The responses published to the images alongside the 'Lack of information overload' article (AJ 21.6.01) in themselves raise questions:
Why might 'overt sexual images' be regarded as 'rubbish', and the associated description in plain English 'foul language'?
Shouldn't images and text occasionally - or even often - be 'gratuitous'?
Are these responses not evidence of what Nietzsche named nihilism, meaning (contrary to the conservative interpreters of that word) the demoting of worldly existence and its bodily characteristics to a secondary and 'fallen' state, vis-a-vis a spiritual or ideal realm?
Is it not this nihilism which needs to be questioned in order to allow rightful place to the physicality of architecture, and its engagement with the human body?
Beyond this, would that line of reasoning not also begin to call into question the continuing use of an outmoded 18th-century aestheticisation of architecture (and other arts)?
Would this not leave the arbiters of the 'tasteless' (whether on your pages or elsewhere) rather less sure of their position?
Tim Gough, London SE17