Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

More questions raised by outraged responses

  • Comment
LETTERS

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

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.