Ole Scheeren is a partner at the Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA) in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Since 1999 he has been leading the office as director and is in charge of a number of OMA’s large projects – among others the China Central Television Station (CCTV) in Beijing, China; the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), Los Angeles, USA; as well as the new concept for the Italian fashion company Prada with stores in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
EAAE News Sheet Editor Anne Elisabeth Toft interviewed Ole Scheeren in Ulm, Germany, on 20 September 2003.
Today you were a keynote speaker at the 16th International Design Forum Ulm. The heading of this year’s conference is: Positioning Design and Architecture, FromTraining and Study to a Career?
The overall aim of the conference is to examine and discuss the present situation for architects and designers, those still in training and those already practising.
What was the subject of your lecture entitled Architecture – Adjust During Development, Develop During Adjustment?
Instead of speaking about the current situation at universities I was speaking more generally about the making and thinking of architecture, but I also attempted to relate technical, organisational and economical aspects of this process to a more political context. In some ways I think that the entire debate about education and the system in itself –be it privatisation of universities, be it different strategies in teaching, etc. – is maybe both too detailed and too remote at the same time, and can only lead to partial answers. To me, the fundamental question is really one of a position, and in the end, this means about a somewhat political position. There can only be some kind of awareness and sensibility in this particular sense that can lead the discussion and maybe evoke change or progress. And I think this is the real issue at stake.
One of the things you focused on in your lecture was how the computer has changed the way architects work. You said that in many ways the computer has caused a problem in architecture. Could you please elaborate on this?
I do not want this point to be misunderstood –I am not at all proclaiming an anti-technological position, I am, on the contrary, very fascinated by the potentials of digitalization, and I am obviously deeply engaged in computers myself.Without mobile technology, the entire work process could not be structured to embrace the complexity of the projects we are working on today. But there are certain effects that this technology has brought about that need to be recognized and dealt with.
The issue I was talking about is not the one of shape or form finding either; and what the computer has changed, transformed and surely also expanded on this side of the architectural production is indeed interesting. But the formal aspect - or impact - of the computer on architecture seems more obvious compared to twophenomena that I will try to describe in more detail:
The first constitutes a limited insight into the world; a restricted perception, due to the compromised interface of the computers with the human being. The screen, with its limited size and essentially zero depth, does not allow for a complete overview of the working process. Draftsmen and architects are increasingly dealing with only fractions of the whole: the sense of the plan, the drawing as such, has disappeared. Parts of a building
are often worked on without actually seeing the entire project in its “holistic” quality, and are therefore no longer developed as actual sections in relation to the whole, but in isolation and fragmented.I think this has essentially led to a dispersal of particles, to a focus on the singular: in other words to a seeming victory of the detail over the concept.
Another part of this phenomenon could be described as random attack – changes have become so easy to make, in a drawing for example, that they have become part of the initial assumption and expectation – strategic thinking is replaced by multiple attempts “to get it right”.
Another part of this phenomenon could be described as random attack – changes have become so easy to make, in a drawing for example, that they have become part of the initial assumption and expectation – strategic thinking is replaced by multiple attempts “to get it right”.
The other effect of the computer is the latent definition of architecture as an algorithmic problem and the idea that through simulation of specific processes, through vector-based descriptions, through interactive surfaces, through the apparent incorporation of time, there would be a kind of measurable solution; there would be, if you want, an equation with a result. Analysis, no matter with which level of sophistication and accuracy it is carried out, does in itself neither constitute nor imply a design as a logical conclusion – as a “solution”. That in itself is obviously a dangerous position because it essentially means that you avoid taking any position. It means that since there is something, which is “right”, and almost scientifically justifiable, you are essentially devoid of a critical position. I believe that in this respect the computer is partly responsible for – or at least part of – the depolitisation of architecture.
Yesterday one of the other keynote speakers claimed that in most architectural firms physical models are not made anymore. Do you make physical models at OMA?
We (OMA) do not really design with the computer but still rely almost entirely on physical model making.We obviously use the computer as a drafting tool, but the design process is based on physical tests and simulations.We have large modelshops and still work a lot with physical substance,from the small and conceptual up to one-to-one scale mock-ups. I would like to stress that this has nothing to do with the romantic idea of the architectural studio as “workshop”, and we are not proclaiming a “handmade” quality, but the models do connect our designs to a sense and awareness of physical reality and space that I think is actually also visible in our buildings.
