1) Pick up a philosophy of art reader. There are several of them, targeted for sophomore philosophy classes, and reprinted every five or six years with a new introduction. You can probably find one used for under $20. For that matter, if you constantly grapple with this question, take a philosophy of art class and spend a semester exploring it.
2) When you are done with that, you might check out two essays by Georg Simmel – "The Conflict of Modern Culture" and "The Tragedy of Culture" – both brilliant analyses of the relation of cultural forms (i.e. art) to the progress of culture.
3) For a more technical answer, go on Google scholar, and search for "accounting for taste" – several articles by leading scholars of Economics and Finance on the stratification of value in art markets. Very cool stuff.
4) Personally, I think the more pragmatic response to your question(s) would be to invert them – Is there anything that sparks change, social or introspective, that is not in some sense art? And perhaps more importantly: How do I capture truly transformative qualities in my own art?
I have been through the philosphy of art readers and an art history seminar that let me focus on this question. Its not that I grapple with understanding various modes of thought but rather believing in the ideas. What does art actually do in the world?
I will check out the Geog Simmel essays.
Re: 4) - One could make an arguement that anything and everything is, in some sense, art. But in regards to my query, I am asking what power a mathew barney movie, a Goldsworthy stone sculpture or James Turrell lightscape have. Do they provide anything more than pleasure?
You know what I constantly grapple with? The overwhelming art of stupidity and the overwhelming willingness to pay inordinate amounts of money to be spoon-fed.
Although Teeny wasn't named until 2003.03.30, the first time I saw Teeny was in 1978, and it was a discovery in that I doubt anyone had ever seen it before. The second and last time I saw Teeny was in 1981, and it looked even smaller than I remembered it. Was it biodegrading in the glass? I showed Teeny to a fellow architect that was also visiting Yale with me, and she was stunned that I knew the existence of such a small yet extremely specific thing. Teeny changed my life in that it made me the person that discovered Teeny.
for all of you non art historians, that quote is from richard serra. not vado retro. just testing you.
Jun 24, 06 1:09 pm ·
·
The original discovery had an effect on my.
The seeing it again had an effect on me.
The showing it to someone else had an effect on me.
The naming of Teeny and the publishing of such had an effect on me.
And my discourse with you here is Teeny's latest effect on more than just me.
Jun 24, 06 1:11 pm ·
·
The battle to keep Tilted Arc at the Federal Building Plaza was definitely useless.
...But I also vividly remember an interview Charlie Rose once did with sculptor Richard Serra – perhaps the closest I’ve ever seen that talk show come to blows – in which Serra passionately and unbendingly argued that architecture is not at all an artform. Serra argued that there may be great artisanship and design going on, but that art is too personal an endeavor for such a collaborative, compromising practice as architecture to be included under its umbrella.
speaking of compromise, and other things that distinguish artists from architects...
The fact of the matter is, the project was originally a collaboration between Richard Serra AND Peter Eisenman. Helmut Kohl, the CDU Chancellor of Germany at the time, pretty much forced the team to cut down the project and "simplify" or "friendly-ize" it, by, among other changes, increasing the space between the stelae and greatly "softening" it. Shortly after they won the competition, Kohl demanded that they remove many of the stellae, "soften" it, make it easier to walk in, less "dangerous" and foreboding, - "nicer." In response, Richard Serra walked out of a critical meeting circa June 1998, and left the project ... Eisenman went on and built just exactly what Kohl wanted. (Remind me, please, who it was it that said, "Architects are Whores"?)
If you really want a philosophical response go and read John Dewey's "Art as Experience." Any other book comparable is going to be 600 pages plus long by hegal or some other.
My honest opinion don't get too involved in trying to "define" art or its purpose.
My feelings towards art are similar to Dewey's though. Art is about the experience. For example when your'e one the road and your favorite song comes on the radio and you just love it and turn up the volume! What would your life be like without those experiences?
Prose as distinct from poetry
Noise as distinct from a sonata
Space as distinct from place,
etc...
Art is the opposite of randomness and purposeless. It's perspective is creative and meaningfull as opposed to more pragmatic or utilitarian.
