I like modernism-- I like sleek and functional. I like lines that lead the way. Form-fitting and structurally sound. Modernism works like a finely-tailored suit, to accentuate based on the structure itself (as a suit is tailored to fit the body and move with you in a flattering way); it creates identity in the daily function of the building. Art Deco buildings with their functional ornamentation that terminated in the building's structural lines showed that you can have ornamentation without extending yourself beyond a flattering point.
A lot of pomo abortions (like the Sony building or Graves' Portland Building) pretend to be a breakthrough in style by pretending to add something to the building-- but their additions are akin to giving a top hat and monocle to someone and saying they're high brow. Better examples of Post-Modernism like the Washington Mutual Tower take what pomo professed to advocate and actually worked with it to create a dignified form to something entirely functionless.
Extending the clothing and fashion analogies further, we have intentionally grotesque buildings like Gehry's abominations, which I'd reason are, at best, similar to casual friday's finest. Schlubby but self-aware-- relax the lines and function while expressing your identity to a suitable level of class.
And then we have his own calamities that are entirely like throwing on sweat pants and oversized tweety shirts and calling it fashion of any sort.
Did I sound biased there?
For the record, I couldn't find a single campus building pictured that I disliked in this entire thread.