wear the hijab should
be able to wear it anywhere and those who do not want it should not be forced into it.
Projecting on the 'other' our fears and negativity is no longer tolerable in a world which became that
small!
"Not that big a deal" (/article/veiled-threat#comment-11878)
Posted by Karina (not verified) on December 29, 2009 - 6:47pm
HI anonymous, thank you for your input! I have a question.
To me, the ability to grab a purse as I run out the door is a choice. I can take a red purse, a black
purse, but I have the freedom to choose to take a purse today, or just shove my wallet into my back
pocket and go. NO purse is always an available option.
What would happen if a woman from Saudi chose not to wear a burqa today? My understanding is
that this woman would risk many social ramifications, if not her own personal safety.
It's the absence of choice, not having the freedom to choose, that I feel is the root of the burqa
'issue' in the west.
Thank again all of you for this wonderful respectful discussion.
About the Virgin Mary's veil (/article/veiled-threat#comment-12008)
Posted by lolsuz (not verified) on January 5, 2010 - 5:52pm
As an atheist, I have no qualms whatsoever in answering your question about Mary being dehumanized
and objectified by the veil: the headcovering required by her culture at that time may not have been
dehumanizing and objectifying, but it was without a doubt an instrument of gender subjugation.
Judaism was appallingly, rampantly misogynistic; requiring women to actually temporarily move out of
their homes every month to a camp outside the city/village/settlement because their menstrual cycle
made them and everything they touched spiritually unclean is but one example. There are dozens of
other examples scattered throughout the Bible. I'm actually not a feminist; I'm a humanist. I reject any
culture that treats 50% of its population as inferior, for WHATEVER reason. The loss to our species in
this regard is a tragedy of incalculable measure- what contributions to science might we have had if we
didn't cut off half our population from contributing? Or to art? Or to law? What richness of life have we
lost by not allowing half our population to participate fully in every aspect of life? This doesn't just
apply to the Arab/Muslim world, and you don't have to be "chained to your stove, popping out babies
and being beaten by your husband" to be subjugated, marginalized, and have your life's full potential
wasted. Such waste happens all over the world, even in my own country. My pride is not so big as to
blind me from this; the overall gain and benefit to my species is far more important to me than national
or cultural pride.
Anyone who says a burqa is not a big deal is choosing to be blind. Those outside your sphere of belief
see this CLEARLY. Just as those outside the sphere of belief of Mormonism see it's obviously made-up
by some guy, and those who are outside the sphere of belief of Voodoo see it's superstitious hysterical
nonsense. I'm a former Catholic myself, and as such I can now clearly see what a mess Catholicism is.
This doesn't just apply to religious belief either; those outside the sphere of capitalism have no trouble
identifying its weaknesses.
Saudi Feminist, I understand how hard it is to hear criticism of one's own culture. It's like the old
saying, "I can say bad things about my sister, but YOU had better not!" This is basic human nature and
we're all susceptible to it, even me if I'm not paying attention. It gives your name of "Saudi Feminist" a
particular irony, however, when you say that women being forced by law to wear a garment (ANY
garment, but particularly one that shrouds the whole body into a faceless blob of fabric like a burqa),
8 of 10
1/30/10 7:56 PM
Veiled Threat | Bitch Magazine
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/veiled-threat
and a legal system that punishes a woman for failing to appropriately cover her FACE (the most
expressive part of the human animal and the part of our bodies we humans identify most as our "self")
is "no big deal". A feminist who doesn't think it's dehumanizing to "de-face" women? I'm sorry but
that's a version of feminism that's as clumsy as a car with square wheels.
veiled message ? (/article/veiled-threat#comment-10694)
Posted by kajagoogoo (not verified) on November 19, 2009 - 8:52pm
like the concept, but not the pics they...picked lol. it's old. that's crap.