There are both intrinsic and extrinsic values in art, or formal and conceptual. Example take two words,
beklez
shit
The first has a formal quality of beauty since the words don't actuallyread anything (line, shape, harmony, contrast, etc..) the second has an conceptual or extrinsic value as the word shit.
Screw all you philistines that think art is stupid : )
And the same to all of you that think science is boring : )
Is there any art (or creative act) that is not self-portraiture in some manner?
In other words, is it at all possible to remove a work of art from the self-referent, personal choices made by the artist (group of artists)? Furthermore, can we make any sort of non self-referent choice?
The group that eventually become known as minimalists were trying - did they succeed?
These questions also go for the idea that you can make something into art by percieving it as personally/culturally relevant - regardless of whether or not it was inteded to be art. Recognition of something as artistic is also in some way personally revealing.
I come to the art world from a strong affinity to Louis Sullivan and Joseph Beuys. Utopian artists striving to change the world for the better. Did any one in chicago become Emerson's democratic man by beholding the beauty of Nature in Sullivan's ornamentation? I doubt it....so what is left beyond the same enjoyment of turning up your favorite song on the radio while driving?
r. serra was going to leave the country in protest the art ignorance/cultural poverty and never come back if they removed his sculpture in a downtown manhattan plaza (federal ?). as i remember, said art work created not so great situation for office workers. i don't think serra ever moved out altough they moved the steel sculpture, which generated extra heat in summer and it was cold and dark in winter.
that art was declared invasive and 'useless' (even though it created a usefull debate, it was ultimetly not sculpted to do that). serra couldn't be the artist/architect he wanted to be in that occasion.
that made me think at that time, he was an egotistical hustler who got a hefty comission and thought art was something should be stuffed in people's throats, specially his creations.
but at the end, users, mainly office workers organized and had the sculpture dismantled to some scrapyard (?) as it was destined.
their argument was pretty brilliant in that, they didn't dismiss serra's laments about art being functionless or whatever. they simply stated that architecture of the plaza had a function and serra's art interfered with that program. they won.
sure, the same piece could look great at storm king or in something like that. but it failed the site where it was located. big miss. he knows better now, keeping most of his work in temperature controlled museum spaces where his pieces usually included in the architectural program. and moves them in total choreography and makes documenteries and all that. he is more famous and makes more money now. i wonder if he has a place in bilbao?
what were the questions? i am a little off but i guess i was thinking about question #2 and serra's name came on. art was that to downtown manhattan office workers. it tried to change the lunch hour life but didn't work. i don't know maybe it looked great from upper floors for people who had an access to a window.
*i appreciate if somebody has a picture of the said work and more accurate count of events.
I don't understand your last question regarding Louis Sullivan's work in chicago.
I may be comprehending this incorrectly, but it seems though as if you are asking how is art utilitarian or how does it enable us to live. ie. how does art provide us food and shelter, a strong government, technology to mass produce pencils.
If this is what you're asking I would say in my opinion art is not about providing these essential needs in our lives. But that certainely doesn't mean it is useless or irrelevent. Quite the opposite actually.
In some sense....
Art is not about ENABLING us to function like other disciplines such as engineering/law/etc
But....
Art is about providing us REASONS to function.
Why do you want to get in your well engineered BMW? One, because it won't break down, but also so you can go see a movie from one of your favorite directors. (the BMW being the product of an engineer that enables us to function and get to the destination, and the movie the product of an artist that gives us reasons to function and live through enjoyment and is the product that provides us the purpose of getting into that BMW and going to the theater as often as we do.
I am most likely mis-comprehending your inquiry but I hope this makes some sense ; )
Sullivan believed that his architecture (gorgeous ornamentation that was one with Emerson's Nature) could be a catalyst for the Democratic or Englightened man. In short a passerby would become so engaged by the beauty of the ornamentation that they would start to question why it was so beautiful, realize that it was because it was Nature represented and strive to find his/herself in the universe. His architecture was meant to be a catalyst for utopia.
Now obviously this did not happen. There is an asynchronicity between Emerson's philosophy and the final terracotta ornamentation on Sullivan's buildings. But is it also that art has little to no power in changing people?
Jun 25, 06 1:28 pm ·
·
Sure art has the power to change people. For example, I've executed several artworks that have changed people from liking to disliking me.
Klimt 135 Million.....Not a bad week for the art auctions.
