It isn't what is taught in school, but it is a reasonably well-informed opinion, as my sibling comments show.
Checking out the book you link, I see this in Wikipedia:
> The response to Wolfe's book from the architecture world was highly negative. Critics argued that, once again, Wolfe was writing on a topic he knew nothing about and had little insight to contribute to the conversation.
No surprised. If you're going to critique Modernist architecture, at least understand that it started about 40 years before you say it did.
You need to read my initial comment more closely, I didn't claim modernism sprung fully formed from Gropius' head on September 2nd, 1945: "World Wars 1 & 2 happened, shattering the remaining sense of aesthetic unity we had."
Of course forms of modernism were experimented with pre-WW1, but high modernism and it's attendant ugliness didn't come dominate the built environment until post-WW2. This is of course true, and I think you know this, but you are using snobbish nit-picking (ah yes, architecture) in an attempt to intimidate me because we disagree on aesthetics.
The earliest important modernist building from Gropius was Fagus, in 1911: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fagus_Factory
Sullivan, sometimes considered an early modernist, was building buildings like this as late at 1889:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditorium_Building_(Chicago)
Birmingham UK is the birthplace of the industrial revolution, and as late at 1909 was building train stations that look like this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Moor_Street_railway...
Surrendering the aesthetics that everyone save a small group of intellectuals, ideologues and capitalist sharpers likes to the right (and arrogantly dismissing us as intellectually unsophisticated) strikes me as an own-goal.
Esthetics is a favorite topic for far right thinkers where the demise of civilization is caused by some art that confuse them.