generate questions: For Ruskin, the aesthetic was of overriding significance. His work goes on to state that a building is not truly a work of architecture unless it is in some way "adorned". For Ruskin, a well-constructed, well-proportioned, functional building needed string courses or rustication, at the very least.
Does Ruskin believe all buildings are works of architecture? {sep_token} What was most significant in architecture according to Ruskin? {sep_token} To be true architecture in Ruskin's opinion what should be done to a structure? {sep_token} What features at minimum did Ruskin insist on for a building to be considered functional? {sep_token}