1-
The
Quandary
"Art does not reproduce the visible; rather it makes it visible." Paul
Klee
To
date,
the
predominant
focus
of
the
Mars
investigation
has
been
on
settling
the
question
of
whether
the
Face
on
Mars
is
a
natural
formation
or
builders'
art.
This
has
led
us
down
a
path
of
endless
photo
analysis
and
debate,
not
unlike
that
surrounding
terrestrial
artifacts
of
very
ancient
origin
--
for
instance,
those
found
on
the
plateaus
of
Giza,
Egypt,
or
Marcahuasi,
Peru.
The
growing
quandary
over
what
are
the
measurements
of
"reality"
for
an
"alien
work
of
art,"
and
what
are
the
standards/rulers
we
should
use
to
assess
that
reality,
will
most
likely
continue
for
many
years
to
come.
Dr.
Malin
and
"the
hidden
few"
at
NASA
that
make
the
decisions,
have
been
looking
for
"peer
reviewed"
information
by
other
scientists.
But
even
uncovering
more
visual
data
has
not
proved
sufficient
to
say
one
way
or
the
other
if
the
structure
at
Cydonia
is
Art
or
a
Natural
Formation.
Indeed,
if
this
is
an
ancient
work
of
art,
wouldn't
it
make
more
sense
to
be
looking
and
analyzing
it
with
the
tools
of
Art
itself?
Should
we
not
be
looking
through
the
ancient
records
of
our
own
planet
(given
that
at
least
half
the
Face
seems
human)
for
clues
to
understanding
the
significance
of
its
primordial
message?
Have
we
have
been
so
focused
on
the
"artificiality"
question...that
we
have
neglected
the
more
fundamental
implications
of
such
a
momentous
find
-
its
overarching
meaning?
Should
we
not
approach
this
artifact
with
the
same
awareness
we
bring
to
Picasso's
"Guernica";
Duchamp's,
"Figure
Descending
Staircase";
or
Pollack's
hidden,
two-face
icons?
Surely,
more
would
be
served
now
by
meditating
deeply
on
the
implications
for
humanity
if
we
began
to
seriously
consider
this
approach?
Like
-
What
clues
does
the
Face
on
Mars
now
offer
--
if
any
--
about
our
own
ancient
(and
still
almost
completely
unknown)
evolutionary
past
..?
Does
it
possibly
embody
in
its
Monumental
form
symbolic
stories
of
our
human
DNA?
What
about
myths
related
to
our
consciousness?
And,
what
is
the
symbolic
significance
of
the
depiction
of
the
feline?
These
questions
are
far
more
complex
(and,
frankly,
far
more
interesting)
than
"scientists"
versus
"the
artists."
As
everyone
knows,
there
are
the
hunters
and
there
are
gatherers.
The
hunters
strike
out
for
new
territory,
exploring
the
unknown,
and
in
so
doing
expanding
the
boundaries
of
human
awareness
and
consciousness.
The
gatherers
remain
put,
providing
essential
stability
required
to
literally
maintain
the
system.
Both
the
Arts
and
the
Sciences
have
their
"hunters"
and
"gatherers."
In
the
Art
world,
the
Impressionists
fought
a
hard
battle
to
break
free
of
the
French
Art
Academy
and
thus
birthed
modern
art
as
we
now
know
it.
In
the
Sciences,
Galileo
paid
dearly
for
holding
to
his
vision.
Today,
in
the
space
sciences,
we
continue
to
have
"gatherers"
-
experts
who
are
very
good
at
keeping
systems
stable,
and
without
whom,
minus
their
practical
space
science
and
engineering
applications,
space
travel
itself
would
be
literally
impossible.
Yet,
many
of
these
"experts"
now
presume
they
are
the
only
human
beings
qualified
to
define
the
realities
of
Space.
But
are
they
really?
Are
they
qualified
to
be
the
ultimate
arbiters,
or
even
authors
of
reality
"out
there?"
