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? What was most significant in architecture according to Ruskin? To be true architecture in Ruskin's opinion what should be done to a structure? What features at minimum did Ruskin insist on for a building to be considered functional?