Visualization's design knowledge-effectiveness rankings, encoding guidelines, color models, preattentive processing rules -- derives from six decades of psychophysical studies of human vision. Yet vision-language models (VLMs) increasingly consume chart images in automated analysis pipelines, and a growing body of benchmark evidence indicates that this human-centered knowledge base does not straightforwardly transfer to machine audiences. Machines exhibit different encoding performance patterns, process images through patch-based tokenization rather than holistic perception, and fail on design patterns that pose no difficulty for humans-while occasionally succeeding where humans struggle. Current approaches address this gap primarily by bypassing vision entirely, converting charts to data tables or structured text. We argue that this response forecloses a more fundamental question: what visual representations would actually serve machine cognition well? This paper makes the case that the visualization field needs to investigate machine-oriented visual design as a distinct research problem. We synthesize evidence from VLM benchmarks, visual reasoning research, and visualization literacy studies to show that the human-machine perceptual divergence is qualitative, not merely quantitative, and critically examine the prevailing bypassing approach. We propose a conceptual distinction between human-oriented and machine-oriented visualization-not as an engineering architecture but as a recognition that different audiences may require fundamentally different design foundations-and outline a research agenda for developing the empirical foundations the field currently lacks: the beginnings of a "machine Bertin" to complement the human-centered knowledge the field already possesses.