For
instance,
are
they
truly
qualified
to
evaluate
a
work
of
Art
...
in
Space!?
Where
is
the
subtle
line
separating
"the
real"
from
the
so-called
"ink
blot
test?"
This
is
a
valid
question
-
certainly
after
twenty
years
of
dealing
with
the
scientific,
political
and
artistic
problems
of
"Cydonia."
Yes,
the
linear
process
of
"science"
is
a
great
tool
for
gathering
and
quantifying
the
data
that's
come
back
from
Space,
especially
background
readings
on
the
age
and
make
up
of
other
objects
in
the
solar
system.
Yet,
those
are
not
the
tools
appropriate
(or
even
able)
to
understand
the
Soul
of
Space...
the
Message
of
the
data
-
especially,
any
kind
of
truly
"anomalistic
data."
This
calls
on
the
spatial
/
non-temporal
mind
rather
than
the
linear
/
quantitative
mind.
Whatever
it
turns
out
to
be,
the
fact
is
that
the
question
of
"the
Face"
has
become
a
catalyst
in
the
collective
consciousness
of
millions,
stirring
primal
memories
and
hoped
for
dreams
and
fears.
In
all
fairness,
one
cannot
(and
should
not)
lump
all
scientists
together
(or
all
artists
for
that
matter...).
In
this
process,
we
observe
two
basic
types
of
scientists:
(1)
the
"visionaries
/
hunters"
--
who
are
willing
to
risk
it
all.
Galileo,
Tesla,
and
Hawking
are
obvious
examples
of
this
group.
(2)
the
"scientific
priesthood"
of
"linear
thinkers
/
gatherers"
--
who
perpetuate
and
maintain
the
accepted
models,
creating
stability
for
the
system,
yet
at
times
stifle
fundamental
growth
--
by
closing
off
the
visionaries
through
their
stubborn
attempt
to
"maintain
the
status
quo"
(the
peers
of
Galileo,
Tesla,
et
al.).
Within
the
current
NASA,
we
clearly
can
discern
(as
exemplified
by
the
true
story
of
Louie
Freidman
--
a
former
JPL
manager
who
became
the
Executive
Director
of
the
non-governmental
"Planetary
Society"
--
who
literally
covered
his
eyes
when
first
handed
a
packet
containing
Cydonia
research
by
the
early
Independent
Mars
Investigation
Team)
this
fearful
"status
quo"
attitude
of
the
resident
"scientific
priesthood."
Scientists
who
are
so
threatened
internally
by
a
challenge
to
their
belief
system,
whose
position
is
so
fragile,
that
they
will
NOT
ALLOW
themselves
to
even
see
another
possibility.
Then
there
are
those
linear
thinkers
who
claim
they
"want
to
see";
who
actually
manage
to
create
a
framework
that
allows
them
to
embrace
an
identity
as
a
"pioneer"
by
departing
somewhat
from
the
limitations
of
the
actual
data
and
their
fellow
linear
thinkers
--
even
to
the
point
of
manipulating
in
their
minds
"pixels
and
shadows"
to
substantiate
(in
the
case
of
the
Face
on
Mars)
their
prior
perceptions
of
"adorning
diadems"
or
"perceived
facial
symmetry,"
and
more...
all
in
an
effort
to
make
the
data
predictably
acceptable
to
their
own
pre-conceived
ideas
(and
consciousness)
--
rather
than
truly
discovering
"what
is."
Finally
(in
this
age
of
the
federally
funded
monopoly
of
science),
there
is
the
inevitable
layer
of
political
reality:
why
do
those
in
NASA
who
do
see
(and
they
do
exist...)
NOT
WANT
THE
REST
OF
US
TO
SEE!?
Indeed,
has
our
attention
been
continually,
deliberately
diverted
all
these
years
into
endlessly
debating
the
question
of
the
"reality"
of
the
Face
on
Mars
to
keep
us
from
deeply
examining
its
meaning?
