I like the idea of Architecture being connected more to literature. I would say thats true. We use all sorts of things to inspire us now, such as music, random books, and articles that often have no DIRECT connection to the idea of architecture or the built world. So I would say that yeah, Architecture today is almost a liberal arts studies sort of 'ism.' Not sure how to sum that into one word though.
And D4, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but I am definatley intrigued. I've seen the Duchamp piece, and I'm curious about what you are saying. I feel like I'd have to see it to understand though. Something that seemingly complex is difficult to convey in words alone.
Okay I am such a nerd but lets make a distinction here... Here is the definition of an "art movement" from wikipedia:
An art movement
is a tendency or style in art with a specific common philosophy or goal, followed by a group of artists during a restricted period of time, or, at least, with the heyday of the movement more or less strictly so restricted (usually a few months, years or decades). Art movements were especially important in modern art, where each consecutive movement was considered as a new avant-garde. Movements have almost entirely disappeared in contemporary art, where individualism and diversity prevail.
Art movements seem to be a nearly exclusively Western art phenomenon. The term refers to tendencies in visual art, novel ideas and architecture, and sometimes literature. In music it is more common to speak about genres and styles instead. See also cultural movement, a term with a broader connotation.
Sometimes art movements are ironically referred to as -isms
.
Here is the defnition of a "cultural movement" from wikipedia:
A cultural movement
is a change in the way a number of different disciplines approach their work. This embodies all art forms, the sciences, and philosophies. Historically, different nations or regions of the world have gone through their own independent sequence of movements in culture, but as world communications have accelerated this geographical distinction has become less distinct. When cultural movements go through revolutions from one to the next, genres tend to get attacked and mixed up, and often new genres are generated and old ones fade. These changes are often reactions against the prior cultural form, which typically has grown stale and repetitive. An obsession emerges among the mainstream with the new movement, and the old one falls into neglect - sometimes it dies out entirely, but often it chugs along favored in a few disciplines and occasionally making reappearances (sometimes prefixed with "neo-").
There is continual argument over the precise definition of each of these periods, and one historian might group them differently, or choose different names or descriptions. As well, even though in many cases the popular change from one to the next can be swift and sudden, the beginning and end of movements are somewhat subjective, as the movements did not spring fresh into existence out of the blue and did not come to an abrupt end and lose total support, as would be suggested by a date range. Thus use of the term "period" is somewhat deceptive. "Period" also suggests a linearity of development, whereas it has not been uncommon for two or more distinctive cultural approaches to be active at the same time. Historians will be able to find distinctive traces of a cultural movement before its accepted beginning, and there will always be new creations in old forms. So it can be more useful to think in terms of broad "movements" that have rough beginnings and endings. Yet for historical perspective, some rough date ranges will be provided for each to indicate the "height" or accepted timespan of the movement.
If we're talking about movements in present tense, we are not really talking as historians about a cultural movement etc. then we are talking about "art movements"... which means work that carries some common philosophy or goal... Work that has no philosophy or goal that ties it to other work doesn't have a movement. Also, work that has a philosophy or goal, but which is not connected to another work by philosophy or goal has no movement either...
it strikes me that the people above who (in some cases) refer to starchitecture in a tounge and cheek maner as being the new movement in architecture are not far from the truth.
the amount of cross pollination that occurs these days seems to make it virtually impossible for one pure idea to gain any kind of significant traction, let alone enough momentum to gain recognition as the current state of architecture.
fragmentation of markets... clique architecture
brand recognition is the new movement...
ghery vs koolhaas
coke vs pepsi
i have difficulty accepting something so broadly generalized as green or sustainable as some kind of architectural movement.
There is no formal, theoretical or phillisophical basis for it... its a practicality issue... its not a movement... its an necessary adjustment whos architectural implications are miniscule in relation to its broader applications in other industries. just a thought
Well... thx for the replies of the day... it took time to read about 70 reply. Sure i'm lost now... (i was lost anyway) . Well, i dont know why i remembered something i read when i read all these responses ... CHAOS. i guess we r living in chaos..i heard there are theories about chaos..not just in architecture ,,but as a way of living.. Does anyone heard about it find it relate to what we r talking about ?!
