Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Arts & Literature

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-22-2009, 08:14 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovereign View Post
(Flushing the $10m toilet paper in the OP would be attacking a symptom, not the disease.)
If, as you seem to be, you are calling Mondrian's works "toilet paper," you are succeeding not in denigrating Mondrian's works, but merely in showing how retarded you are.

But then, we already knew that you were retarded, didn't we?
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-22-2009, 08:30 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Here is a painting Picasso did when he was 15 years old:

Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ceptimus (05-22-2009), Crumb (05-22-2009)
  #53  
Old 05-22-2009, 09:01 PM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMMMDCXLII
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Yes, the value of art lies (ideally) in an artist's abilities. That's why the art of modernism is so highly valued: It displays so much ability.
Agreed completely in respect to modernism, but that I think that there is and should be value to inspired naive art, where the artist may not be as classically skilled.

BTW, I feel I would be remiss if I didn't mention a book of Nancy comics I have. It's one of those two-in-one books, where you read one part halfway through the book, and then you turn the book over and upside down to read the other half.

One half is comics where Nancy makes fun of hippies; and the other half is called "Artists and Con Artists," and in that half, Nancy does things like breaks stuff or gets napkins messy and then sneaks them into galleries or sells them for a bunch of money to clueless art poseurs.

So that's what Ernie Bushmiller thought about this subject, in case you were wondering.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (05-23-2009), Watser? (05-23-2009), Ymir's blood (05-23-2009)
  #54  
Old 05-22-2009, 09:06 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisarea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Yes, the value of art lies (ideally) in an artist's abilities. That's why the art of modernism is so highly valued: It displays so much ability.
Agreed completely in respect to modernism, but that I think that there is and should be value to inspired naive art, where the artist may not be as classically skilled.
Yes there is naive art, primitivst art and the art of people who are mentally impaired, up to and including being actually insane. None of these people have any art training. Much of their art is far better than most "normal" art, IMO. Some of it would make even Picasso envious.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 05-22-2009, 09:09 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Outsider Art.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 05-22-2009, 09:14 PM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMDCCCVI
Images: 11
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisarea View Post
I don't mean just things like the Mondrian tree progressions. I do think those can help put the paintings themselves in context. But I've known people who were surprised at some of Picasso's earlier, more representational drawings, as though his ability to do render things realistically made the less-representational stuff more legitimate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
Once they understand that the artist could have painted representationally if he or she had wanted to, I think they're more willing to consider that the artist legitimately was creating something of value rather than making excuses for kindergarten level paint slopping.
:yeahthat:

If you know that the artist was making a choice between representational art (which he was capable of producing) and non-representational art (which, in most people's minds, most people are capable of producing - in the sense that they have the skill and dexterity necessary, if not necessarily the creativity) actually does make the painting better.

If art is partly about intention, then it is in fact relevant what the artist's capabilities are, since it could very well be relevant to their intention in using a certain style. If I tried to do a painting like that representational Picasso painting, it would come out looking very much not like the subjects of the painting. But this is because I simply am incapable of creating such a realistic painting, and I admit it. It would be relevant that I was attempting to be more representational, and failed, because of a lack of ability.

Now, this doesn't mean that their art would be valueless if they're not capable of producing high quality representational paintings, but it is relevant, in my mind. You can imagine a team of two working on paintings, for example, where one comes up with the concepts and overall composition, while the other, who is technically skilled, does all the physical painting - both members of the team would be contributing value, in my view.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 05-22-2009, 09:28 PM
Wonderbread Leotard Wonderbread Leotard is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: MDXLVI
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
I don't want to argue that all these celebrities would have been famous anyway even without a talent for art. I'm suggesting that some of them are far more famous than others who have far more 'talent'.

