Gehry, Gaudi, and Logic

Two of the supposed greats in modern architecture live by the dictum:

"There are no straight lines or sharp corners in nature.  Therefore, buildings should not have straight lines or sharp corners."  -Antoni Gaudi

Everything about this statement is wrong.   Lots of stuff in nature is straight and/or sharp.  e.g.:

More importantly Gaudi's syllogism is missing its major premise, which I believe is "Architecture must mimic forms found in nature."  Why?  That's plainly not a requirement for many of the buildings that most of us think are beautiful.  The Eiffel Tower is one of the most beautiful structures in the world.  It has lots of curves, but they are smooth curves, which are fairly rare in nature, and lots of the straight lines and sharp corners that Gaudi so detests. 

Frank Gehry seems to have been cut from the same mold--his theory is "deconstructivism", which is about breaking up the straight lines and conventional components of a building to make way for new arrangements and ideas.  A few deconstructivist buildings are not complete disasters: the Sydney Opera House and the Seattle Public Library are among them.  They are eye catching and fairly functional, even if they are not the most attractive. But Gehry has taken this to an extreme that I find appalling.  I have nothing against experimentation, even when it is jarring.  Once in a while, a good new thing comes of it.  But I don't wish to be jarred over and over again by the same failed experiment.   Gehry's buildings are ugly and stupid looking, every one.  I wish people would stop giving him money.

Gaudi designed some nice buildings in the early part of his career, but he seems to have lost his mind about 1900...and the illogic above explains it.