"The aim of this paper is to examine the ways recent architectural and artistic proposals are received by the public, and to turn some vague generalities into valid generalizations. During the postmodernist era most of the renovations in architecture and art consist in playful evocations of past forms mixed up in scholarly arranged works. But the majority of the public to which the cultured fantasies of the artists are adressed are not equally educated individuals, easily understanding the historical quotations, or fed up with modernists frugality. The same way, then, the high morals of an ancient tragedy may degrade for an untutored audience to mere human sympathy, a cultivated reference may be taken as a perfectly unjustified fancy. Nevertheless to treat art in general and architcture in particular as a pleasurable experience rather than as a significant phenomenon is not such a major sin, provided a crucial,, distinction is made between an authentic sensuous or intellectual pleasure and a pretentious predilection for the fashionable. Pleasure, in other words, is not so far away from the so-called "aesthetic emotion which is supposed to be the source and the import of any artistic creation. Often enough then, and under certain cirumstances that have to be defined, the eye of the beholder may provide much more than an appreciative recipient for such or such other work and it may exceed the artists views and programmations, transforming into high intellectual pleasure what in some cases begins as a rather platitudinous symbolism. But then again every occasion of intellectual pleasure is not accompannied by aesthetic emotion. The pleasure felt by, say, the organizing committee of an international congress because the hilarious formulations of the invitation tend to break some academic taboos, has no aesthetic value. The breaking-of a taboo, even of an academic one, does not always offer emotional release. Breaking a vase would do better still."