I side with Didascalo because I believe that a lot of the beauty of architecture comes from ornamentation. I made decision of which person to side with after disagreeing with Protopiro’s comparison of an ornamented building to a confused poem. I think this is a false comparison because there is beauty in the detail of an ornamented building whereas beauty is non-existent in a confused poem. Protopiro makes good points throughout the reading, such as the buildings being more similar to that of Ancient Greece when they were perfected, but Didascalo refutes this statement by comparing Protopiro’s ideal style of architecture to monotonous huts. Although I do agree with the notion from the first reading that everything in architecture leads back to the hut and there is beauty in the basics, I believe that differentiation through ornamentation makes every building unique and beautiful in its own way.