Some,
when
confronted
with
an
unprecedented
phenomenon,
remain
stubbornly
opposed
to
accepting
anything
unfamiliar
as
"reality."
Others
(as
just
noted)
seem
to
have
a
need
to
"add
familiar
elements"
to
such
phenomena,
to
confirm
that
what
they
see
is
still
part
of
their
personal
"reality."
The
truly
open
mind
--
willing
to
explore
and
discover
what
actually
is
there,
to
suspend
judgment
long
enough
to
leave
an
opening
for
reception
of
The
Message
(if
any)
that
is
being
communicated
from
their
encounter
with
an
unexplained
phenomenon
-
is
truly
rare
...
Throughout
the
history
of
this
planet,
great
civilizations
have
inevitably
been
measured
by
their
art
(just
look
at
Egypt!).
Art
has
in
fact
been
the
eyes
and
voice
of
all
societies,
the
expression
of
the
creator's
psyche
in
its
social
setting,
acting
as
a
platform
to
launch
the
consciousness
of
all
his
or
her
viewers
to
a
larger
understanding.
The
artist
brings
together
elements
to
inspire
the
viewer's
imagination...
to
expand
the
given
"theme"
-
whatever
it
might
be
Art
has
thus
served
as
a
catalyst
for
the
transformation
and
unification
of
the
collective
consciousness
throughout
all
cultures
on
this
planet;
why
would
we
expect
any
less
of
a
highly
sophisticated
society
living
on
another,
nearby
planet?
What
we
are
witnessing
in
our
terrestrial
response
to
this
ancient
Martian
Cydonia
enigma
called
"the
Face
on
Mars"
is
nothing
less
than
the
temporal
displacement
of
consciousness
and
the
igniting
of
secrets
codes
within
our
collective
human
unconscious.
One
only
has
to
walk
into
any
Modern
Art
museum
to
understand
how
utterly
useless
scientific
measurements
are
for
understanding
The
Message
being
communicated
by
that
kind
of
"archetypal
phenomena"
-
by
a
fundamental
work
of
art.
For
those
who
are
now
struggling
to
experience
this
literally
monumental
Art
--
The
Face
on
Mars
-
for
those
who
find
it
confusing
to
see
two
faces
(or
other
forms)
combined
on
a
single
Martian
mesa,
remember
that
the
scale
of
this
Monument
meant
that
most
of
the
time,
for
most
viewers,
it
was
seen
one
image
at
a
time
...
and
then
in
profile.
And,
as
the
sun
traveled
across
the
Martian
sky,
it
"sculpted
forms
in
light"
upon
features
that
were
carefully
laid
out
to
respond
to
this
literal
movement
of
planetary
Time.
Facial
Features
--
designed
to
trigger
deep
realizations
and
emotions
in
the
intended
audience
for
this
extraordinary
Monument
(including
us?),
to
be
so
prominent
in
one
view
-
were
obviously
(now)
intended
to
quietly
dissolve
into
literal
invisibility
just
hours
later.
Ironically,
it
has
turned
out
that
this
is
not
NASA's
time
worn,
overused
20-year
cliché
--
"a
trick
of
light
and
shadow."
Rather,
it
is
a
tour
de
force
of
the
Builders'
increasingly
apparent
genius
in
using
"light
and
shadow"
to
create
almost
truly
Timeless
Art
...to
communicate
a
Message
down
through
time
that
"someone"
thought
profound
...
It's
now
up
to
us
to
stop
quibbling
about
the
reality
of
what
we
are
seeing
at
Cydonia,
to
turn
our
collective
efforts
and
imaginations
to
finally
understanding
the
true
meaning
of
that
Message
...
of
a
Martian
work
of
Art.
| "
This
object/sculpture
was
obviously
intended
to
be
a
LIVING
sculpture
--
far
beyond
even
my
original
estimates
in
the
first
editions
of
"Monuments."
-
Richard
C.
Hoagland
|
About
the
Author
-
Kynthia
Return
to
Planetary
Mysteries
Return
to
Enterprise
Mission
|