This week, we devote the majority of our show to a discussion with Patrik Schumacher, about celebrity and the insularity of critical discourse in architecture. The idea of the "starchitect" is onerous to pretty much everybody in architecture, but that hasn't stopped us from using it. It's a popular media fabrication that, by becoming a potent cultural meme in its own right (thanks, Gehry), has derailed significant portions of architecture discourse into the murky realm of identity politics – the aesthetics and politics of a built object becoming an inextricable part of their designer's character. Schumacher's Parametricism may be an antidote to that. We discuss Schumacher's recent op-ed on these subjects, in the hope that keeping the discussion going will flush out something useful (or even flush away the "starchitect" concept entirely).
In the news, we touch on BIG's design for Two World Trade Center displacing Foster's, the resignation of five Cooper Union trustees (including Daniel Libeskind), and the scandal of Red Cross's contested use of earthquake-relief funds in Haiti. Our take on news is a bit different this episode; let us know what you think of it!
Listen to episode thirty-three of Archinect Sessions, "Stargazing with Patrik Schumacher":
Check out our news post on Schumacher's original post for more background on this episode's conversation.
Shownotes:
Daniel Kay Hertz’s article “Why is Urbanism So White?”
BIG's design for Two World Trade Center displacing Foster's
Renderings of BIG-Designed Two World Trade Center Revealed
Archinect's critical round-up of BIG's Two World Trade Center Design
Resignation of five Cooper Union trustees
Red Cross's contested use of earthquake-relief funds
Jai & Jai gallery in Chinatown
So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed by Jon Ronson
Curated interview feature with Kevin Roche, The Forever Unfinished Business
61 Comments
Wow. There's archispeak and then there's projectile vomiting archibabble. I apologize to anyone who can follow what Patrik says because my little mind only got through half the podcast before a small headache started coming on. For the record, I see no reason to fret the starchitect label as there have always been and always will be "stars" in any profession, and as his media performances and clothing choices communicate, he clearly loves the attention.
I like the way he tackles the issue of style straight forwardly, but as soon as all questioned him on the superficial nature of that approach, he retreated to calling it a "formal repertoire". I also like his description of how parametricism has moved beyond the "manifesto dryrun of potentials" period, a bit of clever marketing to establish parametricism as the next modernism. The only people who will ever be able to afford this kind of work will be the rich (not that there's anything wrong with that), while everyone else will have to rely on right angles and stock materials to resist gravity. He frequently does this two step, something I've noticed with politically minded folks in many a profession.
It was interesting how he deflected Donna's excellent question of whether they ever renovate buildings, as if... I really cringed when he spoke about his work's "enhanced level of complexity" and his "high performance elegant structures", as if in the past they where only playing fiddle sticks. How many of his buildings are molded panels hung on a frame? Provocations do indeed stimulate debate, just not in polite circles.
The most interesting part about this weeks podcast for me (as a father of three) was when you spoke of showing the built environment to kids and hearing their take on it. I think this kind of exposure is as critical as giving kids music, art, and dance to expand their mind. It made me think of why some are still so hesitant to ask adults about their feelings on the built environment (Patrik excluded).
Anyway, great podcast, even if I could only get through half of Patrik's monologue.
Thayer, you point to a challenge in the interview process; his to pursue and challenge, without the interviewee shut down and end the interview. I am torn at times, because I would like to be more pointed. I thought what was funny, and I'm not sure anyone knows this, but we interviewed Patrik three weeks ago, before the FIFA scandal broke. So to hear Patrik brush the corruption aside, is rather interesting in light of what is coming to pass.
I wanted to post again the link to the Tampa Bay Times' recent expose on America's Worst Charities (I linked to it in the Red Cross thread previously). Yes, we need to verify that the charities we give money to are legitimate, and not organizations that give 90% of their donations to their own marketing wings and executives. But Red Cross is verifiably a legitimate organization, ProPublica's cherry-picked article to the contrary.
This was just emailed to me by someone who shall remain anonymous:
I had a discussion with (redacted) who is fucking smart about semiotics and aesthetics and was led to a book called Distinction by Bourdieu which argues against a pure gaze and towards a conditioned aesthetic,which parametricism is, although it is presented as the one true way to address the cultural, economic, political, aesthetic issues of today, rather than just another studied, rationalized and honed way to work which is no better or worse than any other of the readily identifiable tendencies of his peers.