Jun 25, 06 3:17 pm ·
·
Wednesday, July 30, 1980
They were having a costume auction at Sotheby's at 1:00 and one of the things in the auction was a costume I'd done in the sixties for the Dalton twins--the "This Side Up" dress. Sotheby's just had it thrown in with the other clothes, they didn't realize I'd done it. If someone had put it in a frame it could sold for $10,000 but somebody's probably going to get it for $25. It's the last thing in the auction.
Mies intention was rather grand. It reminds me of a movie called "The Emperors Club" where lesson of the story is that a man is not defined by one GRAND accomplishment nor one large failure but instead the accomplishments as a whole.
I think in this context, although mies intention wasn't successfull in a grand way, I am positive art as a whole changes peoples lives everyday. This is true in many ways in life.
However, One significant influence art has on culture is its benign role to bring people together. Milton Glaser once said, "If you like mozart and I like Mozart then the likely hood of us killing one another has diminished." This coincides with what SuperImpose said that people are definetely brought together because of art. I walked into a brazilian cafe the other day and they were watching the world cup. Consequently I felt every person in that room was my friend and vice versa; the power of football, even though it is not "usefull' in the sense that it will mass produce factories, it still brings people together.
Jun 25, 06 11:20 pm ·
·
Work and church and sports bring people together a lot more than art does. Plus, art is just as capable of separating people.
The desire for art to bring people together is based more on economics (the desire for people to spend money) than it is on the art itself.
Personally, I like museums best when they are free and virtually empty of people.
And that Milton Glaser quote is more non sequitur than anything else.
I wonder how many murderers have seen the Mona Lisa.
from a historical point, art was the basis of communication. the forms of art which followed, later communicated the growth of civilization.
in the years and centuries that followed, art became more of a human expression either to document happenings or express notions and thoughts.
What does art do for you? Has is ever been life changing?
i believe the very word 'art' does not exist in the mundane world, but has a tremendous influence in the subconscious mind of a human; both positive and negative. yes it does change life in many ways. can one dream of a world without art? or architecture?
does art always depict beauty?
art is more sublime than many subjects we know of.
For example, throughout highschool a specific genre of music, a specific style of dressing, a specific mark like x's on the hands was what brought me together with every single one of my friends.
Whether or not other things are more influential in bringing people together doesn't make Glaser's quote non-sequitur. My whole point was that art doesn't save wars or anything (rather I believe it functions to provide reasons not to start wars), but I just wanted to note that it's obvious that music, fashion, tatoos, hair, and other artistic interests obviously bring people together because they can share something they love together. .
Jun 26, 06 10:49 am ·
·
non sequitur
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
And I just wanted to note that it's obvious that music, fashion, tattoos and hair are obviously brong people together to spend their (or their parents') money.
My Latin teacher back in high school used to occasionally make referenced to "the great unwashed." If I was teaching high school today, I'd occasionally make reference to "the great brainwashed."
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
And I just wanted to note that it's obvious that music, fashion, tattoos and hair obviously bring people together to spend their (or their parents') money.
My Latin teacher back in high school used to occasionally make referenced to "the great unwashed." If I was teaching high school today, I'd occasionally make reference to "the great brainwashed."
My taboo used to say TABOO, but I got it changed to say TAUTOLOGY.
what value does art have in the world?
I would appreciate two kinds of responses:
1) Academic/Theory thoughts on the value or ability to spark change (social or introspective).
2) What does art do for you? Has is ever been life changing (in any sense of the term)?
[I am a landscape architect who went back to grad school for an MFA and constantly grapples with the self referential pretention of art]
Four responses:
1) Pick up a philosophy of art reader. There are several of them, targeted for sophomore philosophy classes, and reprinted every five or six years with a new introduction. You can probably find one used for under $20. For that matter, if you constantly grapple with this question, take a philosophy of art class and spend a semester exploring it.
2) When you are done with that, you might check out two essays by Georg Simmel – "The Conflict of Modern Culture" and "The Tragedy of Culture" – both brilliant analyses of the relation of cultural forms (i.e. art) to the progress of culture.
3) For a more technical answer, go on Google scholar, and search for "accounting for taste" – several articles by leading scholars of Economics and Finance on the stratification of value in art markets. Very cool stuff.
