The media thrive on images of beautiful objects, but at what cost? While the magazines enthrall their readers with photographs of captivating objects, they may be neglecting the deeper experiential quality of buildings.

Architecture is not simply production of artistic objects for an aesthetic purpose. New buildings have cultural, political, and social importance. Published images should provide the opportunity to analyze the work. If architecture is represented visually and without critical analysis, it becomes just another pretty face. We must question the effect of "image architecture" and what it means for our culture.

New styles in architecture are developed independent of a traditional context and then built anywhere in the world. The building's form per se becomes a hot topic for the architectural media, which display images people inevitably become familiar with. New architectural works can benefit a local economy through increased tourism and new business. But without sensitivity to the context, cultural traditions, and aesthetic of a site, deeper values get lost.

Certain architects have come to be known as "star architects" for their trend-setting architectural styles and the constant media attention to their works. Their stylistic forms become a personal signature. Does this qualify as "image architecture"? If the architecture is a mere representation of current artistic potential, where is the cultural vision?

How the Image Makers Choose the Images

The media capitalize on stardom and the images our culture is assumed to want--in other words, what will sell. But what is the selection process behind the architectural images in today's magazines? What makes one building more "publishable" than another? Are buildings published because they possess specific aesthetic, spiritual, or environmental characteristics? These questions were posed to two architectural magazine editors.