Patrik, do you care to address? The conversation is getting a bit above my head now.
Ken,
I think it's difficult to appreciate the balancing act you all do in these interviews. Ultimately it's more important to retain the dialogue than to make a polemic IMHO. As you say, you ask the question and it's his to pursue. Hat's off to him for making himself available, I wish more architects would do the same.
Donna, don't hold your breath. PS ignored all the substantive questions on his Op Ed piece and he will no doubt ignore this one too. As for polemics, I think he invites them with condescending superiority. Parametricism is the Emperor's New Clothes.
And no, I didn't listen. What I read was more than enough. I would listen to Renzo or Moshe.
Well, unlike a lot of us (myself included) Patrik Schumacher *does* have a pretty demanding job, so he can't necessarily post immediately. In fact in reference to Amelia's book recommendation of So You've Been Publicly Shamed from this week's episode I woudl love it if this parametricism discussion didn't have to take place only within one day's worth of hot-takey outrage posts. There's time for a discussion to unfold.
After listening to the podcast it seemed to me that Patrick Schumacher was most energetic and direct when he referenced other parametric practices. In fact, much of what he described were areas of design that are out of the current purview of the architect and instead are driven by engineers and other professionals. I find this interesting given that earlier in the conversation it was suggested that many of these other practices are inferior. It makes me wonder if this is a case of people standing on the shoulders of others (not in derogatory sense of the phrase) or that the realm of parametric style is flatter than he would have us believe.
Secondly, I appreciate his position that ZHA would like to reach as far as possible and therefore is open to all project opportunities and applaud them. However, I don't agree with the argument that political correctness has hampered the realm of architecture. From my perspective place, politics and culture are embedded in the practice of making architecture along with a discussion of who the project is designed for and the implicit discussion regarding who is to be excluded and at what cost. Given the opportunity, I would (respectfully) ask if there is a project that they would decline based on principle and not scope or budget.
Further to that point, I question his use of the phrase "politically correct." Given how old it is and how it has been twisted over time, it often rings as a coded term to communicate a level of sympathy with others who have large amounts of capital. So is his use of PC a subtle marketing agenda, or not quite the correct term? And isn't all this talk of sustainability the latest form of political correctness?
"Hip hop... collage and playfulness" I wonder how Chuck D would respond to that...
I'd also like to say thank you to Donna for posting the piece on urbanism. I've seen the post before, but it's nice to see a link on archinect. Again from my perspective, this is a "problem" to say the least.
^ politics and culture are embedded in the practice of making architecture.
Agreed.
Schumacher uses "politics" as a catch-all dodge for avoiding substantive (read real world) issues. Look back over his writings here, including those as parametricist, and you will find confirmation of this pattern of behavior.
This is classic political PR technique. Use whatever question you are asked as an opportunity to say what you want - the actual question is irrelevant. Avoid the question entirely unless it aligns with or allows you to amplify your position.
Schumacher is not here to debate, it's simply a sales pitch. It looks to me like he's in damage control mode, and it's not working.
Hayek's nobel prize acceptance speech
"If man is not to do more harm than good in his efforts to improve the social order, he will have to learn that in this, as in all other fields where essential complexity of an organized kind prevails, he cannot acquire the full knowledge which would make mastery of the events possible."
If Patrik Schumacher can reconcile the square of this sentiment (which epitomizes Austrian Economics) with the ambition of the circle of "life process modelling" (along with the conceit that reality is just a series of parameters) then he should start working on his own nobel and pritzker acceptance speech.
