Questioning the Origin of Form

Originality and arguments supporting or contesting if it actually exists have been around for ages. I am absolutely not interested in examining this argument today[or ever] but I am curious about the idea of originality in the architectural sense. The process in which any creative type gets inspiration is questionable for me. Is it simply a development, a further iteration of ideas and work done previously by the artist, an expression of something the artist has experienced; OR is it totally original and fresh and not based in anything seen or done previously? And further from this argument - the artifact that is left behind, the sculpture, why does it take the form that it does? How is it presented, is it in a gallery? If so why? Could it look like something else or does it absolutely have to look the way it does? Why the material choices?

Well you get the point.

I am currently going through a major theoretical crisis about the origin of form in architecture. With all the technological possibilities, new materials, etc, why are we designing and building things the way we are? Why does it look like that when we can build this? Why do I have 12 different models on my desk of the same project? Why are they all different when I'm approaching them from the same angle?

When we design here [as it is in other schools] the approach is as follows:
A program is given for a particular location. Now this involves what the site will be. Is it a courthouse or an athletic center, a movie theatre, a shopping mall, whatever.
Sketch models are produced. Usually quick 5 minute experiments following a theme of some kind. Something the individual wants to 'explore'.
The program is integrated into the sketch models through more refined models and more accurate drawings of possible relationships. Usually rulers start to get used somewhere in this period.
Initial concept designs are the result so far and they are refined usually through the act of creating multiples to flush out the initial ideas, then...
A final design is reached.

Is the approach currently being taught the trend? In the Renaissance it was simply a matter of copying what had happened before and using an architectural language developed by the Greeks and the Romans; columns, symmetry, grand entrances, etc. When I look back on architecture of the Renaissance [or just about anything pre-1880] we have come a long way in developing fresh ideas and new approaches. But this is where I am having trouble.
Are we really doing anything different? And more importantly am I? Words are thrown around a lot in the beginning of the design process. A lot of verbs seem to be lobed back and forth amongst he desks. One student in the previous athletic center design project was interested in looking at muscles and how they act. Athletics - Muscles - seems like a logical way to start, and he wanted to explore the compression and stretching that occurs when a muscle is being used. This was applied architecturally through a series of 'moments' where areas of the building were subtly compressed or stretched in a similar way to a muscle. A neat idea....but why? The reasons for the 'why?' seem far to superficial to me. "It's a sports complex so muscles seem like a natural place to start off." I'm just not buying it. My response is "So what?" Everyone in the studio is trying to show something or explore something but I'm just not getting it. Everyone is trying to do something new, but the approaches are still the same. The design methodology is still the same from project to project.
Now some architects have broken new ground exploring ideas in the last hundread years, but a lot of stuff is - I don't know. Uninspiring? The same old stuff repackaged?
Obviously even I don't know. I'm still not sure exactly where my conflicts lay. But this whole 'why does it look the way it does?' argument I have just won't die.