It is currently 24 Oct 2017, 11:14

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 28 May 2013, 23:35 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 14:21
Posts: 152
I've made this thread for the discussion of fashion and art, but avoided the title "Fashion and Art" because that phrase has a certain vagueness and vulgarity. It seems fashionable to be artistic and even more fashionable for fashion to be artistic that who cares anymore that somewhere, fashion design is a design practice.

In 1979, Rosalind Krauss wrote her essay "Sculpture in The Expanded Field" where she described what she considered a Postmodern phenomenon, that new sculpture could not simply be defined as "sculpture" for it appeared to cross over into the boundary of architecture and landscape. Fashion design is something I see as naturally occurring in an "expanded field" in that it is between art and utilitarian clothing production.

Anyway, here is a section of an (yet unfinished) essay I'm working on, with my ideas not on fashion as art, but fashion within an expanded field which approaches an idea of art.

Quote:
...

The valuation of art is again, difficult still; art cannot justify itself as an object other than that according to Kant, it is purposefully purposeless. In this sense, fashion coincides with art, it too operates on a principle of purposelessness. It is also conditioned by a factor of novelty, like that of which Badiou necessitates in art. For Kant, purpose disqualifies an object from the realm of art, it may only be craft, or design, the contemporary of craft. Let us look to the contradiction that is fashion design which, driven by both novelty and a purposeless purpose, is the binary complement to art. We will examine the work of fashion designers Maison Martin Margiela (MMM) to make sense of the relation between art and fashion.

Fashion design oversees a production of garments and accessories which are purposeful in their function as wearable objects. It this aspect of practicality which characterises clothing as inartistic craft-like objects, yet there is a factor of novelty in fashion which renders an art-like purposelessness and excess to garment production. The structure of seasonal collections cycle faster than the natural obsolescence of clothing, where clothes may be worn to an extent that their deterioration no longer allows its use as a functional object, even after the possibility of repair. The bi-annual renewal of fashion operates under a term of excess for which the novel exists. However, this is not to say fashion design is naturally artistic due to its tendency toward the novel, design may have artistic moments but again, is conditioned against artistic quality due to its purposeful intent. In extension, artworks themselves do not claim artistic quality purely through novelty. Art-like fashion design objects circumvent the practical aspect of the worn garment, restoring Kant’s artistic purposeful purposelessness. The object tends to be less and less wearable as it becomes more art-like, the concept of the clothing is foregrounded over its being a commodity, that which is consumed in the everyday. The unwearable is characterised by the impractical or is simply socially unacceptable.

Maison Martin Margiela’s Summer/Spring collection of 2009 is comprised almost entirely of design objects which are rendered unwearable by their sheer conceptuality. The collection is a Black Square of sorts, where the concept of clothing and fashion design is abstracted to a point of finality. The show opens with three iterations of the same jacket: first, a piece of cloth with the image of the jacket. The model walks down the runway, holding up the cloth over her front, she carries only an image of the jacket. Second, the model wears a jacket with lapels and pockets drawn over the surface in trompe l’oeil fashion. The function of these design details are secondary to their appearance. And third, a stiff plaster form of the jacket restricts the model’s movements into an unnatural awkwardness.

Image Image Image

These three jackets demonstrate an abstraction of fashion and remove a functional aspect of the clothing in the process. They are a response in kind to the question of “what is fashion?” to which the answer is: an image, a piece of cloth, a form. In isolating these three aspects, the jackets no longer function as clothing, or only appear to do so. They function artistically in that they inquire and deconstruct the meaning of “fashion”. In fact, they function more as artistic objects than as design objects for they are more often received in an aesthetic domain than a functional one. However, this does not necessarily redefine the work of MMM as art since these objects are contextualised and based in a world of design.

...