thayer-D - on the op-ed thread i attempted to translate what Mr. Schumacher posts and I am not completely joking when I say we are reading German- English, especially philosophical German-English.................................i will give you a personal example. at 18 i went off to college and discovered philosophy and remembered for the first 13 years of my life I spoke German consistantly. So I thought I could grab a copy of Kant from the library in German and try to read what would amount to the original text. The intro by some 1970's academic was not too hard to understand but when I got to Kants writing I clearly remember starting on one page flipping to the next and going "where the fuck is the period?", flipped back and forth and realized the page or two was One sentence.......................i recieved a D in English 101 that semester and an A in Greek philosophy..........................not defending Schumacher but if you look at his background, you are reading more than just archispam. In English a sentence in considered a 'complete thought'. i have yet to understand what a sentence is in German. Either way if you have philosophical leanings you often feel it important to cover all bases or as much as possible in one thought..................................i think much of the back lash or anti Schumacher is just a complete lack of intellectual rigor.......................i never liked Eisenman but own lots of books and made the attempt and in the end i could break his stuff down simply like a Bjarke diagram. for me this is understanding, so will attempt same with Mr. Schumacher.............................i could care less about the political stuff(may actually agree to some degree) and the whole fashiom bit and attitude etc..(not trying to get know the man emotionally)...................................................................but as a body of work with theory to back we have a package of executed thought we can analyze and discuss and someone at his stature gracious enough to engage us like any good philosopher would...........carry on.
and marc.....who the hell says hip-hop. am i out of the loop. its called rap. i would appreciate more political correctness like ice-t and chuck d.
Chris said: In English a sentence in considered a 'complete thought'. i have yet to understand what a sentence is in German.
I think this is actually very relevant and illuminating in regards to Schumacher's writing and speaking. It takes rigor and concentration, and a willingness to flow along lost for a bit, like struggling through Old Masters by Thomas Bernhard, or maybe Joyce's Ulysses (which I have never made it through).
Also, Marc, thank you for that comment. The Urbanism article was hard for me to read as I recognized my own failings in it. I'm trying to learn, still, about so may things! And from my perspective the more social aspects of urbanism are more interesting to pursue than the more formal aspects; though of course they are interrelated, in my mind, the human is at the center.
Chris, nice observation on German language.
In theory, a German word can be infinitely long. Unlike in English, an extra concept can simply be added to the existing word indefinitely. Such extended words are sometimes known as Bandwurmwörter - "tapeworm words". In an essay on the Germany language, Mark Twain observed: "Some German words are so long that they have a perspective."
The Teutonic fondness for sticking nouns together has resulted in other famous tongue-twisters such as: Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän - Danube steamship company captain - which clocks in at 42 letters. It has become a parlour game to lengthen the steamship captain's name, by creating new words such as Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitänswitwe, the captain's widow.
So it seems that Germans have a cultural predilection for obfuscating rhetoric.
Donna, thank you for extracting that from my mobile phone post.
Archinect can we get the mobile version to work like the CPU version?
We complain about a shit media culture in this industry and how our brains are all going to mush via social media, archiporn, archispeak, and archispam....booo Bjarke Ingles, right....mullets...
and then someone like Schumacher posts his theory, which would have appeared in bygone days in journals, etc....(still do as noted) but he puts it out their in 'low brow' (formally) media and all we do is rant and rave without rigorous analysis.
if all architects just took a little time like Schumacher or as much as Lebbeus Woods did to contribute to the theoretical discourse - to keep practicing people like ourselves involved in the theoretical discussion, maybe the disconnect between reality and academia wouldn't be so large??
Stephen - but is it? What I never pay attention to, nor do I care ever, is if someone is making shit up or telling the truth. it's neither here nor there.
so if Mr. Schumacher is providing us with obfuscating rhetoric, so what, I'll hold him to it and work the theory through until we find a solution, or not...
grammatical constructions....I'm really at a loss on the use of the word 'style' to describe parametricism....I would prefer language as the proper categorization.
Chris, your point is well taken. I've often assumed that with the Germanic penchant for engineering and the modernist functional heritage, that one would find a similar economy of expression. Stupid on my part, I know. My dad being a translator used to tell me that a Latin based language could be translated in to English with half the text. There's flowery prose and then there's baffling them with bullshit.
It may be a cultural thing, but I find too many contradictions and illogical assumptions to pass the smell test. Slow some of it down and break it up... It just doesn't hold water. That being said, it doesn't matter much if the work carries itself, which a lot of it does in a sculptural way. That's why I loved Donna's question about renovating buildings. I've always admired the elegance of some of the firm's work, regardless of their philosophical aspirations. I guess I prefer a Twain over Kant for my prose, plus I always suspect manifestos are a sales job.
Thayer-D - and that would be the task, but I guess on social media, etc...it's a lot easier just to say bullshit....
