Hot vs Cool Architecture

Is architecture autonomous or is it actively engaged by the social intellectual and visual culture. Is it independent or interdependent and reactive to cultural and societal norms? Can we all agree that architecture can be reactive to its surroundings? One can argue that architecture should stand out and be unique to be able to progressive. These projects that fall under the category of  “evolution in architecture” forgets the value and presence of culture and time of a place it sits in. I’d like to use an example to support my argument. After Frank Gehry’s infamous Guggenheim museum in Bilbao, he was commissioned to create similar buildings in other cities. His Deconstructivist Stata center in MIT received a lot of applause and created a lot of controversies. In my opinion it breaks and doesn't respect the architecture of the place it sits in. His “Dancing Architecture” produced spaces that are not functional. Yes, It stands out and was recognized as the university with "hottest architecture" by the 2005 Kaplan/newsweek "how to get into college”. But the stata center doesn't fit in its context and is in complete contrast with the buildings next to it. It stands as an “ALIEN” in its context. It is what I’d like to call “Architecture adulteration” which doesn't serve any function other than reflection of the photographer who likes to promote this architecture. It is not a pointed criticism towards an architect's work.