:geek:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 May 2013, 00:34 
Offline
porter
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013, 14:02
Posts: 1169
thanks for helping to kick things off, not sure if a more appropriate subject for the first such thread exists. the concept of the expanded field is not something I am familiar with through having read the reference cited, but it feels like a familiar subject from many discussions held over the years in another venue. we seem to be treading new ground here though, and this is encouraging.

kantian definition of art never sat well with me because, like many other attempts to provide a singular definition, the relationship between man and art is always implied to exist in some sort of a removed, almost spiritual realm, somewhere outside the boundaries of the base and everyday, if not above it. the sort of definitions seem to accept a certain lack of precision in trade-off for structural clarity as part of some greater body of work but don't quite add up to me when considered on their own, brilliantly parodied here.

the animosity towards the craftsman movement in the 1880s from the fine art salons was especially telling, and persisted into the present in art critics, its function reducing it to irrelevance in the art circles. but the proposition of design and craft had been more intriguing to me because it stressed the importance of that same relationship between man and art in the absolutely banal minutiae of life, instead of reinforcing the barrier between it and the metaphysical, as kant seems to do..

that relationship with ideas and aesthetics of things on the part of the creator and the beholder seems to come closest to defining it, but i'm not sure there really is an apt definition. or whether one is at all necessary, especially today, when work is often perceived so conceptually that having expectations of its tangible form is nearly considered to be in bad taste. with craft and design, it seems as though the concept of end user gives the work a greater possibility of depth through the interaction it demands. its existence overlaps to some extent with that of its user, quite literally so with clothing, opening up avenues of access unavailable to something inert and remote by comparison.

(more..)

I very much like what you had written, by the way - looking forward to seeing more of it.

_________________
which pyre shall the moon ignite each hour
which pyre in my library crimson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 May 2013, 00:44 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013, 18:33
Posts: 338
kant's insistence on distinguishing purposefulness from purposelessness is not germane to the discussion (though it is pretty german). that architectural sculpture and clothing are utilitarian does color one's apprehension of them, but doesn't change the degree to which they're artistic. unless that's what you're already saying when you talk about fashion being an expanded field approaching an idea of art. [when i went to preview this after writing, merz had beat me to the punch and expanded on what i'm trying to say here much more thoroughly above, also dovetailing nicely with the torma quote below]

poell's dead end jacket provides ample counterpoint to your examples of mmm, which were quite insightful by the way. if conceptuality implies the potential to provoke thought, this jacket has as much potential as the examples cited; however, it has retained all its utilitarian function, it needn't be any less wearable than a regular jacket. margiela is of course commenting specifically on purpose in clothing, but the discussion needn't be focussed on that.

Image

as an aside, the excellent point you made back on sz about the academic institution being separate from academia could be referred here to fashion, it is fashion as an institution that spurs novelty, excess and obsolescence, but fashion per se needn't be about those any more than about utility. it can be seen through another lens entirely, or it can transcend them to reach an 'expanded field' by explicitly commenting on them.

julien torma says, "beauty is an excess: not to be confused with perfection, which is only average." transcribed, does this means art is an excess: not to be confused with design, which is only average?

_________________
the eye of the beholder is in the eye of the beholder


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 May 2013, 01:24 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 14:21
Posts: 152
thanks for the replies guys!
Quote:
but the proposition of design and craft had been more intriguing to me because it stressed the importance of that same relationship between man and art in the absolutely banal minutiae of life, instead of reinforcing the barrier between it and the metaphysical, as kant seems to do..


I don't think Kant forces a metaphysical barrier between the banal and art, rather he makes a distinction, asking what is an artistic sensibility? I think his point in identifying a difference as being one of use or uselessness is well justified. There is a binary of relations which allow us to differentiate things which are "art-like" in quality from those which are "design-like" and that is all that is being described, none argue for which is better or worse.

With Poell's jacket, while it is totally wearable, the cost of the object does not justify its use value. There are cheaper jackets, also well made, that achieve the same warmth and genital coverage. I do not doubt its artistic quality nor its functional capacity but the point being made is that there is a kind of compromise, you cannot have all of both. It is not that Poell's jacket is more art than design or the vice versa, nor is it that that really matters. This is not a metaphysical barrier being put down, it is only a metaphysical observation.

