Faces from the Chasmas

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />It is not necessary to know the mind or motivations of others to determine that the end product is a reasonable and predictable one.

Consider our own situation. Arguably, we are an intelligent species with a future. In a few millenia from now, spaceflight will presumably be so common and easy that family vacations to the Moon will be affordable in time and cost. But when visitors get there, no one place where they might land would be representative of the whole Moon. So the first step would likely be to hop onto an orbiting space station and get a close-up overview.

Once that happens, is it any stretch at all to predict that the various surface operations (mining, communications, research, industry, museums, etc.) would compete for tourist visitations and dollars by building surface attractions? What better way to get the attention of those in the orbiting space stations above than large-scale surface art?

If such a scenario is a possible near-term future for our species, why is it so unimaginable that it would also have been a possibility for any previous intelligent species of the now-exploded parent planet that had Mars as its moon?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That's quite an anthropomorphism, isn't it? I hope you aren't trying to suggest that your ability to rationalize why humans might build land art on our moon in any way supports the proposition that land art exists on Mars. The land art is either real or it isn't and the truth of the matter is not dependent on knowing why it might have been made.

In any case, my only point was that once you start down the path of infering "artistic intent", the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable inferences is problematic at best and the ability of anyone to argue logically on the matter is very restricted.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In any case, my only point was that once you start down the path of infering "artistic intent", the distinction between reasonable and unreasonable inferences is problematic at best and the ability of anyone to argue logically on the matter is very restricted. JR
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This is also nonsense. It is perfectly reasonable when studying something new to hypothesize about, "intent," "usefullness," "purpose," "construction materials," "mode of conststruction," "nature of the builders," and so on. It is also called developing a working hypothesis, it is also sometimes refered to as preliminary analysis or analysis proper. In layman's terms it is called <b><i>thinking</i></b>.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />I hope you aren't trying to suggest that your ability to rationalize why humans might build land art on our moon in any way supports the proposition that land art exists on Mars. The land art is either real or it isn't and the truth of the matter is not dependent on knowing why it might have been made.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">We are in agreement here. But you gave a contrary impression when you said "if we are to believe there existed a race of aliens so obsessed with art as to use an entire planet as an easel, I don't see any objection in logic to asserting that they might also blow up planets in furtherence of their obsession." This appeared to be arguing that your inability to rationalize simple, logical reasons why aliens might build land art on their moon argued against the proposition that land art exists on Mars. But since you now distance yourself from that interpretation, either you changed your mind or I misunderstood your message. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
<br /> So one prediction might be that such inscriptions would be found in some cases. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, that's a very good point. One such piece of evidence would blow the whole thing wide open. Talk of "pareidolia" after that would be about as meaningful as "pareidolia" was in our lives prior to this.

But it works both ways. Once we start to get more evidence, the picture will get clearer. So far it's a mixed bag. For instance, Skully was virtually blown out of the water by a high resolution image. And, if you go back and read the description of the Skullface scene, how elaborate it was (I will be posting something on this subject shortly), and then look at the high res version of it, you can't help but have doubts. Same goes for the couple of public request image of the Profile Girl and Family. They did not help.

What is the bottom line? I think it boils down to higher resolution images. It would get obvious, fast.

I will be developing this point of view, in the near future. What are the ground rules? In my opinion, the ground rules will be to weigh in on the subject.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"if we are to believe there existed a race of aliens so obsessed with art as to use an entire planet as an easel, I don't see any objection in logic to asserting that they might also blow up planets in furtherence of their obsession." [attributed to jrich, by TVF] <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This kind of statement is typical of your mode of argumentation, and is reminiscent I might add, of that of the Sophists. This "sophistry" is filled with non-sequitor, drawing inferences on the basis of ignorance, gross inacuracies, and unwarrented assumptions and conclusions.

1- By what magic do you conclude that someone you don't know anything about, and don't even acknowledge the existence of, were "obsessed?" (Talk about long distance psyco-babal analysis). 2- There is absolutely no evidence that the "entire planet" was used "as an easel." Possible art works have been found in only a very small part of the planet. 3- Though we can speculate as to the reason for the art, to make any connection between such a reason and "blowing up planets" is pure absurdity and not worthy of comment, except to point out the absurdity. 4- If you don't see any "objection in logic" to making such a connection you grossly missunderstand the term, or are flagrently missusing it for your own ends.

Neil

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />But since you now distance yourself from that interpretation, either you changed your mind or I misunderstood your message. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Tom, clearly my original comment was too obtuse. I was responding to several comments by Neil and rd relating to inferences about the artists and the possibility of images being Escher-like:

rd - "The artists clearly wouldn't have created upside down statues"

Neil - "This could simply imply subtlety of the artist, a very human trait"

My point was to demonstrate succintly (and rather poorly, apparently) the folly of making such inferences about artists with an absurd inference of my own. Basically, Neil and rd (and Larry?) appeared to be attempting to explain a problematic observation that some land art were oriented 180 degrees to others as the *intention* of the artists. I called foul.

By the way, can anyone provide a reason why we shouldn't be looking for examples of Abstract, Modern, post-Modern, etc. styles.

JR