I would have to side with Didascalo. I agree with his point that architecture is made for the public’s enjoyment, not for critics. Protopiro made a fair point that architects obsess over extravagance; as Prof. Han discussed in class, the late Gothic and Baroque periods were known for excessive ornamentation, almost to vulgarity. But I find myself agreeing more with Didascalo’s counterpoint that when all ornamentation is stripped away (triglyphs, frieze, cornice, dentils, etc.), all that is left is the original primitive hut. While it is the architecture prototype, it cannot meet our requirements for a building.