Does Architecture Merely Respond, or Can it Resist?

It seems to me that, generally speaking, architecture that responds (culturally, socially, economically, etc.) to its surroundings is more widely accepted with little criticism as to its viability or necessity.  When architecture begins to resist this conformity, it becomes subject to more critical investigation and criticism.  We talked excessively on the Denver Art Museum, for example.  Though arguably responding well to the program with which it houses, could it also be argued that this sculptural architectural form completely disregards and resists it surroundings? Or does it rather enhance them through its resistance to them?

I think this poses some interesting questions: Can it be considered progressive for architecture to resist? Or does it simply open it up for more negative criticism?  Is it necessary for architecture to resist in order to continue to evolve?

I drew a connection here with Somol and Whiting’s mention of the idea that the coming together of both context and viewer complete a work of art: resulting in a conclusion which is entirely dependent on each individual’s past experiences, memories, and moods.  This is to say that whether or not architecture truly “resists” may, in many cases, be subjective.  This Doppler Effect is not purely relative to sight.  Rather, there are many senses involved (sight, sound, mental concepts, etc.).  It is not simply a matter of viewing the work, but rather an “atmospheric interaction”.  It stresses the notion that both the subject and the object carry and exchange information and energy.  Different occupants will undoubtedly experience architecture differently not simply because of a visual like or dislike, but rather as a result of their own personal past experiences, conversations, memories, moods, etc - no two of which will be alike.  The moments in which these experiences are echoed reveal themselves in feelings of repetition, coincidence, or duplication.