I take it you aren't denying the phenomenon of fame matched with mediocrity?
You must be some sort of Pol Pot sympathizer. Don't you have faith in the free market? Clearly today's kids are more likely to be fans of Kid Rock than Mozart because the former is much more talented than the latter ever was. :rolleyes:



Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-22-2009, 09:44 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
[If you know that the artist was making a choice between representational art (which he was capable of producing) and non-representational art (which, in most people's minds, most people are capable of producing - in the sense that they have the skill and dexterity necessary, if not necessarily the creativity) actually does make the painting better.
But, you know, most people do not have the skill and dexterity necessary to create most of the works that we call non-representational modern art. In fact -- here is the real point -- it may actually be harder to create these sorts of work, than to create representational work.

This admittedly may not be true of extremely simple works like the Mondrian in the OP. But one should try to understand what Mondrian was up to. If the painting in the OP were the only work that he had ever created, he would not have been seen as a great artist. But the painting in the OP is a specimen of a larger body of work which had to do with the intention of creating minimalism as an art form. The minimialist asks: what can we dispense with, and still make a aesthetic statement? So gradually as his art evolved, Mondrian (and others) dispensed with a lot of things. He dispensed with subject matter, he dispensed with curved and irregular shapes, he even dispensed with colors. He got down to bare black and white grids. But this is all part of an experiment, an investigation into the nature of visual aesthetics: how far can you go, how far can you strip down, and still do art?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
freemonkey (05-23-2009), lisarea (05-22-2009)
  #59  
Old 05-22-2009, 10:47 PM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMMMDCXLII
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
If you know that the artist was making a choice between representational art (which he was capable of producing) and non-representational art (which, in most people's minds, most people are capable of producing - in the sense that they have the skill and dexterity necessary, if not necessarily the creativity) actually does make the painting better.
In some cases, probably including the painting in the OP, that knowledge and background can be almost necessary to put a particular painting in context. (Especially probably in the case of Mondrian, who suffers a little from having had so much copycat work, which can make it seem trite maybe to people looking at it outside of its historical context.)

But in the case of something like a Picasso, for example, they don't need the context, and assuming that he lacked technical skill would be like assuming James Joyce was inarticulate because his grammar was bad.

And much like mastery of fourth grade Language Arts, the simple, technical ability to do representative art is, I think, often overrated. There are bajillions of people out there who can do that. The lucky ones have jobs in advertising or something. It's a rarer skill than writing, but it's not rare rare, and it's a fairly safe bet that most really big famous artists can and have done it.

So yeah. Maybe my beef is more that people are surprised in the first place, rather than that they think it's relevant.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
erimir (05-22-2009), freemonkey (05-23-2009), livius drusus (05-22-2009), Pan Narrans (05-23-2009)
  #60  
Old 05-22-2009, 11:30 PM
ceptimus's Avatar
ceptimus ceptimus is offline
puzzler
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: XVMMDCCXCI
Images: 28
Default Re: Modern art ... again

What about the sort of art where nothing new is actually created - merely some standard store-bought items are placed in a certain arrangement? So an artist takes, say, a fire extinguisher and a box of matches, and stands them on a table.

Is that art? I suppose it must be as art collectors are prepared to pay big money for some of that stuff.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Wonderbread Leotard (05-22-2009)
  #61  
Old 05-22-2009, 11:53 PM
livius drusus's Avatar
livius drusus livius drusus is offline
Admin of THIEVES and SLUGABEDS
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: LVCCCLXXII
Images: 5
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Is x art seems like such an empty question to me. I'm sure I could provide a definition -- hell, Wikipedia does that in the first sentence of its Art entry -- that would include everything dismissed in this thread, from a pile of books to Mondrian's late work to shit in a can.

A definition, no matter how apt, won't make you like what you don't like. Can't you just say x is not to your taste and leave at that? What's the investment in banishing it outside category parameters?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (05-23-2009)
  #62  
Old 05-23-2009, 12:14 AM
fragment's Avatar
fragment fragment is offline
mesospheric bore
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLIV
Blog Entries: 8
Images: 143
Default Re: Modern art ... again

I think it's because people think of the term "art" as giving a value to objects which isn't warranted. But if you're willing to accept that art is just a label and something can be labelled as art while still being kinda worthless then that problem goes away.

