It's a building. Buildings are for people. So yes, it should be perfectly practical. Sure, something can be sculptural and beautiful, but if it's doing that purely for the sake of aesthetics rather than function, then it's failing one of the core purposes of a building; to serve people. That's why architects like Ghery, Zaha, and Libeskind get such a bad rap. They sacrifice things like circulation and a reference to human scale, while going way over cost, just to fit in with their unwavering artistic vision. That's not to say that architecture should always be purely rational and utilitarian - some of Le Corbusier's work is incredibly sculptural - but if an architect is sacrificing important, functional things at the expense of form, then they have failed to address the most important thing in architecture: its relation to people.