The image-driven process
In
On this foundation, we can build up a framework for thinking that concentrates on what happens when an image drives the construction. An image-driven process will not rely on metrics of purpose and participation in the final environment. Instead, the presentation is measured for fitness and quality, and the project will be given the green light based on proxy attributes—if the image or the person presenting it is clumsy or untidy, the project will be judged as unworthy.
The image of a constructed artefact lives in a different realm from the final constructed form, just as code lives in a different domain from the application. An image behaves differently, has different values, and introduces complications, waste, or even fatal flaws in the final product. None of this would have come to pass if it had been built through a process based on metrics of the tangible.
For example, an image-driven process expresses its value in solitude. It prefers individual merit rather than collaboration. An image-driven building will stand alone in the material used to appraise its value before construction. By material, I mean the medium of the image, such as paper plans, renderings, and rough sketches. It will be expressed as an exterior first, the main entrance second, and the interior last—orthogonal to working on the most commonly used elements at the highest priority.
The flow of life is neglected; instead, only appraisal is respected. The image is about being accepted as a design, not about being acceptable as a product. As another example, an image is not fractal. All features are at the same scale, or at least the scale of a single photo.
As a counterexample, large-scale projects from older times often included buildings commissioned by religious institutions. These buildings are fractal in nature, with many different echoing motifs at different scales. They also seem like they might be image-driven, as they are about making an impression on those beholding them from afar and from within. However, they were not approved for construction based on some picture or plan and then built to spec; instead, they were built according to a typical implementation pattern, with the specifics handled by the developer at the local level. They were not approved based on a literal image but on a need and a common vision.
The image specifies materials and defines the form. There will be extra effort to make the materials work and additional costs approved to make things appear the way they were in the image rather than adapt the image to suit the available materials. The image-driven process’s goal is to be funded, not executed. So long as the project is finished at some point, preferably without a significant loss, it’s a success.
With this static image, extension is unexpected and often denied. Maintenance and repair are used to put things back the way they were, back into the same stressful pose in which they were first manifested, never to improve by change or adaptation. Modification is frowned upon or dangerous due to strict engineering tolerances. The tensions are due to trying to achieve an image goal while avoiding costs.
The image and ego are intertwined. The architect must present an image, and the image must be accepted for the architect to be paid. The architect must make commissions to become famous enough to sign more commissions. It is a horrible requirement that to be well-known means the architect must be visible in the buildings. How challenging might it be to get a renowned architect to design a simple structure without any signature elements?
Image as perspective
Image-driven framing affects the perspective of evaluation. It is how we make snap judgements on attributes we can otherwise only detect after spending considerable time and energy investigating. You can think of the image of a project as a kind of plumage. Creatures rely on being visibly fit to assure potential mates that they carry beneficial genetic traits. We can say the same of projects. An animal with poor plumage will suffer the same passing-over for procreation as the poorly presented project pitch. However, the difference between animals and projects is that genes are less able to lie about their value. It is worse when you consider the lie might not even be intentional.
When we sell a construction project to someone who can fund it, they invest based on what we show them. In addition, they can only fund what can be presented. This distinction explains how some projects get a green light while others fail to find funding, regardless of their relative merits.
We overlook projects that have net positive effects on both the investor and the community they target because the value they bring is hard to present. We often fund ill-conceived projects, which eventually cause more problems than they solve. We sign off with a smile when all the positives are very easy to present. When the negatives are complicated, hidden, or affect elements not generally considered during the initial concept phases, we naturally ignore them.
However, the image-driven system does work for some industries where the pitch more closely resembles the final piece. Film suffers less from this framing when the work is derivative or a well-understood genre. Fine art is another sector that does not seem affected. The work is often completed before pitching, so no translation occurs from image to product. Fiction novels, comic books, and all sorts of things where the scale and interaction are locked in have fewer issues navigating the different worlds of the pitch and the product.
The forms matter much more when interacting at multiple scales and vantage points. Deciding to fund a hospital without reviewing how the hospital works and feels from the perspective of the doctors, nurses, and patients is a recipe for constructing something alien and inefficient. Aerial photography promises very different things from what humans need.
When the product and the image share the same scale, field of view, and viewpoint, what you intend to build is more likely to be what you evaluate when deciding to fund the project. When the final product is a page in a magazine, reviewing it on a monitor is quite close to the final form. It’s still not quite the same thing, which is why many still use paper proofs to spot errors.