I side with Didascolo because I believe form can transcend Protopiro’s argument that architecture is bound to its very nature. This idea of a specific nature of architecture is rampant in Laugier’s essay on architecture, which conveys that complex architecture is clumsy and form should only abide by strict rules. While Protopiro has some merit that form should not be adorned with decorations because architecture mainly serves a purpose to shelter us, Didascolo is able to discredit his argument by stating Greek architecture is filled with decorations like triglyphs and dentils. Lastly, I agree with Didascolo’s declaration that architecture shouldn’t be given rules it never had because if it did, people would be reduced to living in buildings that are all the same. This is significant because a sense of liberty should exist for what people want to live and work in.