Q - "I'm not sure there's such a direct link between a language that readily accommodates multi-appositions and obfuscating rhetoric. If anything, multi-appositions manifest innate creativity." in context of having yet to get your question answered by Schumacher, I think you may just be making a pre-mature statement because you have not been responded to.
and I'm asking you, does it matter? does it matter if someone says something and you ask questions and you do not get a response that would convince you of their language being accurate to whatever degree of accuracy and system of thought you are trying to hold them true to.
If you just assume everything is bullshit to begin with (culture, religion, the economy, etc...), then it's a lot easier to take on anyone's system of thought and take it for what it is worth in it's own context...you may assume entire system is bullshit, but within the system nothing is bullshit unless the system begins to create propositions that contradicts it's own definitions and absolutes....
so as Thayer-D says, does it hold water? does it hold water first within its own context and then eventually in a greater context
Take one sentence apart at a time and decouple it with commas and periods if you like. Then analise the ideas the way a computer would, optimizing as it where. Finally, look at the idea in an everyday day context, not it's own. Establishing one's context is like writting the parameters of your computer, it will have a limited range, unnecessarily.
There is a much larger context here, beyond the ZHA signature style and Schumacher's theoretical justification for it. Competition between firms is paramount and brand building is critical (look at BIG's slick News Corp video). The same firms are routinely short listed for the same lucrative commissions and are fighting tooth and nail to get them. Thus the need to distinguish themselves from each other and the tendency to one-up each other with their designs. At one point Mayne even came out and said that his designs were aimed at other architects.
Which makes Renzo all the more astute and refreshing. He addresses his work with bold concepts and details them with faithfulness and consistency. There is no need for any pseudointellectual justification, the work can be measured on its own merit, in context with site, function, suitability to purpose, material use, etc. Which doesn't preclude intellectual discussion, but rather bases it in reality.
The need to justify the work with theory does little more than point out the shortcomings of both.
hmmmmm q...ok back to the first timer violin player recital....
found German to a rigourous language (one of the reason I was terrible at it). The placement of verbs in relation to Nouns is "always" driven by a set of rules that allows you to anticipate how entire sentences are being structured with repect to tense. The thing that is amazing is that is an language that favors invention of things, hence the unique construction with repsect to Nouns. (IMHO) Instead of making sweeping genralizations about the german and Germans, I would prefer to focus on PS's educational background- speciflcally his PhD.
It's clear from his use of language that he is grounded in postmodern theoretical discourse that frames matters in social, economic, and political conditions- the marxist three legged stool. However, parametricism is not grounded in cultural curation in the way postmodern critique is. Instead it is grounded in outcomes, metrics and performances. Curation becomes an addtional layer that is driven by matters of ecomics and aethetics as was hinted at in the podcast. At the least, the weight on the stool has shifted from being a critique of conditions to one that leans economics as an opportunity to expand the reach of the practice.
So I'm curious as to why he uses a mode of language that is ineffective given his interests. This is important because if the language is percieved as being bovine fecal matter, it will not find itself referenced in academia or practice, limiting it's effects on architecture. This is a long winded way of saying the language matters. It matters because it drives discussions and pushes architectural discourses (not to mention PS welcomes responses).
-And Chris, I didn't say hip hop, PS did. We all know that hip hop is the urbanism and rap is the music.
marc and q, it seems a lot of what i write is misunderstood here...q i thought your post was in response to mine which bifurcated the discussion leading to a question that apparently was out of context.... and marc, I know PS said it..imagine we were at a bar, you make your comment and I threw my hands up in the air and said 'hip hop'? hip hop? ...then I stumble over to the juke box and put some Chuck D on in an mainly white populated pub....hip hop? like a bunny?!?!...again imagine me with 1 liter of beer in my hand and a bratwurst in the other with voice screaching going hip hop? ....
marc ALL very good points, curious as well. (and absolutely related to the blowback on a lot of what PS states)
Chris- I gotcha now.
Astute post, Marc.
It's clear from his use of language that he is grounded in postmodern theoretical discourse that frames matters in social, economic, and political conditions- the marxist three legged stool. However, parametricism is not grounded in cultural curation in the way postmodern critique is.
Given his libertarian leanings it's no surprise that Schumacher rejects any sort of social philosophy, it is the perfect political position for a specific type of client. But it also makes his rejection of criticism on political grounds even more ludicrous.