I would say that if a work is Defined by the idea of sustainability or Green building, then it would be part of a movement, but if its just, as said above, a practical thing then it is just a method. Meaning that if Sustainablity drives the desing, then its a movement; if on the other hand, the design merely incorporates a few sustainable ideas, such as green roofs, then its just a tool like a column or an arch.
Nevermore I agree and that is why I touched on the Duchamp refrence he was the pioneer at abstracting words, imagery, and even dabbled into Ideas of time structure literally all with the play of words. Though he was in the arts his presence can be felt almost every where creative ideas take place. Now if you look at the Discipline of architecture at the time the arts and crafts movement was in play as well as Art Nouveau(prior Japonism). All these movements seemed to step forward with a level of abstraction of “Nature”(when I am referring to Nature I am referring to the concept at that particular time in history where individuals where able to express their ideas with the use of technologies and the extent of human comprehension/expression within that time…since we are organic I use the term Nature). Take Luis Sullivan or Wright they took things as fare as the realms of construction and there inspiration can take them. Let s skip now to the 1980s, stemming from the constructivist (keep in mind all this I am saying might be a bit ruff and I am not trying to school people on history of arch just trying to show where thoughts are coming from) here comes Deconstructivism/deconstruction once again taking what the world has to offer within the realms of fabrication and now the impact of architecture being influenced by computer technology to generate ideas of complex construction/design. Eisenman ,Koolhass ,Himmelbau and Hadid to name a few. They all visually created these forms that took the basic ideas of “Art Nouveau”
And plugged it into the latest technology ,simplified it down with the use of materials to take place of leaves and say flower buds. Thus creating an orchestration of all of this so their work reads as this moving continuous mass of info, mass that stems from “Nature” . Now that the digital era is in full effect be it post digital or what not with the technology. (keep in mind digital technology is just a tool not a movement) the implementation of an algorithm/scripting. A concentration of information that generates a pattern for form/structure to evolve. These methodologies of generating architecture/design have been used befor(with digital arch) yet the visual outcome is fare different than the works of the Deconstructivists. Once again the concept of “Nature” yet in its next evolution the evolution is in the realm of the dimensional time structures. If you look at works by say Diaz, Decoi or Nox you can see this repetition,this type of stuttering of imagery/information be it curves of straight lines. It can be conceived as if one is traveling at super speeds or taking in vast a mount of information where it is to great that human consciousness cant take it so it kinda skips a few frames and catches maybe two frames latter within the thought process or visual computation for a human being. As if one steps out of time for a brief moment but in cycles of that of a strobe light. For it is at this next stage of “Nature” the Dimentional stage in which I think we are at. Where computational thought process are being executed at great speeds that it is taking form in architecture and art as stutering of time and space.The relationship with the computational power of the computer aided by algorithmic equations of an even more advance or should I say creative nature than previous displays of this type of designing(Gary, Koolhase or Eisenman..deconstruction). For the evolution of “Nature” has happened again. The Idea of all this came from the experience with epilepsy and grand male seizures. For at the time I was working on a project that
dealt with these concepts I am mentioning (I would put imagery up but I am not quite sure how to post pics) which all came from epileptic experience/ visuals.
I know this all so ruff and I don’t know if these ideas have been dealt with before but feed back would be great.
E .Fernandez
I'm also confused, but anyway... d 4 scroll down to the bottom of the page for how to upload an image (the light grey code)... if you need to host it somewhere first you can try Imageshack
Thanks Medit I will post some images a bit later and explain some more of this ruff concept of Dimentionalism . Think of it as skipping through time Thanks for the interest Sarah H !
I was just reading that Charles Jencks interview that John Jourden did, linked to above, the fourth post... iconic building (By the way, great interview JJ) There, Jencks hits it on the head I think:
Weak belief reigns today. Everybody believes something weakly, despite the fact that they're dogmatic and they go out and kill people. You can say it's weak because it doesn't produce things of depth. Instead, they're thin.
Weak belief is a problem. Iconic buildings are caused by weak belief, because clients don't have the strong belief to say to the architect, ”˜This is what the icon should be about.' Up to the Nineteenth Century, the client always imposed their taste, iconography, and meaning on the architect. Or they shared that with the architect, so they wouldn't have to tell them, but they knew what they were about. And they did, I think they did up until the Modern period even, to a degree. Today, clients are insecure and society is completely pluralist and insecure, and doesn't know what it wants. But they (society and clients) do know they want a landmark. Weak belief plus the desire to have a landmark, plus celebrity culture, plus globalized capitalism, plus the art market's desire for the new””all those factors together produce iconic buildings. This is why we're in an iconic building era, not because we want to be””people don't want to be.
