gunter: perish the thought - you limited?!
Given my dirigiste tendencies, I am wary about the loss of the straight line and the perpendicular, but I have to say that I loved the Bilbao Guggenheim, with two reservations: (1) it's a one-off and (2) it's totally useless as an art gallery - the building, marvellous as it is, overwhelms the exhibits. It also depends on context and it is 'accommodated' within the topography of the city. I've seen the Gehry building at Duesseldorf and, although I liked its quirkiness, I thought it was in danger of becoming 'nursery architecture' (as in kindergarten). So, I'm not even convinced that 'Shape-ism' is acceptable for public buildings (I think we need to get away from the pc fear of the monumental and rediscover public buildings as both serious and not ordinary). I don't want a primary school looking like the Palais de Justice (Justitie Palais) in Brussels*, but nor do I want it to look like a misshapen shoe box crouching into the landscape. (In Paris, schools and public offices merge into the general streetscape, but remain instantly identifiable.)
About whether shape-ism should appear in the private realm, I'm much more relaxed; it's a matter for architect and client, but trends in house-extensions for example seem to demand a rigid orthography. The odd wobbly shape or even a gable (shock, horror) would be a relief. However, I don't think your mindset is limited, just a bit uneasy - like mine.
*see below; don't throw litter on the street in Brussels!
- 800px-Justitiepaleis1.jpg (69.73 KiB) Viewed 1902 times