Which role does the architectural drawing play in the process at OMA?
We (OMA) do not really design with the computer but still rely almost entirely on physical model making.We obviously use the computer as a drafting tool, but the design process is based on physical tests and simulations.We have large modelshops and still work a lot with physical substance,from the small and conceptual up to one-to-one scale mock-ups. I would like to stress that this has nothing to do with the romantic idea of the architectural studio as “workshop”, and we are not proclaiming a “handmade” quality, but the models do connect our designs to a sense and awareness of physical reality and space that I think is actually also visible in our buildings.
Which role does the architectural drawing play in the process at OMA?
We do a lot of sketching at OMA, but our work has never been one that identified the architect’s hand sketch as a “masterpiece”. Therefore, I think there is a deliberate absence of the kind of “thick pen”, artistic impression at OMA. But also of the thin “techno pen”, with its sense of almost scientific precision – in fact, the most-used sketching and writing tool in the office - a red Bic ballpoint pen that Rem cultivated… is more of an editorial tool than an artistic stylus. Is is one that scribbles, writes, corrects – rather than “receives” (an artistic vision). It is more about a pragmatic and in parts maybe even diagrammatic way of thinking – and sketching.
When it comes to technical drawings we obviously do all the drawings that every architect does: plans, sections, elevations, etc., and in that sense nothing has actually changed, not even with the introduction of the computer. However, there is now more and more a numeric, three-dimensional description of ever more complex building geometries and a direct translation of those into production and manufacturing processes.
Getting back to what you just said about your “editorial” process at OMA, your partner Rem Koolhaas has stated that in the future a “good” and successful architect will, first and foremost, be someone who is good at “editing”. Likewise, you said in your lecture that today the architect has become a “co-ordinator“.Which “role” do you think will devolve on us as architects in the future?
It is undeniable that the architect has become a co-ordinator in a context where things have complexified to such a degree that full expertise can only be held by separate parties; a whole teamof consultants with specialised knowledge is involved in the process of creating increasingly complex structures and constructions – and needs to be orchestrated and coordinated. I am, however, not suggesting to limit the architect’s role to that -there is a great danger in doing so. The actual work is not only about bringing things together, and creating correct overlaps, but also about choice. And this is where the architect as “editor” comes into play; an editor who is able to understand and assess proposals and requirements given to him (by clients, engineers, regulations, etc); an editorwho is able to construct a complex whole out of all the different particles at work in the design process. That again, however, cannot and should not be the architect’s only position. The architect has a great responsibility to - proactively - instigate directions of thinking, to conceptualise with consultants, throughout the whole design process. I think it is ultimately the architect’s role to create a kind of common basis for thinking the project.
What is in your opinion the main challenge facing architecture and design today? Is globalisation the dominant question?
(Pause) That is a difficult question. I think the main challenge is perhaps the speed of change associated with it. I think globalisation is and has for sure been one of the very dominant issues. But I would like to argue that globalisation has in some ways already reached or superseded its climax. One can see clear signs that the development is taking a new direction. and, illustratively enough, the collapse and disappearance of some of the strongest icons of globalisation, from the World Trade Centre to the Concorde, are signs of a new era – a kind of “post regime” that I am not sure we can describe in all its aspects or facets yet. Another sign of this new era could very well be the present role that the European Union and Community play in a global context.With the European Union we experience a concept based on a unification or accumulation of a series of regional differences that are not necessarily submerged in a consistent or coherent whole. It rather seems to remain in a condition of continuously negotiating aspects within a larger institution. I think that this in itself is an aspect far more differentiated than the early concepts of globalisation.
According to Rem Koolhaas – and I am referring to his acceptance speech given on 30 June 2000 when he was awarded the Pritzker Prize – architecture is today governed by market economy. He adds: Unless we break our dependency on the real and recognize architecture as a way of thinking about old issues, from the most political to the most practical; liberate ourselves from eternity to speculate about compelling and immediate new issues, such as poverty and the disappearance of nature, architecture will maybe not make the year 2050.
Getting back to what you just said about your “editorial” process at OMA, your partner Rem Koolhaas has stated that in the future a “good” and successful architect will, first and foremost, be someone who is good at “editing”. Likewise, you said in your lecture that today the architect has become a “co-ordinator“.Which “role” do you think will devolve on us as architects in the future?
