validation of an idea?

>> i was at a lecture given by alissa anrasek, from biothing (check this site, there are great works) it was, in a way, quite impressive and inspiring.. but it also reminded me our conversation with juze, a colleague here, that, "validation" in the realm of architecture is more about the strength of the resulting images than the methods and the central ideas that make you reach that consequence, though these latter are also esteemed highly by almost everyone; at least when they're talking about the issue... though andrasek was a bit anxious to stress that they're not amongst the superficial random morphers (she actually responded the expected banal question as: "i saw that you were sleeping, but i was trying to tell that..."), and they're not, not exactly, they always seem to have a central and relevant idea... anyway, the visualisation of the idea, or the process or the products were designed to be good looking. (the direct products are not the renderings, or nice 'processing' outputs.. renderings are added to the idea in many of the examples, and what makes a 'processing' output charming is the design effort spent in the implementation phase... you should have seen the videos, they were really nice and they were designed too)... so there were the pertinent ideas, references derived form other disciplines and natural phenomena, and great visuals, most of which were really nicely designed... and, think about this, if biothing is today a brand in computational design, is it because of the mostly already known algorithm approaches, or their application into a design realm and in addition to this, the ability to obtain very charming results? if the case is architecture, it's almost certain that the process is validated by visual results, not the other way around. this is not a criticism on my side. i liked the videos, this is how something is admired and validated in this realm, and that's it. live with it, or dieeeeeee!