vitruvius VS my lecturer

Tomorrow I will have an exam for 'Meaning in Architecture Form' lecture. What I was studying is about layers in architecture. The relation between function, form, and meaning. Well, in my lecturers opinion, Vitruvius theory about firmitas-utilitas-venustas has fallacy. Well, it's actually David Smith Capon's opinion. According to him, structure is a secondary category of form. The first category would be function, form, and meaning. That's the opinion my lecturers was always talking about.

Well, in my opinion, those theories so far, in practice, are just a tool to study a design. It's like a surgeon's blade, the patient is the design, and us, students, lecturers, observer, etc, are the surgeon. Well, we sometimes use those theories while designing something, but the real factor of designing is the context. None of those theory are really applied. I apply ordering principle, anthropometry and so on, but never vitruvius's or capon's theory. For me, those theories are just checklists of what's there and what isn't there in the design.

On the other hand, my lecturers nailed some diagram that shows process in designing. I think he is the first (that I had known of) who presents these relation-between-things-in-architecture with cycle diagram. It actually works to be a guideline in designing. Even though it's just to rain check whether you are in the right track... but it really helps anyway, and is easy to understand. I don't see anyone reading my blog, but when they do and they'd like to see what the diagram looked like, I would publish it.