How to advance vs. compromise with our talents?

"Architecture, more than any other art form, is a social art and must rest on the social and cultural base of its time and place. For those of us who design and build, we must do so with an awareness of a more socially responsive architecture. The practice of architecture not only requires participation in the profession but it also requires civic engagement. As a social art, architecture must be made where it is and out of what exists there. The dilemma for every architect is how to advance our profession and our community with our talents rather than our talents being used to compromise them."

I found this paragraph by Samuel Mockbee to be incredibly interesting because I think it relates to everything we've learned so far this semester in that it questions the role and responsibility of the architect.  I think that architects, in their quest to do the next big thing, sometimes abuse their talents in doing so.  I think it is easy to get wrapped up in futuristic form, for example, when attempting to push the limits of technology.  I think sometimes buildings like this get built to test new applications of systems and structure with success being measured by the function of technology versus the response of its user.  But if buildings that push these technological limits through form were to never be built, how would the means and methods of the profession ever advance?  Where is the balance between the social responsibility of function, economy, etc. and architecture meant to ignore budget and function as a way to explore technological advances through form?