Because I like it hence therefore..

I get lost when I compare the Working world and the Studio world of architecture. Every cool design we learn about and have to come up with in school, has to have a story, a reason the building is designed the way it is - conceptually, formally, practically. The obvious relevance between school and the outside world is making a building work - but how about what it looks like?

Lecturers will tell you, "if you can't justify your form, it's as good as a box or any other shape - and don't tell me 'because I like it' hence therefore". Really?

In the working world, I hear more often than not, "aw man, the client thinks it looks like a blablabla" Hence, the next step is obviously, design for the client's liking. Back in school, we don't quite have a client, hence the only approval of 'liking' come from ourselves. So technically, there is nothing wrong with the reason "because I like it". Visual appearances plays a big part in first impressions - and with an external crit, you don't get a second impression. Funny isn't it? When it's all about what the crit SEEs, and what makes them like it; when it's up to the client to like what he SEEs then pay you, the form, the appearance, is very impression-based.

If the lecturer believes so much that form making is irrelevant to design, why bother with a visual impression? Why not present everything in plans and sections? It clearly doesn't matter if the building turns out to be a cube or a sphere in the end, as long as the building works well.

This isn't really an argument for random designs eventhough I'm not standing against it either, I understand that justifications prove a better thought out design, and be one less likely to fall apart when it comes to tested situations. But there is a line between how much thought is needed to be done to sell a building and how much is needed to be a perfectly responsive design (ofcourse unless this funny client of yours is an anal one =P ) Form-making is just one example. It could be other random spaces that the architect likes, and wants to shove it in for his own desire and so on.

So, the more justified, the higher chance of success rate? True/False

I pick false, and it's quite obvious why, when your client says "emm.. I don't think I'll go with this design, I'm sorry." You know damn well it's not because it's not thought out enough, but it's because he doesn't like your design from what he sees - be it the funny spaces u have or the funny shape u have.

See, they're both built are they not?