[notfashion]

This is a problem that architects are aware of. It's bad to build with photography and media exposure in mind. But I'm not sure the architect you met was guilty of that. New buildings tend to be documented and published in an unoccupied state. It's the same for most products like cars or furnishings, and you could also argue that the way clothes are advertised has nothing to do with "use".

There's not much architects can do about what happens to buildings after completion. They no longer have a role in the life of the building. I don't think it's necessarily a very bad sign that they sometimes express disappointment or frustration or indifference about the way the building actually ends up being used. They aren't responsible for maintaining it, unlike the authors of software. It is out of their hands.

Every sane architect is OK with the fact that users will adapt their work.

"You know, it is life that is right and the architect who is wrong"—Le Corbusier.

[PhasmaFelis]

That seems like the best approach.

I recall reading about some large business that commissioned an office tower on a large plaza. The architect (and presumably someone with approval power) instead went with two office towers at opposite corners of the plaza, which meant visiting a coworker often meant a long journey down to the ground, across the plaza, and back up. The surrounding structures funneled powerful winds across the plaza, and this was in a cold climate.

People were unhappy, obviously. When informed, the architect was angry that they didn't appreciate his vision. I was irrationally annoyed about that. I love beautiful architecture, but if you put anything above functionality, you have no business designing functional buildings.