There is most certainly however a general cultural bias which favours wealth and leisure over work and practicality and Merz's example of the fine art salon demonstrates that quite nicely.
Quote:
julien torma says, "beauty is an excess: not to be confused with perfection, which is only average." transcribed, does this means art is an excess: not to be confused with design, which is only average?

To describe design as "perfect" (no excess) and "average", is a contradiction which expresses both utilitarian/minimalist sentiments and this bias.

N.B this post got deleted by accident, and while re-writing my reply I found it easier to just re-reply than to try remember the original post word for word so there may be changes/contradictions to the things I'm saying


Last edited by hlee on 29 May 2013, 08:05, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 May 2013, 02:11 
Offline
engineer
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 08:10
Posts: 775
Location: Germany
great thread! :) just a quick note, i'll come back when i get some sleep, but it might be interesting to relate the idea of art with the idea of art-ificiality, which seem to be bonded together (in a not so simple relation).
(and i liked your text hlee! as well as the waywt post :))


Last edited by rilu on 29 May 2013, 02:12, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 May 2013, 02:12 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 14:21
Posts: 152
^great! in my essay, i later talk about "artifice" which is I think related :) and thanks!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 May 2013, 02:13 
Offline
engineer
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 08:10
Posts: 775
Location: Germany
ahaaa! ok, will say more about that tomorrow then! goodnight for now!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 May 2013, 02:35 
Offline
porter
User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2013, 14:02
Posts: 1169
Quote:
while it is totally wearable, the cost of the object does not justify its use value. There are cheaper jackets, also well made, that achieve the same warmth and genital coverage. I do not doubt its artistic quality nor its functional capacity but the point being made is that there is a kind of compromise, you cannot have all of both.


but i do not see where these things are anathema to one another: design is often viewed as an embellishment supplementing the base function of an object and its value, but it can be and frequently serves as the base function, in the way that, using poell purely for the sake of continued example, affects the wearer's proportions and movement, changing not only their relationship with the onlooker but with themselves as well. and that psychological effect, the relationship between the object and its end user, is not any less a part of the object's functional capacity in establishing its value.

(more, much more... these will all be expanded upon)

_________________
which pyre shall the moon ignite each hour
which pyre in my library crimson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 May 2013, 14:44 
Offline
engineer
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 08:10
Posts: 775
Location: Germany
Let me get back to the relationship of art and artificiality. My boyfriend (whom i maybe convince to join this forum) once put this idea in a very nice way when we were somewhere else discussing the tension between art and what is commonly known as artificiality (this was with regard to the case of this dog who was placed in a gallery to starve, and the question whether this was supposed to be called art or not; but the main idea is applicable to the current discussion as well, i think):

Quote:
There are two (of course related) types of artificiality.
On the one hand art departs from the common world as we see it in every day life. Things are not as they look like in the sense that we need to take a kind of different look at art in order to understand it. Some aestheticians claim that this way art opens the way to a deeper understanding of reality itself. Art is said to be a way to get in touch with truth, the world as it is in itself, some even speak about the absolute.

However, there is also another level of artificiality. Art is said to create an illusionary world. On the one hand it depicts a world which is (also) not real (we have some dialectics here). Take Rembrandt's portraits and group paintings. He paints actors, people standing in his studio, posing a role as if nobody is watching them while being well aware that they are watched - compare here the masterful movie "Nightwatching" by Peter Greenaway that illustrates this on many levels. On the other hand the art-world becomes detached itself. Artistic circles are said to have an existence far off from the usual life of so-called normal people. Similar to the scientist in his/her ivory tower, a deep void is diagnosed between the art-world and the the world as most of us know it. Not just that the art itself becomes more and more in-art, that is only understandable by the ones playing the nearly incestuous language game, also decadence is one of the catchwords. An out-of-touch with morals but also emotions such as empathy.
But back to my statement that this example in a very intensive way illustrates a basic tension. But therefore I have to say a bit more about suffering.

