The perfectly crystalline squares and rectangles of ultra modern architecture make no special sense in human or in structural terms. They only express the rigid desires and fanatsies which people have when they get too preoccupied with systems and the means of theire production.

Christopher Alexander

A Pattern Language

Fransworth House

I found this while I was in my instructor's office (Regards Mr. Buzid), I couldn't read much of the writing before and after to know whether the author quoted that or not. Anyway, I find that a bit exagerated in terms of criticising Modernism in a way or another; Modernism is rigid in terms of context, and too simple (or shall I say boring) to one's taste, for example If I show Mies' Farnsworth House to some Domes-and-Castle-like-villas fan he'd probably mock it's simplicity and rigidity rather than understand its revolutionary style and the architectural development caused by such attempts. To that it's 'anyone could've made a rectangle', but that's totally wrong to me; it's purity, it's out-of-the-box, it's a contribution to the development of architecture. Can I say that 'Perfectly Crystalline squares and rectangles' are a result of a cultivated approach to simplicity?