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 jrich</i>
<br />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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, one only has to adopt the mindset that the images are artificial (as a hypothesis, of course), and explanations then flow easily. For example, an orbiting space station, the obvious viewing platform (because these cannot be seen from the ground), has windows on both sides, with a different orientation needed in these two opposite directions.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">By the way, can anyone provide a reason why we shouldn't be looking for examples of Abstract, Modern, post-Modern, etc. styles.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yes, they are too difficult to distinguish from natural formations. The signatures of artificiality are regularity, angularity, and symmetry. Absent those, how could we hope to recognize an artifact from a natural formation? -|Tom|-

<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 />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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we may actually agree on this point. I think any group of artists, or scientists, or engineers, or just about any group you can think of, would endevour to standardize.

As far as I'm concerned, the only question is whether or not the art was intended to be viewed from land or sky. If it was intented to be viewed from the sky, any area the size of one of the image strips we've been looking at, would surely be oriented the same. On the other hand, if this is land art, and was intended to be viewed by folks walking around on the ground, like when my wife and I recently visited a butterfly tent, well then yes, it could be oriented any old way.

But that's not the big issue, anyway. The real quesion is whether or not these features are real or pareidolia.

rd

<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 />Again, one only has to adopt the mindset that the images are artificial (as a hypothesis, of course), and explanations then flow easily. For example, an orbiting space station, the obvious viewing platform (because these cannot be seen from the ground), has windows on both sides, with a different orientation needed in these two opposite directions.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Artificiality does not imply nor require orbiting space stations. The Nazca artists could not see any of their images from above nor were they oriented in any particular direction. Its this sort of extraneous hypothesizing about the intent of the artists that clouds or distracts from the issue of artificiality. The artificiality of the features and the origin, culture and technological level of any possible aliens are entirely different questions. If one needs to incorporate assumptions about the intent of the artists in judgements of the likelihood of artificiality, that to me is a real problem.

JR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />As far as I'm concerned, the only question is whether or not the art was intended to be viewed from land or sky. If it was intented to be viewed from the sky, any area the size of one of the image strips we've been looking at, would surely be oriented the same. On the other hand, if this is land art, and was intended to be viewed by folks walking around on the ground, like when my wife and I recently visited a butterfly tent, well then yes, it could be oriented any old way.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Another possibility is that it wasn't intended to be viewed by corporial beings at all.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But that's not the big issue, anyway. The real quesion is whether or not these features are real or pareidolia.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I agree completely and my whole point has been that artistic intent cannot play a role in that determination.

JR

<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 />Artificiality does not imply nor require orbiting space stations.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Again, I seem to be not understanding your posts. You said "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." What is foul about having two preferred orientations? My example merely intended to show that there is nothing special about having two preferred orientations.

There seems to be some special meaning to your phrase "intention of the artists" that I'm not getting. No one is trying to guess the actual intentions of the hypothetical artists, but only to offer reasonable possibilities that could explain the choices they made based on what we see. The modest goal is merely to show that one cannot make a valid argument *against* artificiality on the grounds that no reasonable artistic intentions can be imagined. -|Tom|-

<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 />There seems to be some special meaning to your phrase "intention of the artists" that I'm not getting.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Anything that relates to the purpose or meaning of the art is what I would define as "artistic intent".<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">...The modest goal is merely to show that one cannot make a valid argument *against* artificiality on the grounds that no reasonable artistic intentions can be imagined.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Better to simply argue that artistic intent is irrelevent. Instead, by providing a plausible intent, are you not implying that it *is* relevent?

JR