It's just sad that you don't want to get the point... this perspective is no better than the one SJW's have. I get that it's edgy, but it's wrong.
No. Modernist art is what's wrong. Beauty is objective, and an art nouveau design, a classicist painting, or classical architecture is objectively more beautiful than modernist abstract art and utilitarian architecture.
It's the "eh tastes are just different all styles are valid" attitude that led to ugly cities people feel depressed in.
I would almost certainly get called an SJW by some here (I disagree, but eh) and I think most utilitarian architecture is a horror. Art is more hit or miss (dada was the shit), but shit like excessive brutalism is why Britain is a giant eyesore.
I get
Magnat's point about it being proletarian, but I think it serves the idea of state power more. There are good and bad modes of 'proletarian' (like anything else). It wouldn't need to be so imposing if it wasn't trying to project authority first and foremost.
You don't really see a liberated prole architecture because there's no money behind it, but the art of Europe's squats echoes what it would be.