It is undeniable that the architect has become a co-ordinator in a context where things have complexified to such a degree that full expertise can only be held by separate parties; a whole teamof consultants with specialised knowledge is involved in the process of creating increasingly complex structures and constructions – and needs to be orchestrated and coordinated. I am, however, not suggesting to limit the architect’s role to that -there is a great danger in doing so. The actual work is not only about bringing things together, and creating correct overlaps, but also about choice. And this is where the architect as “editor” comes into play; an editor who is able to understand and assess proposals and requirements given to him (by clients, engineers, regulations, etc); an editorwho is able to construct a complex whole out of all the different particles at work in the design process. That again, however, cannot and should not be the architect’s only position. The architect has a great responsibility to - proactively - instigate directions of thinking, to conceptualise with consultants, throughout the whole design process. I think it is ultimately the architect’s role to create a kind of common basis for thinking the project.
What is in your opinion the main challenge facing architecture and design today? Is globalisation the dominant question?
(Pause) That is a difficult question. I think the main challenge is perhaps the speed of change associated with it. I think globalisation is and has for sure been one of the very dominant issues. But I would like to argue that globalisation has in some ways already reached or superseded its climax. One can see clear signs that the development is taking a new direction. and, illustratively enough, the collapse and disappearance of some of the strongest icons of globalisation, from the World Trade Centre to the Concorde, are signs of a new era – a kind of “post regime” that I am not sure we can describe in all its aspects or facets yet. Another sign of this new era could very well be the present role that the European Union and Community play in a global context.With the European Union we experience a concept based on a unification or accumulation of a series of regional differences that are not necessarily submerged in a consistent or coherent whole. It rather seems to remain in a condition of continuously negotiating aspects within a larger institution. I think that this in itself is an aspect far more differentiated than the early concepts of globalisation.
According to Rem Koolhaas – and I am referring to his acceptance speech given on 30 June 2000 when he was awarded the Pritzker Prize – architecture is today governed by market economy. He adds: Unless we break our dependency on the real and recognize architecture as a way of thinking about old issues, from the most political to the most practical; liberate ourselves from eternity to speculate about compelling and immediate new issues, such as poverty and the disappearance of nature, architecture will maybe not make the year 2050.
What is your opinion of Rem Koolhaas’ statement,and how do you see the future for architecture?
It has been mentioned several times during this symposium that the architect – or at least what we today understand by this designation – will have disappeared 35 years from now.
It has been mentioned several times during this symposium that the architect – or at least what we today understand by this designation – will have disappeared 35 years from now.
It is a scenario that to some extent might carry a certain truth or an inevitable truth. At the same time, architects have always been good at moaning about change and describing their own existence in a very self-pitying way. I believe this is not a very productive position to begin with, and that the architect is forced to confront changes in society, as he/she remains a player within society -between clients and between a built environment as reality.
I do not think that the architect can withdraw from neither a reflection on changes in the political and economical landscape nor the landscape of media, and how architecture, for example, is communicated and perceived through media. The architect has to learn to master and employ many new tools simply because they are today part of the reality production. I do believe that the role of thearchitect is changing, but I also believe that within the architect’s role -or within a free definition of the architect’s role - lies an incredible potential.The architect’s profession is one that encompasses and requires a very complex and broad way of thinking. This is also the reason why architects today have become a fairly attractive “commodity” in society. Architects are now involved in many contexts in which they were not previously involved, for the very reason that they are able to embrace processes.
Architecture is a social and cultural construction. It demands to be understood in context.It therefore demands to be understood within the context of its consumption, representation and interpretation.
Does it still make sense to talk about architecture as a specific discipline? What is architecture and what can it be? What do you think we will “read” as architecture in the future? Who is the architect?