Instead it is grounded in outcomes, metrics and performances.
Not sure about that, it looks to me to be more about process than result. I certainly haven't seen any ZHA building performance metrics.
Miles, Marc is ridiculously astute....
so Marc we're in the same bar, I'm thinking Dublin House in Red Bank, NJ, , who knows might run into Kevin Smith.... and I figured might as well ask you; given your post at Jun 13, 15 11:40 am was on point on so many levels and it takes a serious mind to state what was stated as Miles points out.
Is parametricism a 'style'? If not, what is it?
Dublin House? OMG, I took my Dutch grandmother there once for an Irish Coffee. Kevin Smith would more likely hang out at Bar A, ha!
a piece of fiction has just been conceived, bar scene, dublin house....Christopher Alexander and parametrics...beta will twxt me in thus fiction on Smiths wherabouts (if you dont mind) workin on it......beta I was there last week, its an interesting building with regard to urban conditions and good food of course. my practically vegan 4 year old (almond milk, fruits vegatable only),hypoglycemic tooo, she devoured the mushroom appetizer.....my 7 year old just started violon lessons at the Monmouth Music Conservatory. they had their 50th anniversary recital/concert last week which led to a funny facebook post or tweet by my buddy up from kansas city - count basie theatre. violin recital. miller light #classy. so going there now quite often................marc, dont mean to put you on the spot but since you seem to understand the possible construction of a german sentence, massive amount of parameters creating a framework in which the meaning is sealed through the placement of the verb, wait for it,wait for it, at the end....your perspective would be appreciated.
My bad. I stopped going to bars when people stopped tipping me. Now if we were at Rocklands .
I'll give this a shot, but forgive me as I gave not prepared a ppt. on the topic...
I do think parametricism is emerging as a style based on the points above (outcomes, performances and metrics). Added to those it is culturally relevant given that we are entering a time where everything is being optimized, not just architecture. Just to get carried away a bit, these are things people like Norbert Weiner and Herb Simon are (or were) trying to address for decades and we are now entering a period in which it's conceivable given the amount of information that is being collected and can be correlated. It's also interesting that this is all emerging at a time when human activity is being framed as an epoch, and we can project our impacts into the future in the immediate time scale (the 10 year pro forma) or the far future (impacts of climate change). Architects would be foolish to think that this is their exclusive domain and that parametric thinking operates outside of larger social and cultural matters.
That's one of the things I find interesting about parametricism as a style. Architects need to understand how and where they can exploit these processes to their benefit. Real Estate is the most immediate given the relationship between property, construction and returns. If we can't get a hold on hold those flows work, design will increasingly become parsley on the pig.
I also think it's a style because it meets the (cynical) architectural history smell test.
1- it's new (to you)
2- there's an assumption that everyone can do it, but an elite class can be made
3- manifestos can be written around it
4- it's universal and can address everything, and those things it can't aren't architecture- or important
Back to my brisket...
Chris, BALLS! Vegan at Dublin House? WTF, has the world gone mad? I'm going back to the coast soon, and I lament the seemingly horrible choices, selections for my vegan appetite. Especially in Monmouth County.
beta do not get me wrong i had a stuffed burger and me wife and buddy had the shephards pie (damn good)....but me wee little mickey the raging vegan had the mushrooms....and marc...bricket oh man..hungry now
++ Marc - The study of random noise as a comparison with parametricism.
miles I just hit Ctrl+f and searched for Noise and random, it appears Marc never said that....
who said that where?
^ Norbert Weiner
I was thinking more of the gradual evolution of the negative feedback loop into critical path solvers such as grasshopper and dynamo, not so much the studio environment they are learned in.
cybernetics. i vaguely remember the first chapter, newtonian vs bergsonian time. feedback and creative evolution. no noise or random there.
Wiener dealt with noise more so in "Extrapolation, Interpolation and Smoothing of Stationary Time Series," but much of the concepts in that report relate to cybernetics given that all the work was being driven by war efforts. But Claude Shannon's thesis is arguably the groundwork for all discussions related to noise.
Point being- the gradual progression from math to computation has had a gradual impact on a lot of things including architecture. It's just that the tools to apply this logic are only now becoming accessible enough to interpret the skeins of data that are availible. This is what's letting this "style" mature.
