All things circular are the same?

In MOMA's courtyard stood a handful of scultures by famoust artists like Picasso, Matisse, Calder, etc. The mum led the cute little French-speaking kid to Picasso's sculpture of the Cubist goat on the pedestal, the least abstract among the pieces. Is abstract art really that difficult to understand? Why didn't the mum explain to the kid the balance and craft Calder tried to achieve off the pedestal? Is it not possible to introduce anything non-descriptive to the little mind?

So, please stop giving stylistic comments like 'the Esplanade resembles the Durian or a fly’s eye or a bra cup ', or 'the local design imports the modernism style'. Even a three-year old kid can spot that. And you know that it is not just that. If you have done enough formal analysis, you'd probably know that how Corbu used column in a drastically different way from Mies. Besides, whatever that is being reference cant be copied in full. In other words, every 'immitation' will be contextualised to a certain degree. For these local architects, 'God is in the details', the tropical window in Moulmein Rise designed by Woha is only one eg. Furthermore, Corbu's Domino House has been explored by and dominated the discipline for almost a hundred years now, even Koolhaas only with a little twist. Hdm is trying to break the diagram now.

All things circular are the same?

All things squarish are alike?

If so, then we are no different from apes.

Come on man, you can do better than this.