4) Personally, I think the more pragmatic response to your question(s) would be to invert them – Is there anything that sparks change, social or introspective, that is not in some sense art? And perhaps more importantly: How do I capture truly transformative qualities in my own art?
I have been through the philosphy of art readers and an art history seminar that let me focus on this question. Its not that I grapple with understanding various modes of thought but rather believing in the ideas. What does art actually do in the world?
I will check out the Geog Simmel essays.
Re: 4) - One could make an arguement that anything and everything is, in some sense, art. But in regards to my query, I am asking what power a mathew barney movie, a Goldsworthy stone sculpture or James Turrell lightscape have. Do they provide anything more than pleasure?
Is Teeny art?
Not only is it art, it's one of my masterpieces!
You know what I constantly grapple with? The overwhelming art of stupidity and the overwhelming willingness to pay inordinate amounts of money to be spoon-fed.
Im with you on that.
How did Teeny change your life?
Although Teeny wasn't named until 2003.03.30, the first time I saw Teeny was in 1978, and it was a discovery in that I doubt anyone had ever seen it before. The second and last time I saw Teeny was in 1981, and it looked even smaller than I remembered it. Was it biodegrading in the glass? I showed Teeny to a fellow architect that was also visiting Yale with me, and she was stunned that I knew the existence of such a small yet extremely specific thing. Teeny changed my life in that it made me the person that discovered Teeny.
art is not useful. art is useless.
Vado, I knew your name was Art!
useless or functionless?
So it was the act of original discovery that affected you? How were you different after the discovery?
for all of you non art historians, that quote is from richard serra. not vado retro. just testing you.
The original discovery had an effect on my.
The seeing it again had an effect on me.
The showing it to someone else had an effect on me.
The naming of Teeny and the publishing of such had an effect on me.
And my discourse with you here is Teeny's latest effect on more than just me.
The battle to keep Tilted Arc at the Federal Building Plaza was definitely useless.
fortunately i tagged it in time!!!
Everything has effect but did it affect you?
...But I also vividly remember an interview Charlie Rose once did with sculptor Richard Serra – perhaps the closest I’ve ever seen that talk show come to blows – in which Serra passionately and unbendingly argued that architecture is not at all an artform. Serra argued that there may be great artisanship and design going on, but that art is too personal an endeavor for such a collaborative, compromising practice as architecture to be included under its umbrella.
from Portland Architecture
Teeny doesn't necessarily have to influence me (affect), but it definitely brought about a change (effect).
Teeny itself is not the art here. The discovery, naming and publishing of Teeny is the art here.
speaking of compromise, and other things that distinguish artists from architects...
The fact of the matter is, the project was originally a collaboration between Richard Serra AND Peter Eisenman. Helmut Kohl, the CDU Chancellor of Germany at the time, pretty much forced the team to cut down the project and "simplify" or "friendly-ize" it, by, among other changes, increasing the space between the stelae and greatly "softening" it. Shortly after they won the competition, Kohl demanded that they remove many of the stellae, "soften" it, make it easier to walk in, less "dangerous" and foreboding, - "nicer." In response, Richard Serra walked out of a critical meeting circa June 1998, and left the project ... Eisenman went on and built just exactly what Kohl wanted. (Remind me, please, who it was it that said, "Architects are Whores"?)
posted by "thinkbuild" on October 26, 2005
If you really want a philosophical response go and read John Dewey's "Art as Experience." Any other book comparable is going to be 600 pages plus long by hegal or some other.
My honest opinion don't get too involved in trying to "define" art or its purpose.
My feelings towards art are similar to Dewey's though. Art is about the experience. For example when your'e one the road and your favorite song comes on the radio and you just love it and turn up the volume! What would your life be like without those experiences?
Prose as distinct from poetry
Noise as distinct from a sonata
Space as distinct from place,
etc...
Art is the opposite of randomness and purposeless. It's perspective is creative and meaningfull as opposed to more pragmatic or utilitarian.
There are both intrinsic and extrinsic values in art, or formal and conceptual. Example take two words,
beklez
shit
The first has a formal quality of beauty since the words don't actuallyread anything (line, shape, harmony, contrast, etc..) the second has an conceptual or extrinsic value as the word shit.