To talk about it as a specific discipline I think is atsome level inevitable because architecture is still a profession practised under professional and protective guidelines; there is still the Architects Associations and without membership and registration in a country an architect is actually not allowed to practise architecture. There is still very much an institutionalised framework that encapsulates the architect’s role and profession. For this reason alone I think it is inevitable - on certain levels at least - to talk about architecture as a specific discipline and profession. Far more interesting is, however, - and that leads up to your question – the fact that the term “architect” has been “hijacked” and appropriated by many other fields: Today there seems to be a whole range of “architects”, from software architects to financial architects, even in the context of politics we hear more and more about the architecture of legislations, agreements, etc. It means that the framework implied by the term architect is something that other domains have adapted or used for their own purposes to illustrate that an architect is someone who puts together a more complex whole; that an architect is someone who is not only a technically skilled “doer” but someone who is actually responsible for constructing larger strategic or conceptual systems.
At the last Any conference, which took place in 2000 – the one called Anything – Rem Koolhaas said among other things: The inevitable consequence of the market economy has now clearly infiltrated every category of building. Shopping on its own will tend to survive less and less, and it is therefore forced to combine itself with activities such as churchgoing and education, or with major infrastructural elements such as airports.
To talk about it as a specific discipline I think is atsome level inevitable because architecture is still a profession practised under professional and protective guidelines; there is still the Architects Associations and without membership and registration in a country an architect is actually not allowed to practise architecture. There is still very much an institutionalised framework that encapsulates the architect’s role and profession. For this reason alone I think it is inevitable - on certain levels at least - to talk about architecture as a specific discipline and profession. Far more interesting is, however, - and that leads up to your question – the fact that the term “architect” has been “hijacked” and appropriated by many other fields: Today there seems to be a whole range of “architects”, from software architects to financial architects, even in the context of politics we hear more and more about the architecture of legislations, agreements, etc. It means that the framework implied by the term architect is something that other domains have adapted or used for their own purposes to illustrate that an architect is someone who puts together a more complex whole; that an architect is someone who is not only a technically skilled “doer” but someone who is actually responsible for constructing larger strategic or conceptual systems.
At the last Any conference, which took place in 2000 – the one called Anything – Rem Koolhaas said among other things: The inevitable consequence of the market economy has now clearly infiltrated every category of building. Shopping on its own will tend to survive less and less, and it is therefore forced to combine itself with activities such as churchgoing and education, or with major infrastructural elements such as airports.
This increased pervasiveness over the past ten or twenty years has completely transformed the status of architecture, in the sense that architecture (in spite of what we might think from this Any conference, where we still continue to present individual buildings) is becoming increasingly limitless– that in many cases in contemporary architecture, it is impossible to say where a building begins or ends. (2)
It seems that in recent years architecture has become a discourse that other fields are very curious about. Fashion, art, design and other cultural practices are looking to architecture to see if it is an interesting field – and perhaps vice versa.
Why do you think that is? Is this tendency “only” to be seen as a consequence of commercialisation?
(Long pause) Commercialisation has definitely, as you say, led to a “cross-infiltration” of different domains and areas. This has posed new questions to architecture itself. Architecture has to accommodate increasingly hybrid conditions of usage types and functions and sort of “marry” them into more and more amalgam-like combinations.What
is also new in this context is maybe the way in which architecture is employed as a medium and in the media, and the way in which it is given new iconic and representative power – but also how it is celebrated as a sort of cultural “asset” that can be added as a value to anything from commodities to brand identities.
I think the increasing segmentation of the world into more and more specialised fields has given architecture - architecture understood here as an almost common “denominator” or a unifying possibility - a certain importance. Likewise I think that architecture, perhaps as a blatant declaration of the physically “real”, has gained new importance in an increasingly mediated and virtual context.
I think the increasing segmentation of the world into more and more specialised fields has given architecture - architecture understood here as an almost common “denominator” or a unifying possibility - a certain importance. Likewise I think that architecture, perhaps as a blatant declaration of the physically “real”, has gained new importance in an increasingly mediated and virtual context.
OMA has an interesting collaboration with the Italian fashion company Prada.(3) When OMA was contacted by Prada, the firm had opened more than 200 stores world-wide within two years and, as far as I understand, the firm thought it had reached the limits of the current definition of the Prada brand. The firm then asked you (OMA) to strategize what it could do in this situation. On the OMA website it says: At a time when commercial activity has invaded all public spaces and cultural institutions, this concept offers a redefinition of exclusivity: the possibility for public functions and programs to reclaim the territory of shopping… (4)
One could claim that OMA is branding Prada, but that at the same time Prada is branding OMA. Please elaborate on this collaboration and its many perspectives for OMA and for the architecturaldiscourse.
