我們在這個研究之中嘗試去檢驗的是Loos在他的評論之中涵韻的意義，也就是，建築在某些情況下應該屬於藝術的領域，請注意以下的問題：建築可以屬於多少領域中？如果藝術是其中的一個，那其他的是什麼呢？並且我們應該如何、用什麼標準來決定建築是屬於某個領域而非其他的領域？我們可以從他對於建築的論述中得到以下結論： 1建築不屬於自己，但可以被分割，然後配給給各個領域，包涵藝術。 2提供日常機能和藝術是相互矛盾的。 3藝術是沒有機能的 4建築"屬於藝術領域"的那個部分和記憶有關，記憶：私人的和共有的；葬禮和紀念顯著的事。而這個部份是建築最基本的（所以也最具影響力和強度）存在的向度和機能。 5在這個程度下，墳墓和紀念碑屬於藝術和範疇，他們不需要執行機能。 當建築在建造來超越機能時他的最高機能為藝術是互相牴觸的，但他的牴觸性不是與生俱來的，而是一個建築worlding的兩個方法的謎－材料和形式。容許所有不同的領域對建築來說是一個迷思；這領域是遭不同鬼所佔據的身體，用建築標記他們存在的證明。這麼說來，建築不是嚴格的材料或形式，他不是一個組合體，也不是一種圖解，它是兩者交處的結果和昇華後調解的可能性。

What we seek to examine in this study is the implication embedded in Loos' remark that Architecture "belong" to the 'domain' of art under certain conditions. If a part, any part, of Architecture can and does "belong to the domain of art," the following questions demand attention: How many domains are there for Architecture to "belong" to? If 'art' is one such domain, what is , or are, the other(s)? And in what way, and by what criteria, does Architecture actually belong to one domain and not another? We may infer several things about Architecture from his statement: 1. Architecture does not "belong" to itself but can be divided into parts, and those parts distributed to "belong" to other domains, including that of art. 2. Serving an everyday function is incompatible with art. 3. Art serves no function. 4. That part of Architecture that "belongs to the domain of art" deals with memory, remembrance – private and collective: burial rituals and the practice of memorializing noteworthy events. And this part is Architecture's most fundamental (therefore most affective and intensive) dimension of being and function. 5. Insofar as tombs and monuments belong to the domain of art, they are beyond the task of fulfilling a function. That Architecture fulfills its highest function as art when it is constructed to stand beyond serving a function is a contradiction. But this contradiction is not only inherent, but is the very enigma of Architecture's dual manner of "worlding" – material and formal.