Screw all you philistines that think art is stupid : )
And the same to all of you that think science is boring : )
Serra on Charlie Rose, plus one of my better Conceptual (virtual performance) artworks.
Is there any art (or creative act) that is not self-portraiture in some manner?
In other words, is it at all possible to remove a work of art from the self-referent, personal choices made by the artist (group of artists)? Furthermore, can we make any sort of non self-referent choice?
The group that eventually become known as minimalists were trying - did they succeed?
These questions also go for the idea that you can make something into art by percieving it as personally/culturally relevant - regardless of whether or not it was inteded to be art. Recognition of something as artistic is also in some way personally revealing.
Ditto on Dewey
Will most definitly pick up Dewey.
I come to the art world from a strong affinity to Louis Sullivan and Joseph Beuys. Utopian artists striving to change the world for the better. Did any one in chicago become Emerson's democratic man by beholding the beauty of Nature in Sullivan's ornamentation? I doubt it....so what is left beyond the same enjoyment of turning up your favorite song on the radio while driving?
r. serra was going to leave the country in protest the art ignorance/cultural poverty and never come back if they removed his sculpture in a downtown manhattan plaza (federal ?). as i remember, said art work created not so great situation for office workers. i don't think serra ever moved out altough they moved the steel sculpture, which generated extra heat in summer and it was cold and dark in winter.
that art was declared invasive and 'useless' (even though it created a usefull debate, it was ultimetly not sculpted to do that). serra couldn't be the artist/architect he wanted to be in that occasion.
that made me think at that time, he was an egotistical hustler who got a hefty comission and thought art was something should be stuffed in people's throats, specially his creations.
but at the end, users, mainly office workers organized and had the sculpture dismantled to some scrapyard (?) as it was destined.
their argument was pretty brilliant in that, they didn't dismiss serra's laments about art being functionless or whatever. they simply stated that architecture of the plaza had a function and serra's art interfered with that program. they won.
sure, the same piece could look great at storm king or in something like that. but it failed the site where it was located. big miss. he knows better now, keeping most of his work in temperature controlled museum spaces where his pieces usually included in the architectural program. and moves them in total choreography and makes documenteries and all that. he is more famous and makes more money now. i wonder if he has a place in bilbao?
what were the questions? i am a little off but i guess i was thinking about question #2 and serra's name came on. art was that to downtown manhattan office workers. it tried to change the lunch hour life but didn't work. i don't know maybe it looked great from upper floors for people who had an access to a window.
*i appreciate if somebody has a picture of the said work and more accurate count of events.
anti,
I don't understand your last question regarding Louis Sullivan's work in chicago.
I may be comprehending this incorrectly, but it seems though as if you are asking how is art utilitarian or how does it enable us to live. ie. how does art provide us food and shelter, a strong government, technology to mass produce pencils.
If this is what you're asking I would say in my opinion art is not about providing these essential needs in our lives. But that certainely doesn't mean it is useless or irrelevent. Quite the opposite actually.
In some sense....
Art is not about ENABLING us to function like other disciplines such as engineering/law/etc
But....
Art is about providing us REASONS to function.
Why do you want to get in your well engineered BMW? One, because it won't break down, but also so you can go see a movie from one of your favorite directors. (the BMW being the product of an engineer that enables us to function and get to the destination, and the movie the product of an artist that gives us reasons to function and live through enjoyment and is the product that provides us the purpose of getting into that BMW and going to the theater as often as we do.
I am most likely mis-comprehending your inquiry but I hope this makes some sense ; )
bmw's don't break down? you must not own one!
That disruptive Serra sculpture in the plaza got us out of the "plop art" era - at least in art. Architecture is still lagging behind :P
sadly i think architecture is just starting "plop art"
i don't have to prove that i am creative
i dont have to prove that i am creative
all my pictures are confused
soon i will be taking me to you...
bshadlu: Re: Sullivan
Sullivan believed that his architecture (gorgeous ornamentation that was one with Emerson's Nature) could be a catalyst for the Democratic or Englightened man. In short a passerby would become so engaged by the beauty of the ornamentation that they would start to question why it was so beautiful, realize that it was because it was Nature represented and strive to find his/herself in the universe. His architecture was meant to be a catalyst for utopia.