Trouble is there's a lot of people with a lot invested in maintaining an art/non-art distinction - in both the art world and those who dismiss it. Which makes the distinction a social battleground rather than a classification of objects on the basis of features they possess.
__________________
Avatar source CC BY-SA
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (05-23-2009), livius drusus (05-23-2009)
  #63  
Old 05-23-2009, 12:16 AM
Watser?'s Avatar
Watser? Watser? is offline
Fishy mokey
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Furrin parts
Posts: LMMMDXCI
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisarea View Post
BTW, I feel I would be remiss if I didn't mention a book of Nancy comics I have. It's one of those two-in-one books, where you read one part halfway through the book, and then you turn the book over and upside down to read the other half.

One half is comics where Nancy makes fun of hippies; and the other half is called "Artists and Con Artists," and in that half, Nancy does things like breaks stuff or gets napkins messy and then sneaks them into galleries or sells them for a bunch of money to clueless art poseurs.

So that's what Ernie Bushmiller thought about this subject, in case you were wondering.
I have that comic too, it's great. It's funny how Bushmiller was so conventional and his comics were still so very unconventional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by livius drusus View Post
Is x art seems like such an empty question to me. I'm sure I could provide a definition -- hell, Wikipedia does that in the first sentence of its Art entry -- that would include everything dismissed in this thread, from a pile of books to Mondrian's late work to shit in a can.

A definition, no matter how apt, won't make you like what you don't like. Can't you just say x is not to your taste and leave at that? What's the investment in banishing it outside category parameters?
You could have the same discussion on music. Is 4'33" by John Cage music? Well timed silence is definitely a part of music. So when does it stop being music? At 10 seconds? 1 minute?
__________________
:typingmonkey:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
lisarea (05-23-2009)
  #64  
Old 05-23-2009, 12:20 AM
Wonderbread Leotard Wonderbread Leotard is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: MDXLVI
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
I think there's a widespread naive view (which I shared at one point, i.e. before I took some art classes) that nonrepresentational art is created by artists who aren't capable of creating representational art.
This is not a naive view when it comes to cases in which it is true. However, few, if any, people that I know of claim that this is true as a general rule:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam View Post
It's technically easier to paint lines and circles or whatever than it is to paint a photorealistic tree, so the artist who chooses to work in lines and circles must be incapable of painting a tree.
No, they are usually capable of painting a tree, but very often their work would be poor or mediocre at best. As opposed to any strawman of total incapability, what some people observe, and quite accurately, is that painting the non-representational lines and circles is much easier on every level. Do you think it is only a coincidence that toddlers tend to be much more capable of semi-random lines and circles and smears of paint than realistic representation?

Likewise, as toddlers are quite capable of such non-representational art, so are the profoundly mentally retarded whose minds are frozen at the stage of very early childhood. The hilarious irony is that according to some people here, art that these mental retards can readily create is evidence of talent, while my complex, articulate argumentation of which they are utterly incapable is said to be evidence of mental retardation!

Moreover, perhaps you should think twice about labeling people naive when you make claims like, "I don't think it's accurate to say that anyone actively establishes a specific artist's reputation," incredibly unaware of the role of PR experts, advertisers, media agents, etc. in doing exactly that.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 05-23-2009, 12:37 AM
lisarea's Avatar
lisarea lisarea is offline
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: XVMMMDCXLII
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 3
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by livius drusus View Post
A definition, no matter how apt, won't make you like what you don't like. Can't you just say x is not to your taste and leave at that? What's the investment in banishing it outside category parameters?
This reminds me of when Fahrenheit 9-11 came out, and one big talking point was that it wasn't a real documentary. Then, one day, I read a LTTE in the paper where someone called it--quoting from memory--the "so-called 'movie.'" So not only was it not a documentary, but it was doubly banished with scare quotes AND 'so-called' from even being a movie. I don't know what a double non-movie is, but I'm guessing art.