Suffering and truth are as near as it gets. As well as suffering and objectivity. In arguing against private language Wittgenstein again and again reflects on pain. Pain connects us mutually, it is part of our shared life form. Furthermore, nothing is more real than my pain. It becomes nonsense to ask if this, my tooth ache is real.

What is now going on in this piece of "art"?
Firstly, it confirms the artificiality (of the second kind) of arts. The piece of "art" is the whole room, the dog and his pain and desperation in the one corner, the food in the other corner and most important: the visitors and their behavior in between the space and time. The ignorance and even the insecurity they are in demonstrates decadence. It demonstrates the immorality of the art-world. But more, it demonstrates its being out-of-touch with the objective life world. If suffering is one of the most significant symptoms of the real, then the piece of "art" depicts the void between the real and arts.

Secondly, the piece of "art" is successfully doing so. It is art about art, meta-art. It is even form-content analogy. It is itself cruel, immoral. But it is real. The dialectic punchline is that through the negation of the real it gives us a real picture of the state of art. It becomes art in the first sense (as I described above). The displayed decadence is itself decadent, no question. It should and has to be condemned. More, it asks for it. And more, it would otherwise not function as "art".
Stockhausen controversially called the catastrophe of 11. Sept. the greatest piece of art in the 20th century. I want to leave the question open if we should understand this statement along the lines I just sketched. But I'll definitely think further about it.

I want to finish my thought with a quote of Steve Albini who is never getting tired of attacking artificiality and approving down-to-earth-ness in pop culture:
"This isn't some kind of metaphor .... Goddamn, this is real!"


Let me now try and link this relationship to the current discussion. The restrictions which go against wearability, and thus relate to the idea of pain, seem to point to the art directed towards the real. But at the same time, this is precisely what makes clothing artificial (in the first sense mentioned in the above text), because it deviates from the function that is originally prescribed to it. Moreover, given, for example, the context in which MMM designs are presented, the artificiality comes also in the second sense: as the creation of its own context, which has nothing to do with the usual context of presentations of "fashion design". Maybe this line of thought could be extended further, to the meta-narrative on art and design.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 May 2013, 18:30 
Offline
french crew
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 15:10
Posts: 103
I don't see how a work of art could avoid to be the reinforcement of the context that allowed its existence.
I can't believe that there is such thing as a world one could perceived as real, as opposed to art, i.e. natural, instinctive versus artificial, elaborate.

Pain is a problematic object. Of course it doesn't seem so when you just perceive it, but what does it become when someone's watching ? Which part of what you are doing at that very moment, right in the front of the witnesses, is raw pain, which one is already an act of communication ? Or some sort of representation ?
Which part, in the discourse of a mental patient, is madness, which part is a comment on it, or a figuration ?

A garment that impedes movements does have a function. If its purpose is to keep a waist thin, or a torso pushed forward, or to stretch a neck, to reshape a silhouette despite the natural inclinations of the body, or to abolish its outline, it is indeed completely functional. I believe it is a very old story.
And following the same logic, a supposedly functional design is ornamental. A supposedly artisanal production is refined. As long as it proceeds from a deliberate choice, and not from an obvious necessity dictated by the circumstances.

