Eisenman's Geometry

I have always found the works of Peter Eisenman to be visually appealing. After discussing his project of The City of Culture in Spain I have to say I think its all garbage. I have an issue with architects and architecture that thinks it can exist without at its core being a vessel for human life and activity. Architecture is for the users not the architect. In the case of Eisenman I feel as though geometry and implied lines that are only perceptible to the architect in plan or from aerial photography are more important than the user and the user experience. Who cares if the building picks up the grid lines of the city and represents the clam shell if no one knows unless they read an article about it. I do however find it ironic that the projects that are purely about geometry and implied lines such as The City of Culture and Daniel Libeskind's Jewish Museum in Berlin are vessels programs centered around human experience and emotions. In both cases would they be considered successes if the didn't house such emotionally charged programs. In the case of Libeskind if you remove the Jewish Museum program would any other program still be able to fit in? My answer would be it is generic enough to be a yes but the project is so tied to the emotions provided by the content that it would be a failure. I am not sure how to handle this whole thing other than to say its architecture to make an architect happy.