the famous architect's law "Form Follows Function" compels us to define Function. Is it only about utilitarian needs, or has its definition expanded over time to include social, psychological, and aesthetic purposes? can we even say Deconstructivism follows the so-called "law" of form always follow function? as practitioners, how exactly do we value this statement?

We start the series the most essential question in design: Is architecture art?  We debate the difference between a functional building and a masterpiece of expression. Does the constant constraint of client demands, building codes, and budget inherently disqualify architecture from being considered "pure" art like painting or sculpture? We explore the act of art within our own professional practice: what do we, as architects, think and how do we practice to infuse mere building with artistic value?