The commission from Prada was a very interesting thing to happen to the office – for the first time there was an articulated commission by a client not only to produce architecture but also to simultaneously produce a body of research; to investigate broader conditions, in this case of shopping and of Prada as a brand in itself. The commission allowed OMA to not only work on the creation of physical spaces but also in parallel to speculate on a potentially virtual definition of the Prada brand and to create a series of very precise or intertwined links between these domains. I think that in most scenarios either one or the other still comes rather as an “add on” – as a kind of afterthought –whether for example technology is applied to an existing situation or architecture is employed as a partial answer to a branding statement.What was very interesting about the Prada project was that we (OMA) were able to speculate and elaborate at many different levels simultaneously.
Fairly naively - never having worked for a commercial client of this type before, never having done commercial architecture or sales environments before- we (OMA) started to undertake research into Prada, what Prada was, what Prada had done, etc.The commission from Prada was a very interesting thing to happen to the office – for the first time there was an articulated commission by a client not only to produce architecture but also to simultaneously produce a body of research; to investigate broader conditions, in this case of shopping and of Prada as a brand in itself. The commission allowed OMA to not only work on the creation of physical spaces but also in parallel to speculate on a potentially virtual definition of the Prada brand and to create a series of very precise or intertwined links between these domains. I think that in most scenarios either one or the other still comes rather as an “add on” – as a kind of afterthought –whether for example technology is applied to an existing situation or architecture is employed as a partial answer to a branding statement.What was very interesting about the Prada project was that we (OMA) were able to speculate and elaborate at many different levels simultaneously.
We started to test concepts and apply findings of the research in physical space by working on the design of the three stores, but simultaneously through the architectural design process we started to encounter possibilities, potentials or needs that could be reformulated as a statement in the context of the research – and ultimately be essential components of the branding itself. So there was a real hybrid situation between architectural, strategic, analytical, technological and ultimately also cultural thinking that allowed us to elaborate a project going beyond many of the boundaries of our own profession. It also created a new necessity in our actual work – a necessity that we responded to by forming a kind of “think tank” - a new division of the office called AMO - which is dedicated to dealing with the non-physical realities beyond architecture: branding, technological developments, socio-economic issues, etc.
You say that AMO is the “think tank” of the office. Does that mean that AMO is OMA’s research department? Does AMO supply OMA with data – or how does this work?
It is not really about data production. AMO can, among other things, offer help to an architectural client to clarify their needs.When you start the design of a project you usually find out that the client is only so sure about what he really wants or needs. There may also be much potential either misguided or missed. So, AMO offers the possibility of (re)investigating and (re)thinking a company in ways that in itself could become instigators or parameters within the process of architectural definition.
But AMO has also started to take on a life of its own; AMO now does projects completely independent of architecture. It has for instance done work for Condé Nast Publication and guest edited Wired Magazine 5, and it has participated in a think tank for the European Union about how Europe could re-conceptualise its way of working, but also its representational means and methods in communicating itself. So, AMO has really moved into a much broader spectrum of research and cultural speculation independent of the architectural projects, although many activities also stay closely intertwined with the actual making of architecture.
In his book Life Style (6) Bruce Mau discusses what he himself calls the Global Image Economy; a sort of new “world order”which according to Bruce Mau both causes, drives and rules the cultural production and consumption of our time. As architects and designers we find ourselves working in an increasingly image-driven context. Which influence does that have on the architect’s work and the architectural discourse?
I think it has always been the case for the architect to communicate through representations. Architecture is not something that really exists before it is built. It is not something that you can prototype like products or devices.When you have a prototype, in other words a full-scale actual piece, the need for communication and representation is not pertinent; the prototype stands for itself, so to speak. But in order to instigate and succeed in the process of realising architecture or building buildings there is a need to communicate in anticipation of the “real thing” – architecture is simply too big and expensive to be prototyped.
I think it has always been the case for the architect to communicate through representations. Architecture is not something that really exists before it is built. It is not something that you can prototype like products or devices.When you have a prototype, in other words a full-scale actual piece, the need for communication and representation is not pertinent; the prototype stands for itself, so to speak. But in order to instigate and succeed in the process of realising architecture or building buildings there is a need to communicate in anticipation of the “real thing” – architecture is simply too big and expensive to be prototyped.