Do we live in an age of weak belief? (a market and clients that hold weak beliefs)
Feb 19, 07 4:57 pm ·
·
Client: "Can you design for me a confused architecture?"
confused
1. to perplex or bewilder
2. to make unclear or indistinct
3. to fail to distinguish between; associate by mistake; confound: to confuse dates
4. to disconcert or abash
5. to combine without order; jumble; disorder
6. Archaic. to bring to ruin or naught.
Your right It is spelled DIMENSIONALISM sorry about that. As I mentioned this stuff has yet to be really ironed(and my spell is not that great) out but I believe it has some merit.
I will put the images soon and more info about DIMENSIONALISM .Had a
all nighter and need some rest.
I'm a fan of what might be called the New Materialism as described by Reiser + Umemoto in the Atlas of Novel Tectonics. Seems to be an inspiring and novel departure from / response to the Modern -> PostModern -> DeCon -> What Next? line. Specificity, emergent and a bunch of other stuff.
since we are trying to define the current movement, what i'd like to know is how the past movements were identified?
were the terms "modernism", "renaissance", "post modernism" coined in their infancy? or was it during their height in the architectural scene? or was it after everything was done and their works analyzed?
Michael Speaks argues for design intelligence in which we do not ask what metaphysical "being" architecture currently resides in. To be clear, this entire discussion and "theory" in general is to validate the profession by what value it provides to society and itself. Instead of relying on a singular truth of what architecture is, a more beneficial stance to the profession could be how can architecture add value to humanity: aesthetically, programmatically, economically, socially, etc. This anti-autonomous direction could be where we are headed. With the advent of biological inspired designs (blob, sustainable, pop science), architecture could be more integrated with the stuff outside architecture-and therefore more valuable.
I ran into this thread as I was reading some other post. I am wondering if that guy who was going to post pictures of dimentionalism, is still around and eating up algorithmic chit-chat?
BTW, today's movement is "bowel movement."
Anyway, bump!
Theory is dead. Green will continue to be 'hip', until it is the norm (there is actual logic in why it should be important, which helps).
I think Jencks got it right too. Always liked him. Good example of an articulate thinker that was a horrible designer (there should be a graphic somewhere, showing how the best designers write little, and the worse write a ton - I think it would be quite proportional, entertaining at the least).
Curtain wallism, think about it, architcture today is mainly about providing a structure for curtain walls. These are spetacular on distance but they replaced everything else, and underneath the glass surface, is a very thin ideology left.
I think it's basically the same as it has been since the 80s. Architects are still designing postmodern, modern, decon, structural expressionist, and metabolic styles.
I think this will continue. There isn't really any defined "movement" right now because we do things different.
what is today's movement?
I like the idea of Architecture being connected more to literature. I would say thats true. We use all sorts of things to inspire us now, such as music, random books, and articles that often have no DIRECT connection to the idea of architecture or the built world. So I would say that yeah, Architecture today is almost a liberal arts studies sort of 'ism.' Not sure how to sum that into one word though.
And D4, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, but I am definatley intrigued. I've seen the Duchamp piece, and I'm curious about what you are saying. I feel like I'd have to see it to understand though. Something that seemingly complex is difficult to convey in words alone.
bowel movement
Client: "How do you package your architecture?" Can you package an architecture just for me?"
Architect: "To stage or not to stage? That is the question."
Client: "Can you design me an architecture that reenacts Duchamp's Large Glass? I want something in facets."
Architect: "Madam, that would be a crime. And besides, you don't look good in the nude."
Client: "Well then, can you design me an architecture that is regional and relates to fashion."
Architect" "Of course, Madam. It will look something like this...
i think Steven Ward's quote bears repeating:
'rapid vapid expansion of fields of suburban mcmansions'
Genius.
Nice reenactment.
Power of the developer. And where does that leave architects?
Client: "I would like you to design me a powerless architecture."
Architect: "Madam, I have to be honest with you. You're looking for Dime-a-Dozen Architects. They have offices everywhere."
Client: "I would like you to design me an architecture that cracks me up like Duchamp's Large Glass."
Architect: "Madam, you are in luck. That architecture does indeed come in the acropolitan style."
Client: "Wonderful. Now, can you add to that an architecture that hurts like the truth?"
Architect: "Well, I already know what the back door looks like, but, are you sure you can handle it?"
Would you like us to leave you alone on this thread, Mr. Lauf? So you can talk to yourself in private?
:)
d4> i suggest u take away the variables of time in ur formula as most mathematican do these days.
the problem with greg lynn/nox stuff remains as symbolic level. time is not a real variables, only a representation of change in intensity/degree.
Client: "Can you design me a bothersome architecture?"
Architect: "Are you referring to pro bono work?"
Okay I am such a nerd but lets make a distinction here... Here is the definition of an "art movement" from wikipedia:
An art movement is a tendency or style in art with a specific common philosophy or goal, followed by a group of artists during a restricted period of time, or, at least, with the heyday of the movement more or less strictly so restricted (usually a few months, years or decades). Art movements were especially important in modern art, where each consecutive movement was considered as a new avant-garde. Movements have almost entirely disappeared in contemporary art, where individualism and diversity prevail.Art movements seem to be a nearly exclusively Western art phenomenon. The term refers to tendencies in visual art, novel ideas and architecture, and sometimes literature. In music it is more common to speak about genres and styles instead. See also cultural movement, a term with a broader connotation.
Sometimes art movements are ironically referred to as -isms .
Here is the defnition of a "cultural movement" from wikipedia:
A cultural movement is a change in the way a number of different disciplines approach their work. This embodies all art forms, the sciences, and philosophies. Historically, different nations or regions of the world have gone through their own independent sequence of movements in culture, but as world communications have accelerated this geographical distinction has become less distinct. When cultural movements go through revolutions from one to the next, genres tend to get attacked and mixed up, and often new genres are generated and old ones fade. These changes are often reactions against the prior cultural form, which typically has grown stale and repetitive. An obsession emerges among the mainstream with the new movement, and the old one falls into neglect - sometimes it dies out entirely, but often it chugs along favored in a few disciplines and occasionally making reappearances (sometimes prefixed with "neo-").
There is continual argument over the precise definition of each of these periods, and one historian might group them differently, or choose different names or descriptions. As well, even though in many cases the popular change from one to the next can be swift and sudden, the beginning and end of movements are somewhat subjective, as the movements did not spring fresh into existence out of the blue and did not come to an abrupt end and lose total support, as would be suggested by a date range. Thus use of the term "period" is somewhat deceptive. "Period" also suggests a linearity of development, whereas it has not been uncommon for two or more distinctive cultural approaches to be active at the same time. Historians will be able to find distinctive traces of a cultural movement before its accepted beginning, and there will always be new creations in old forms. So it can be more useful to think in terms of broad "movements" that have rough beginnings and endings. Yet for historical perspective, some rough date ranges will be provided for each to indicate the "height" or accepted timespan of the movement.
If we're talking about movements in present tense, we are not really talking as historians about a cultural movement etc. then we are talking about "art movements"... which means work that carries some common philosophy or goal... Work that has no philosophy or goal that ties it to other work doesn't have a movement. Also, work that has a philosophy or goal, but which is not connected to another work by philosophy or goal has no movement either...
"no, i'm referring to con bono work."
Pro Bono or Anti Bono?
it strikes me that the people above who (in some cases) refer to starchitecture in a tounge and cheek maner as being the new movement in architecture are not far from the truth.
the amount of cross pollination that occurs these days seems to make it virtually impossible for one pure idea to gain any kind of significant traction, let alone enough momentum to gain recognition as the current state of architecture.
fragmentation of markets... clique architecture
brand recognition is the new movement...
ghery vs koolhaas
coke vs pepsi
i have difficulty accepting something so broadly generalized as green or sustainable as some kind of architectural movement.
There is no formal, theoretical or phillisophical basis for it... its a practicality issue... its not a movement... its an necessary adjustment whos architectural implications are miniscule in relation to its broader applications in other industries. just a thought
Well... thx for the replies of the day... it took time to read about 70 reply. Sure i'm lost now... (i was lost anyway) . Well, i dont know why i remembered something i read when i read all these responses ... CHAOS. i guess we r living in chaos..i heard there are theories about chaos..not just in architecture ,,but as a way of living.. Does anyone heard about it find it relate to what we r talking about ?!
I would say that if a work is Defined by the idea of sustainability or Green building, then it would be part of a movement, but if its just, as said above, a practical thing then it is just a method. Meaning that if Sustainablity drives the desing, then its a movement; if on the other hand, the design merely incorporates a few sustainable ideas, such as green roofs, then its just a tool like a column or an arch.
Nevermore I agree and that is why I touched on the Duchamp refrence he was the pioneer at abstracting words, imagery, and even dabbled into Ideas of time structure literally all with the play of words. Though he was in the arts his presence can be felt almost every where creative ideas take place. Now if you look at the Discipline of architecture at the time the arts and crafts movement was in play as well as Art Nouveau(prior Japonism). All these movements seemed to step forward with a level of abstraction of “Nature”(when I am referring to Nature I am referring to the concept at that particular time in history where individuals where able to express their ideas with the use of technologies and the extent of human comprehension/expression within that time…since we are organic I use the term Nature). Take Luis Sullivan or Wright they took things as fare as the realms of construction and there inspiration can take them. Let s skip now to the 1980s, stemming from the constructivist (keep in mind all this I am saying might be a bit ruff and I am not trying to school people on history of arch just trying to show where thoughts are coming from) here comes Deconstructivism/deconstruction once again taking what the world has to offer within the realms of fabrication and now the impact of architecture being influenced by computer technology to generate ideas of complex construction/design. Eisenman ,Koolhass ,Himmelbau and Hadid to name a few. They all visually created these forms that took the basic ideas of “Art Nouveau”
And plugged it into the latest technology ,simplified it down with the use of materials to take place of leaves and say flower buds. Thus creating an orchestration of all of this so their work reads as this moving continuous mass of info, mass that stems from “Nature” . Now that the digital era is in full effect be it post digital or what not with the technology. (keep in mind digital technology is just a tool not a movement) the implementation of an algorithm/scripting. A concentration of information that generates a pattern for form/structure to evolve. These methodologies of generating architecture/design have been used befor(with digital arch) yet the visual outcome is fare different than the works of the Deconstructivists. Once again the concept of “Nature” yet in its next evolution the evolution is in the realm of the dimensional time structures. If you look at works by say Diaz, Decoi or Nox you can see this repetition,this type of stuttering of imagery/information be it curves of straight lines. It can be conceived as if one is traveling at super speeds or taking in vast a mount of information where it is to great that human consciousness cant take it so it kinda skips a few frames and catches maybe two frames latter within the thought process or visual computation for a human being. As if one steps out of time for a brief moment but in cycles of that of a strobe light. For it is at this next stage of “Nature” the Dimentional stage in which I think we are at. Where computational thought process are being executed at great speeds that it is taking form in architecture and art as stutering of time and space.The relationship with the computational power of the computer aided by algorithmic equations of an even more advance or should I say creative nature than previous displays of this type of designing(Gary, Koolhase or Eisenman..deconstruction). For the evolution of “Nature” has happened again. The Idea of all this came from the experience with epilepsy and grand male seizures. For at the time I was working on a project that
dealt with these concepts I am mentioning (I would put imagery up but I am not quite sure how to post pics) which all came from epileptic experience/ visuals.
I know this all so ruff and I don’t know if these ideas have been dealt with before but feed back would be great.
E .Fernandez
I am completely confused, but completly fascinated. Please keep trying to explain it to me. Email me even.
I'm also confused, but anyway... d 4 scroll down to the bottom of the page for how to upload an image (the light grey code)... if you need to host it somewhere first you can try Imageshack
There are no movements, only personal mythology.
^That's a personal mythology if I ever heard one.
Thanks Medit I will post some images a bit later and explain some more of this ruff concept of Dimentionalism . Think of it as skipping through time Thanks for the interest Sarah H !
