“Who do you side with, Didascolo or Protopiro?”
I side with Didascolo. While I think the theoretical primitive hut is interesting and provides insight into how and why structures were initially built, I enjoy ornamental architectural periods such as the Gothic and Baroque. I agree with Didascolo’s belief that ornament and deviation from the primitive hut is what differentiates architects from builders and architects from one another. When reading Protopiro’s argument on ornament, I even thought to myself that dentils, triglyphs, and any sculptural frieze elements fell under “ornament” yet he still idolized the Greek forms which utilize them– although my thought process wasn’t quite as extreme as Didascolo’s proposition to get rid of the whole structure. My belief, mirroring that of Didalascolo, is that art and ornament are meant to complement and enhance architecture instead of distract from it.