(I realize how peremptory all this may sound, but I'm quite tired ATM and I'm afraid my recent lack of practice has left my english a bit rusted.)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 May 2013, 19:50 
Offline
engineer
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 08:10
Posts: 775
Location: Germany
great to see you here, Mail-Moth! :)

i don't see the problem in the idea that the work of art is something existing in a specific context (and hence specific "world"). the fact that this object is being understood as a piece of art, rather than just a, say, functional object, indicates that there is a context in which it exists that is different from an everyday one. and in this sense it is "artificial".
that doesn't mean that a work of art has no function, or that these specific functions you mention above aren't there. but they are different from functions usually ascribed to clothing. so the everyday interpretation of clothing as something simply wearable is changed towards different functions.
so i'm not really sure where the problem lies...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 May 2013, 20:14 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 11:02
Posts: 33
I also feel that this idea of looking at art in a specific way, as opposed to real "normal" life is problematic. I'm not denying that we look at art with the preparedness of looking at art, but don't we often look at many parts of everyday life in a similar sense (loved ones, unexpected moments blah blah). What divides the context of art from the context of a moment of beauty/pain/ugliness anything that is a sharpening of trivial everyday experience? Many reasonable social interactions are highly artificial/exist as a reinforcement of context. Basically what is specific to art that its world is not of certain moments of the everyday.

(sorry if this is a very basic duff reply, long day, beers etc)

_________________
Undressing this man you’d find a body that’s wasted and, here and there, patches of fur


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 29 May 2013, 20:43 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 07:08
Posts: 7
Location: London
I want to say intention, but that seems too basic an answer.... The difference between me screwing up a piece of paper and throwing it away and me screwing up a piece of paper to put on display is the intention, coupled with an acceptance by a group of intended viewers or peers that what I am doing is indeed art . Whether it is seen as art or not (and here usually people say that art requires an intentional message, even if the message is "I don't have a message"), surely it is down to personal vs. group perception? Informally, anything can be considered art by an individual viewer, but to be called "art", it requires a certain formality of meaning that is usually socially prescribed - this is the object, you are the viewer.

What always bugs me is where artefact comes into play. The majority of art we hold so highly today is not "art" in the modern sense...it is technically design by today's standards, because it served a primary function that was not to function as an aesthetic experience in and of itself. It usually had religious function, even if that function was through the medium of the aesthetic experience (e.g. a reliquary, a panel painting of Saints, a fresco of baby Jesus getting crunk, bringing you closer to an understanding of whatever message).

Rather tired, so I've probably jumbled up my thinking a little.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 May 2013, 06:10 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 23:35
Posts: 266
Location: los angeles
^does art not exist without an audience then? when the universe reaches temperature equilibrium and cognition becomes physically impossible, will any extant pieces still be art?

_________________
✧・゚:*✧・゚:* \(◕‿◕✿)/ *:・゚✧*:・゚✧


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 30 May 2013, 08:37 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 07:08
Posts: 7
Location: London
It exists as a potential force without an audience, but it needs an audience to become fully fledged. If it is not engaged in dialogue than it is simply a preserved artefact. I'd compare it to fashion in a museum - removed from the wearer and the human body it becomes an object of curiousity, an object suspended in time, sanitized as pure aesthetic for an audience. The original meaning and function is still there, but only as a potential. Same with art I'd say, in that it still has the potential to be art without an audience, but it needs that dialogue with the viewer/person experiencing it, to be truly...alive, for want of a better word.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 09:20 
Offline
french crew
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 15:10
Posts: 103
Rilu : the everyday interpretation of clothing as something simply wearable.

I don't get that. I'd rather think that aside from work uniforms people tend more than often to make aesthetic choices when they dress. They wouldn't call art what they wear, though, for sure ; but we can do so, because we have an idea about art : we think we know what art looks like, and if we want something to be art, we have enough authority and rethoric skills to name it so, at least amongst our peers from the internet.

Image

See the jacket worn by the man with a mustache on the left of that picture ? In the 80's you would find the exact same pattern in C&A's sales racks.
Frank Leder takes that pattern and makes an iteration of that jacket, probably in a better fabric, with a better finish, but knowing a bit of his work I'm pretty sure the cut wasn't exactly groundbreaking. There were probably one or two twisted details, nothing more.

C&A : junk clothing, not even fast fashion.
Frank Leder : witty recreation of the 80's german middle classes wardrobe, thus bordering art domain, and practically sold as such in shops like Ra13, Belgium.

