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.
Try to answer this question if possible (otherwise reply "unanswerable"): Does Ruskin believe all buildings are works of architecture?
not