Anyway, I figure that type of objection is some kind of rough correlate to not even wrong.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
freemonkey (05-23-2009), livius drusus (05-23-2009)
  #66  
Old 05-23-2009, 12:46 AM
livius drusus's Avatar
livius drusus livius drusus is offline
Admin of THIEVES and SLUGABEDS
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: LVCCCLXXII
Images: 5
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Ah yes, the problem of demarcation. Damn thing is everywhere.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 05-23-2009, 01:03 AM
Wonderbread Leotard Wonderbread Leotard is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: MDXLVI
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
What about the sort of art where nothing new is actually created - merely some standard store-bought items are placed in a certain arrangement? So an artist takes, say, a fire extinguisher and a box of matches, and stands them on a table.

Is that art? I suppose it must be as art collectors are prepared to pay big money for some of that stuff.
You're just too lowbrow to grasp the profound symbolic commentary involved in carefully selecting those specific items and creatively arranging them in a precise way that opens up previously locked doors to the human spirit. ;)
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 05-23-2009, 01:19 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
What about the sort of art where nothing new is actually created - merely some standard store-bought items are placed in a certain arrangement? So an artist takes, say, a fire extinguisher and a box of matches, and stands them on a table.

Is that art? I suppose it must be as art collectors are prepared to pay big money for some of that stuff.
This stuff started with Duchamp and his ready-mades, including a urinal, about a century ago. He wanted to demytholgize art, to deliberately subvert our categoriacal notions of what constitutes art.

The best thing to do, IMO, is to drop this idea that art must have some hard and fast definition. It doesn't. You can't always demarcate between art and non-art. But you can evaluate stuff like ready-mades in terms of intention and context. If a guy arranges a urinal with some other stuff at an art exhibition, he's trying to make some kind of art statement and you can think of it as art more-or-less. If someone is just arranging some urinals preparatory to installing them in the men's room at Costco, then that's probably not art or artistic in intent.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (05-23-2009), freemonkey (05-23-2009)
  #69  
Old 05-23-2009, 02:02 AM
fragment's Avatar
fragment fragment is offline
mesospheric bore
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New Zealand
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLIV
Blog Entries: 8
Images: 143
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Although there can be aesthetics involved in practical urinal placement, I'm sure. Pissing might be more fun if that was a more common approach.

But yeah, at least some of the art that raised the "is it art?" question was deliberately provoking it in order to get people to think about their assumptions about what art might or might not be. And since one of the purposes of art can be to provoke people into thinking about stuff, it sort of makes itself art by asking that question.

After that ready-mades became a bit of a style by themselves. At worst it can be lazy artwank, but at best I think being forced to look at everyday objects in a gallery context can encourage you to appreciate aesthetic qualities in your life outside of galleries. In some ways, it gets you thinking a bit like an artist; instead of just seeing a table with a bowl of fruit and a pack of cigarettes on it, an artist can see a potential work of art, and be thinking about how they are arranged spatially, the ways the colours contrast, the ways the shadows fall. Even if you can't paint worth a damn (like me), you can look at things in that way.
__________________
Avatar source CC BY-SA
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (05-23-2009), freemonkey (05-23-2009), livius drusus (05-23-2009)
  #70  
Old 05-23-2009, 03:52 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMDCCCVI
Images: 11
Default Re: Modern art ... again

:artwank: would make a good smiley.

Especially if the art ended up looking like a Jackson Pollack.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (05-23-2009)
  #71  
Old 05-23-2009, 05:17 AM
Wonderbread Leotard Wonderbread Leotard is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: MDXLVI
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovereign View Post
(Flushing the $10m toilet paper in the OP would be attacking a symptom, not the disease.)
If, as you seem to be, you are calling Mondrian's works "toilet paper," you are succeeding not in denigrating Mondrian's works, but merely in showing how retarded you are.
I was, albeit hyperbolically, expressing agreement with the OP regarding the one specific piece he posted. ("I wish I could [make] millions for something a first grader could do.")