Difference between both products is probably anecdotic (maybe the buttons hold better) ; but the latter has an audience as a tiny piece of pop art.

What I mean with this exemple is that we promote art in fashion simply by discussing it. We are creating the context, and we are part of its evolution. Maybe we have an interest in this : I mean, we love art, and we can afford fashion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 15:01 
Offline
engineer
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 08:10
Posts: 775
Location: Germany
Mail-Moth wrote:
I'd rather think that aside from work uniforms people tend more than often to make aesthetic choices when they dress. They wouldn't call art what they wear, though, for sure ; but we can do so, because we have an idea about art : we think we know what art looks like, and if we want something to be art, we have enough authority and rethoric skills to name it so, at least amongst our peers from the internet.


Yes, exactly, we can distinguish certain aesthetic aspects of clothing and name them "art". But the question is why, that is, according to which criteria and in view of which reasons we do so. And I agree with hlee's point that the shift from aesthetics of clothing towards art has to do with the shift in functionality or purpose. That something has a certain aesthetic appeal doesn't yet make it "artful", but this shift may very well be something gradual rather than discreet.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 15:24 
Offline
french crew
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 15:10
Posts: 103
I'm afraid this discussion will be quite confusing. It entirely depends on what you're likely to include in the 'art' category in the first place - from the mastery of certain tour-de-main (someone reminded us earlier of the quite recent distinction between arts décoratif and beaux-arts) to the talent to express the everchanging concept of beauty (proportions ? symetry ?), not to forget the simple aptitude to manipulate a context and a discourse in order to achieve this promotion from junk to art in the eye of the beholder.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 01 Jun 2013, 15:30 
Offline
engineer
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 08:10
Posts: 775
Location: Germany
yes, i agree. it would maybe be useful to discuss these categories first, and have a couple of working conceptions so we can have a better basis for further distinctions. any philosophers of art around here? :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Jun 2013, 05:33 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: 28 May 2013, 14:21
Posts: 152
I think asking the question "what is art?" is problematic because the broad scope of pre existing discourses on this make a curated view of what we're actually talking about quite a difficult thing. We're talking about art and design specifically, and so I think it appropriate to look at this through the lens of Kant's proposition that art cannot be useful, ultimately that is what distinguishes it from craft, or its modern day counterpart which is design. We understand that design can have art-like qualities, and the vice versa, relational aesthetic art is an example of art which is design like in that it designs an environment for social experience and interaction.

In extension of Rilu's idea of the artificial, it is not that art or design becomes "artificial" when they approach their binary ends. Art may contain design-like appearances but that does not necessarily make it artificial. The artificial is a kind of "un-truth". If we look at art and design as practices which have their own truth procedures (Badiou, Inaesthetics of Art discusses this in length), then art and design is not bound to the terms of philosophy. That is, either practice is not lawfully restricted to philosophical "meaning", while they can and do sometimes, Badiou observes that a greater factor necessitates the existence of art, and that is the factor of liking. (who gives a crap about art if nobody likes it in the first place?)

I've had the idea that capitalist motivations promote artificiality in art and design. for example, the other week I went to a public art project which was showing a new documentary about Marina Abramovic. Before the film was screened, a speaker introduced the topic of the film to the audience (made up of a general public). The speaker went through a powerpoint showing examples of Abramovic's work, describing what these works were about in half a sentence or so per work. Basically what the speaker was saying was "Abramovic is great. She is a genius. She is the most famous performance artist. She has had so much critical acclaim and accolades etc." To me this read as "You will never understand how much of a genius Abramovic is because you are the general public and therefore the dunces of society. These works mean this and this but I had to tell you that because you wouldn't have ever understood otherwise. You are idiots and you still probably don't understand." That is to me, art turned to artifice, when the artificial is a means to un-truth. (and this blockbuster public art-project sure did promote tourism and economy etcetcetc.)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Forum hosting by ProphpBB | Software by phpBB | Report Abuse | Privacy