prefer new princess stuff
http://www.rhizome.org/editorial/2988 (http://www.rhizome.org/editorial/2988)
http://blog.vandalog.com/2009/09/princess-hijab/ (http://blog.vandalog.com/2009/09/princess-hijab/)
http://nouvellemode.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/princess-hijab/ (http://nouvellemode.wordpress.com/2009/11
/19/princess-hijab/)
i think the pics they chose (/article/veiled-threat#comment-10980)
Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on November 25, 2009 - 8:01pm
i think the pics they chose are a little old. it doesn't show what's he's doing right now.
http://www.good.is/post/putting-on-the-veil/ (http://www.good.is/post/putting-on-the-veil/)
shout out (/article/veiled-threat#comment-10702)
Posted by Arwa Aburawa (http://arwafreelance.wordpress.com/) (not verified) on November 19, 2009 - 10:02pm
Thanks for the comments. I just wanted to publicly thank Assya for her translation which helped me get to the
root of Princess Hijab's message. Thanks again hun
Arwa XXXXXXXXXXXX
Some thoughts on visual terrorism (/article/veiled-threat#comment-10946)
Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on November 25, 2009 - 2:21am
Several years ago a Brooklyn billboard depicting a semi-clothed Shakira was "defaced" by - presumably religious Jews who reside in the vicinity of the billboard. No symbolic violence was perpetrated against Shakira.
She was provided with a rather attractive shirt instead of what originally appeared to be an ill-fitting bustier.
My issue with sexually explicit billboards is this: in my workplace - and every office in which I have ever worked
- it is considered innappopriate to post sexual images around one's desk, in the office environs, or on one's
computer (for example, as wallpaper or as a screensaver). It's part of my employer's anti-sexual harassment
policy. However, when I step outside the boundaries of my workplace and enter public space, I am subjected to
all forms of offensive sexualized imagery, imagery that is harmful not just to other women, but to men, and - I
think most of all - children.
This is as a much of an issue of public space/private space and what we have given away as citizens (used in a
very broad sense to distinguish from the ubiquitous "consumer") in the name of modern capitalism. "Visual
terrorism" - Princess Hijab's own words - is the pervasive, inescapable assault of advertising that can strike
anywhere, any time. That's what terrorism is. You board the R train to go home at night and - wham - your face
is a few inches from the most degrading beer advertisement this side of Hustler. I'm walking down the street
and a bus goes whizzing by with a giant ad for "Nip/Tuck" emblazoned on its side. And, it never ends.
9 of 10
1/30/10 7:56 PM
Veiled Threat | Bitch Magazine
http://bitchmagazine.org/article/veiled-threat
Incidentally, one the most impressive embodiments of feminism I ever met was an Iranian writer who even
after moving to the U.S. continued wearing a hijab, but that's not my point in posting.
djihad-artistique (/article/veiled-threat#comment-11024)
Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on November 26, 2009 - 3:32pm
http://makslepharaon.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/djihad-artistique/ (http://makslepharaon.wordpress.com/2009/11
/25/djihad-artistique/)
Consider this: (/article/veiled-threat#comment-11175)
Posted by Wincoder (not verified) on December 1, 2009 - 6:50pm
Since women are not allowed to make the same choices as men within the groups that use/require the hijab--the arguments/rationalizations being put forth are moot.
hgfhgfh (/article/veiled-threat#comment-12204)
Posted by yuyrorlgrer (/profile/yuyrorlgrer) on January 7, 2010 - 11:15am
This is a gorgeous, 100% authentic louis vuitton neverfull (http://www.flashreplica.com/products/Louis-Vuitton-MonogramCanvas-Neverfull-MM-M40156.html) MM tote.
Then again, that's just based on TV, and the fact the the luis vuitton (http://www.flashreplica.com) catalog that had
been at my corner conbini has been literally replaced by an hermes catalog.
louis vuitton speedy (http://www.flashreplica.com/products/Louis-Vuitton-Damier-Azur-Canvas-Speedy-25-N41534.html)
reinterpretation of the keepall travel bag,the rounded form reveals an exceptionally spacious interior.
10 of 10
1/30/10 7:56 PM