Donna,
Next City just published a "summer" reading list for utbanists with respect to race and non-western cultures. The list is a little broad, but there are some interesting reads in there.
Awesome, Marc, thank you! I'm familiar with Grace Lee Boggs but a lot of the others are unknown to me. Tweeting far and wide now...
Marc are you on twitter? Couldn't find you. I'm donnasinkarch.
parametracism is the perfect intellectual justification for building stylists. Its like those complicated derivatives equations where no one knows whats going on so they just put faith in the apparently smarter mathematicians when in fact the actual goal is a simple one... An over complication of simplistic pursuits. A intellectualization of form fetish.
"an intellectual says a simple thing in a difficult way, an artist says a difficult thing in a easy way." -Bukowski
The movement away from the art world and towards the world of academia is to blame.
"physics envy" is also a term that I keep thinking about as this debate goes on.
Parametrics however can be useful in the right hands. bankers using deriviraves equations shouldn't give math a bad name.
Getting back to skeins of data -
In many ways the more we depend on computers the more we remove human intelligence from whatever we are doing. A simple but pertinent example is the person who drives off the road because the GPS said "turn left".
Another good example is the glass cockpit, where pilots fly by wire without direct feedback. Instead of flying the plane they are controlling (often partially) a computer that flies the plane. The distinction is subtle but important.
Information overload is a serious problem for people. Our brains are not well equipped to pick from more than a few options. Thus how information is categorized and especially prioritized is critical. While computers can manipulate vast quantities of data the basic problems remain and new ones arise, such as dependence on another person's set of algorithms.
Since the advent of the pocket calculator basic math skills have plummeted. Digital clocks have resulted in a world were many children can't read an analogue clock, and with that the subtle recognition of a dual layered system that learning to read a 12 hour clock teaches, or the relative idea of time (half-past or quarter-of instead of 3:19).
Related: It's just like riding a bike.
Excellent, Miles! I had been ignoring that video on social media for the past few days but I'm SO glad I watched it! Fantastic.
And yes I do worry about loss of skills as we become so reliant on data. I recognized this as soon as I got my first GPS.
Miles,
Your reference to digital clocks immediately reminded me of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy and the commentary on progress. I agree with you that this is a dangerous precipice to stand on, but that's exactly where architects should be, suggesting despite what the data says, maybe there is a more appropriate way to build cities (I'm conflating parametrics and urbanism now)- or maybe there's a better way to use the data without just using the word "network."
Donna, I tweet at @lscapeisaverb. I favorited yours and had posted something similar.
Miles, I also agree with you that reliance on data as the sole decision maker is a precarious edge leading to a slippery slope. But I also think that is exactly where architects need to be, suggesting that maybe the best use suggest by the data based on best performance may not be the best choice (conflating the cybernetics and urbanism here as an example).
JLA, there's the high end stuff and then there's real stuff out there. Facilities master plans and their reliance on deferred maintenance (especially on college campuses, donors rarely want to be know for their rubber membrane roofs)- luxury retail store locations, and real estate proformas to name a few. It's all this little stuff that this is driven by numbers, it's just that it's taken for granted.
Donna, I tweet at @lscapeisaverb. I also posted something similar to you.
(Clearly having posting issues...)
jla-x I hope to make your points clear in Random Note #4 blog post, time willing, when I translate Christopher Alexander's "A Pattern Language"perversely into parametrics or the inverse, provide parametric languages for Pattern Languages..............................Marc is correct in the fact its time for architects to get into these tools (the whole BIM vs pencil), see that 'slowness' essay by Billie Tsie a d Todd Williams................the question is how to create quality environments that are soley based on quantities and their translations? i still am not buying 'style' as a useful description of parameterics. 'style'' is like saying "parametrics for dummies". ir it could be a method for differiniating the architectural versio from the mathematical version - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parametric_statistics
Generally speaking, parametric methods make more assumptions than non-parametric methods. If those extra assumptions are correct, parametric methods can produce more accurate and precise estimates. They are said to have more statistical power. However, if assumptions are incorrect, parametric methods can be very misleading. For that reason they are often not considered robust.
What's that old saying about assumptions?
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.