>>1444238Well, actually, pictures themselves DO age. The subjects they depict within age independently of the photo, however (and that might be applicable in cases of relativistic time).
Point though, is that 4 or 5 years later, the subject is 20. We're posting the pictures now. Want to get smart about when the pictures were created? They were drummed up out of pure imagination at whatever time, and intended to depict her at whatever age. The date they are posted here is as valid a measure of their beginning as her age in 2007, which, as she is a mere figment of imagination given form via illustration, was factually 0, even if declared to be 16.
As the artist here did not himself assign her an age at the time of this render, I like to imagine that he created it as a commemoration of her eleventy-first birthday, upon which all guests remarked that she appeared not to have aged a day!
>>1447145And furthermore...FUCK that's hot.
