does form always follow function?

the architect faces a core ethical split: is our ultimate client the patron or the public? we debate the burden of creating architecture when the commission comes from a wealthy, private client, particularly when their demand for an extravagant or resource-intensive project directly conflicts with principles of equity and environmental accountability. we ask where the line falls between professional commitment to a private contract and the wider moral duty to design a responsible and equitable built environment.

has the need for a building to be "Instagrammable" corrupted its essence in design? are architects designing for the camera or for human experience? buildings/design have become social media phenomena versus quiet, timeless design

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?