There is, however, also the need to communicate abstract matters; ideas, concepts and intentions. So communication and representation – and within this the image - has always been one of the critical aspects of the work of the architect.
The architect’s most important medium has always been the drawing. There is the technical drawing which communicates to a technical team –builders, engineers, etc. - and there are certain extracts of these drawings together with additions that act as mediators to others – for example the client. The client is usually not able to relate to all the technical specificities of a project as presented in a technical drawing. This means that the client has to be presented with another set of drawings; another kind of representation or illustration.
Images, in a literal sense, and especially where they acquire the suggestion of three dimensional space and “reality”, take a somewhat central role in this dialogue.
The architect’s most important medium has always been the drawing. There is the technical drawing which communicates to a technical team –builders, engineers, etc. - and there are certain extracts of these drawings together with additions that act as mediators to others – for example the client. The client is usually not able to relate to all the technical specificities of a project as presented in a technical drawing. This means that the client has to be presented with another set of drawings; another kind of representation or illustration.
Images, in a literal sense, and especially where they acquire the suggestion of three dimensional space and “reality”, take a somewhat central role in this dialogue.
New technologies have vastly expanded the repertoire of image production. The architect cannot withdraw from the media reality, he needs to employ and use its means and methods in order to develop his projects and pursue his goals. It is clear that the image has a growing presence and meaning in society. This is first and foremost due to the increased role of mass media and the way the culture of the image has re-scripted many relationships– also for the architect.
I wonder how the fact that we are constantly confronted with architecture in the mass media has changed our expectation from architecture and the architectural experience?
I wonder how the fact that we are constantly confronted with architecture in the mass media has changed our expectation from architecture and the architectural experience?
I think the least interesting part of the contribution of the media is really the “so-called” architecture magazines, the specialised “coffee table magazines” that just show you the next generation of design “vomit” that is released onto the world. I think that that has clearly nothing to do with what we are talking about. Architecture as commodity-picture-book and shiny entertainment “surface” is totally uninteresting. There remains, however, the need for dissemination and discussion – if not for confrontation – and the media can play a very important role in this. I think it is indeed something we need to develop: alternatives to this type of streamlined consumption of architecture as smoothened image.We need to develop a critical position. I hope we will again see a more radical reformation of the architecture discourse, and an associated shift inside the media and mediation of architecture.
References
1.“The International Design Forum Ulm was founded in 1987 by the Ulm School of Design Foundation as a project-oriented educational establishment. Adhering to the all-round educational ideal of the legendary Ulm School of Design, the International Design Forum considers itself an educational platform for designers and architects, promoting the development of networks and establishing a space for the discourse between socially responsible designers.”(Source: www.ifg-ulm.de) Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm (1953-1968)“In the 1950s and 1960s, the Ulm School of Design (Hochschule für Gestaltung Ulm) was one of Germany’s leading educational centres fordesign and environmental design. It was founded in 1953 by Inge Scholl, Otl Aicher and Max Bill, who became the school’s first principal.With a teaching staff comprising Max Bill and Otl Aicher as well as renowned figures such as Max Bense, Hans Gugelot, Tomás Maldonado, Friedrich Vordemberge-Gildewart and Alexander Kluge, and numerous guest lecturers from across the globe, the Ulm School of Design rapidly established a respected international reputation. New concepts for resolving design issues were sought and implemented in the visual communication, product design, industrialised building,information and, later, film departments. Someof the principles created at the Ulm School of Design are still applied today, having lost none of their relevance.” (Source: www.ifg-ulm.de)
For further information on the International Design Forum Ulm: www.ifg-ulm.de
2.Koolhaas Rem: The Regime of ¥ $. In: Davidson, Cynthia C. (Ed.): Anything. New York, Anyone Corporation, 2001, p. 185.
3.For further information on the Italian fashion company Prada: www.prada.com For further information on OMA’s work for Prada: www.oma.nl
4.http://www.oma.nl
5.AMO acts as a consultant for Wired Magazine and was in 2003 doing a guest edition
(Issue 11.06/June 2003).
For further information on Wired Magazine: www.wired.com
6.Mau, Bruce: Life Style. London, Phaidon Press, 2000.
http://www.eaae.be/eaae2/documents/NewsSheets/20040268.pdf
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder