Architecture is never displayed innocently. Any encounter with the work is framed by multiple determining contexts—political, sensual, and spatial—that productively contaminate the moment of reception. Using the image of the horrific as a driving aesthetic, we develop topological mutations that will engage the manner and form of rituals to create and proliferate architectural matter. In this, the architecture's own highly charged perspective on the affects-ambiances --even especially site-specific works-- becomes an invitation to visitors to trust their instincts, and to enjoy adventurously the works that they find. Investigation, Teaching, Practice, they are all interweaving with these logic's. What invents what? This is in the notion of the "image" as the main vehicle for the production of form. Design always concerns a translation between forms and formats of image. Perhaps some might see this as a triumph of superficiality over depth, but it's also an intensification of the conjectural and fictive logic's of design, of its ability to mobilize a social imagination and with it a series of potential futures. We see this as a real and complex demand that mutating culture makes on producers of architectural content.