No, I am not showing how retarded I am, since I am not retarded at all. I do not meet any of the psychiatric criteria for mental retardation. I am showing that I have superior aesthetic taste to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
But then, we already knew that you were retarded, didn't we?
Clearly, 'we' refers to people who are so close-minded as to believe that they 'know' a blatant falsehood massively contradicted by available evidence. I notice that during your hate-crazed and irrational meltdown you cut out the meat of my post, in which I made some excellent points:
Quote:
Advertisers, PR experts, members of old boy networks, etc., do actively work to establish the reputations of specific artists. In many cases, some of those are even paid specifically to do that.

Originally Posted by Adam
An artist creates art. If that art appeals to other people, the artist's reputation rises. If that art appeals to people who are influential in the art world, the artist's reputation rises more quickly.


And why does it rise more quickly in the latter case? Because those influential people take steps to further the reputation of the artist.

See, actual equality of opportunity in these regards does not exist. An artist creates art, but a profit-minded con artist with the requisite connections is more likely to succeed in building up his/her reputation. Often these connections are nepotistic or otherwise emerge from preexisting social structures which favor the artist. It's not as if the relative lack of prominent female painters, for example, can really be boiled down to any relative lack of talent among women. The notion that the 'free market' facilitates some level playing field where any artist is similarly apt to succeed given enough talent and drive needs to be flushed down the figurative toilet.
As I have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, a mentally retarded person can readily create non-representational works of art, but cannot research, write and argue as I do. Therefore, ironically, you are calling me retarded for 'failing' to share your degree of appreciation for a genre of art that actual retards are quite capable of producing.

Last edited by Wonderbread Leotard; 05-23-2009 at 06:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 05-23-2009, 07:44 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMDCCCVI
Images: 11
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovereign View Post
No, I am not showing how retarded I am, since I am not retarded at all. I do not meet any of the psychiatric criteria for mental retardation.
Are you parodying yourself now, or something?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Adam (05-23-2009), Watser? (05-23-2009)
  #73  
Old 05-23-2009, 08:10 AM
Wonderbread Leotard Wonderbread Leotard is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: MDXLVI
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
This stuff started with Duchamp and his ready-mades, including a urinal, about a century ago. He wanted to demytholgize art, to deliberately subvert our categoriacal notions of what constitutes art.
Personally, I do not deny that what ceptimus describes is art -- all too often, however, its production requires relatively little talent or skill. I'd certainly not be surprised if you screech "retard" at me yet again for disagreeing with you. But again, consider the following. Could much of this art that you pretentiously blather on about be produced by an actual mental retard? Yes. Could this very post of mine? No. Therefore, if you have a problem with mental retardation, you ought to face the fact that you've got your priorities more than a little mixed up.

Last edited by Wonderbread Leotard; 05-23-2009 at 08:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 05-23-2009, 08:28 AM
Kael's Avatar
Kael Kael is offline
the internet says I'm right
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Gender: Male
Posts: VMCDXLV
Blog Entries: 11
Images: 23
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Once again you fail to grasp the very simple concept that when someone calls you a retard on the internet, they just might mean something other than a clinical diagnosis. You fucking retard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sovereign View Post
I am showing that I have superior aesthetic taste to you.
No such thing, and is only claimed by pompous asshats who enjoy looking down their noses at people. I'm not sure it's possible to find any aspect of human culture more subjective than aesthetics, making terms like 'superior' only so much self-important wanking.
__________________
For Science!
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.

Last edited by Kael; 05-23-2009 at 08:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
freemonkey (05-23-2009)
  #75  
Old 05-23-2009, 10:10 AM
seebs seebs is offline
God Made Me A Skeptic
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
Posts: VMMCMLXVII
Images: 1
Default Re: Modern art ... again

Sov, you've shown that your taste is different from that of some of the other participants. I missed the part where you demonstrated the existence of an objective standard of aesthetic senses, let alone that yours was objectively better.
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Arts & Literature


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.35095 seconds with 16 queries