The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels has been much maligned by some traditionalists as being ugly and too "modern". While it is very different from a St. Patrick's Cathedral, or a Cathedral of Mary Our Queen, I wouldn't say it is completely ugly. Modern, yes; but ugly, no. Just because something is new doesn't mean it is ugly. Often people do not appreciate the art and architecture of their age. Only later generations come to find the beauty and poignancy that is in such works of art (e.g. the school of Impressionism). Sometimes I wonder if we who are more traditionally-minded in our faith are stuck in an artistic time warp. Did art and architecture reach its zenith in western Europe in the high middle ages? If so, what does one make of St. Peter's Basilica, or a Hagia Sophia? Are they ugly too?
I think that before we pass judgment on new forms of art, architecture, music, liturgy, or what have you, we need to consider them in their larger cultural context and think about how they fit into the scope of architectural and art history, both now and in the future. Doing so will help us view them in a more balanced way, and help us appreciate the beauty and inspiration they bring to the table. Let us keep in mind that everything was "new" at some point.