I was just reading that Charles Jencks interview that John Jourden did, linked to above, the fourth post... iconic building (By the way, great interview JJ) There, Jencks hits it on the head I think:
Weak belief reigns today. Everybody believes something weakly, despite the fact that they're dogmatic and they go out and kill people. You can say it's weak because it doesn't produce things of depth. Instead, they're thin.Weak belief is a problem. Iconic buildings are caused by weak belief, because clients don't have the strong belief to say to the architect, ”˜This is what the icon should be about.' Up to the Nineteenth Century, the client always imposed their taste, iconography, and meaning on the architect. Or they shared that with the architect, so they wouldn't have to tell them, but they knew what they were about. And they did, I think they did up until the Modern period even, to a degree. Today, clients are insecure and society is completely pluralist and insecure, and doesn't know what it wants. But they (society and clients) do know they want a landmark. Weak belief plus the desire to have a landmark, plus celebrity culture, plus globalized capitalism, plus the art market's desire for the new””all those factors together produce iconic buildings. This is why we're in an iconic building era, not because we want to be””people don't want to be.
Do we live in an age of weak belief? (a market and clients that hold weak beliefs)
Client: "Can you design for me a confused architecture?"
Architect: "I can try."
=====
confused
1. to perplex or bewilder
2. to make unclear or indistinct
3. to fail to distinguish between; associate by mistake; confound: to confuse dates
4. to disconcert or abash
5. to combine without order; jumble; disorder
6. Archaic. to bring to ruin or naught.
I vote for Iconic Age of Architecture!
I better hurry up and finish...
Ah, doughnuts. Alas, even this thread is becoming a reenactment of a thread exactly one year ago.
Should'nt it be dimensionalism rather than dimentionalism?
I'm waiting for the I want to be a starchitect-ism movement to die...
"In the future, everyone will be a starchitect for fifteen minutes."
inspiring
sup man hand?
ibelings has coined the term "supermodern"...
try his book by the same name. tries to deal w/ some of the things that are happening today.
miniministic paraplejic designs... with touches of glitter here and there, thats today's thing
diabase
Your right It is spelled DIMENSIONALISM sorry about that. As I mentioned this stuff has yet to be really ironed(and my spell is not that great) out but I believe it has some merit.
I will put the images soon and more info about DIMENSIONALISM .Had a
all nighter and need some rest.
my BM had corn in it today
D4,
You might want to just start a seperate thread to explain your Dimensionalism. Just a thought.
I'm a fan of what might be called the New Materialism as described by Reiser + Umemoto in the Atlas of Novel Tectonics. Seems to be an inspiring and novel departure from / response to the Modern -> PostModern -> DeCon -> What Next? line. Specificity, emergent and a bunch of other stuff.
since we are trying to define the current movement, what i'd like to know is how the past movements were identified?
were the terms "modernism", "renaissance", "post modernism" coined in their infancy? or was it during their height in the architectural scene? or was it after everything was done and their works analyzed?
A little column A, a little column B.
Michael Speaks argues for design intelligence in which we do not ask what metaphysical "being" architecture currently resides in. To be clear, this entire discussion and "theory" in general is to validate the profession by what value it provides to society and itself. Instead of relying on a singular truth of what architecture is, a more beneficial stance to the profession could be how can architecture add value to humanity: aesthetically, programmatically, economically, socially, etc. This anti-autonomous direction could be where we are headed. With the advent of biological inspired designs (blob, sustainable, pop science), architecture could be more integrated with the stuff outside architecture-and therefore more valuable.
Interesting Symposium:
http://www.archined.nl/archined/5303.html
I ran into this thread as I was reading some other post. I am wondering if that guy who was going to post pictures of dimentionalism, is still around and eating up algorithmic chit-chat?
BTW, today's movement is "bowel movement."
Anyway, bump!
i like this thread
(works on so many levels)
Ionic. Doric is so last month.
Theory is dead. Green will continue to be 'hip', until it is the norm (there is actual logic in why it should be important, which helps).
I think Jencks got it right too. Always liked him. Good example of an articulate thinker that was a horrible designer (there should be a graphic somewhere, showing how the best designers write little, and the worse write a ton - I think it would be quite proportional, entertaining at the least).
Curtain wallism, think about it, architcture today is mainly about providing a structure for curtain walls. These are spetacular on distance but they replaced everything else, and underneath the glass surface, is a very thin ideology left.
Nice analogy, per!
I thought about this question for a while...
I think it's basically the same as it has been since the 80s. Architects are still designing postmodern, modern, decon, structural expressionist, and metabolic styles.
I think this will continue. There isn't really any defined "movement" right now because we do things different.
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.