Now obviously this did not happen. There is an asynchronicity between Emerson's philosophy and the final terracotta ornamentation on Sullivan's buildings. But is it also that art has little to no power in changing people?
Sure art has the power to change people. For example, I've executed several artworks that have changed people from liking to disliking me.
Klimt 135 Million.....Not a bad week for the art auctions.
Wednesday, July 30, 1980
They were having a costume auction at Sotheby's at 1:00 and one of the things in the auction was a costume I'd done in the sixties for the Dalton twins--the "This Side Up" dress. Sotheby's just had it thrown in with the other clothes, they didn't realize I'd done it. If someone had put it in a frame it could sold for $10,000 but somebody's probably going to get it for $25. It's the last thing in the auction.
--The Andy Warhol Diaries
I guess art in a frame changes everything!
anti,
Mies intention was rather grand. It reminds me of a movie called "The Emperors Club" where lesson of the story is that a man is not defined by one GRAND accomplishment nor one large failure but instead the accomplishments as a whole.
I think in this context, although mies intention wasn't successfull in a grand way, I am positive art as a whole changes peoples lives everyday. This is true in many ways in life.
However, One significant influence art has on culture is its benign role to bring people together. Milton Glaser once said, "If you like mozart and I like Mozart then the likely hood of us killing one another has diminished." This coincides with what SuperImpose said that people are definetely brought together because of art. I walked into a brazilian cafe the other day and they were watching the world cup. Consequently I felt every person in that room was my friend and vice versa; the power of football, even though it is not "usefull' in the sense that it will mass produce factories, it still brings people together.
Work and church and sports bring people together a lot more than art does. Plus, art is just as capable of separating people.
The desire for art to bring people together is based more on economics (the desire for people to spend money) than it is on the art itself.
Personally, I like museums best when they are free and virtually empty of people.
And that Milton Glaser quote is more non sequitur than anything else.
I wonder how many murderers have seen the Mona Lisa.
I also like museums that don't even exist....
http://www.museumpeace.com/09/0882.htm
caravaggio killed a couple of people. he prolly saw mona.
from a historical point, art was the basis of communication. the forms of art which followed, later communicated the growth of civilization.
in the years and centuries that followed, art became more of a human expression either to document happenings or express notions and thoughts.
What does art do for you? Has is ever been life changing?
i believe the very word 'art' does not exist in the mundane world, but has a tremendous influence in the subconscious mind of a human; both positive and negative. yes it does change life in many ways. can one dream of a world without art? or architecture?
does art always depict beauty?
art is more sublime than many subjects we know of.
"Bad art is more tragically beautiful than good art because it documents human failure." - Tristan Reveur
"And the wurst has arrived?"
ref.: "Bad art is more tragically beautiful than good art because it documents human failure."
indeed.. the best of the worst ;)
haha.. btw 'Tristan Reveur' is a fictional artist from the movie 'stay'.
Ja, ja, Tristan is good friends with Crystal Vanish.
bad people can make good art...
Milton Glaser's quote non - sequitur?
I don't think so.
For example, throughout highschool a specific genre of music, a specific style of dressing, a specific mark like x's on the hands was what brought me together with every single one of my friends.
Whether or not other things are more influential in bringing people together doesn't make Glaser's quote non-sequitur. My whole point was that art doesn't save wars or anything (rather I believe it functions to provide reasons not to start wars), but I just wanted to note that it's obvious that music, fashion, tatoos, hair, and other artistic interests obviously bring people together because they can share something they love together. .
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
And I just wanted to note that it's obvious that music, fashion, tattoos and hair are obviously brong people together to spend their (or their parents') money.
My Latin teacher back in high school used to occasionally make referenced to "the great unwashed." If I was teaching high school today, I'd occasionally make reference to "the great brainwashed."
huh?
1. An inference or conclusion that does not follow from the premises or evidence.
2. A statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it.
And I just wanted to note that it's obvious that music, fashion, tattoos and hair obviously bring people together to spend their (or their parents') money.
My Latin teacher back in high school used to occasionally make referenced to "the great unwashed." If I was teaching high school today, I'd occasionally make reference to "the great brainwashed."
My taboo used to say TABOO, but I got it changed to say TAUTOLOGY.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.