Hey, Joe, I didn't mean to suggest that you were naive, just the question in the context of that particular painting. I think you're looking for sinister intent where none exists. Didn't Freud once suggest "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"? Have you ever seen the paintings of Alan Bean? The man has been to the moon, yet his paintings are highly stylized and almost abstract- they look nothing like photographs of the events he paints. And he was painting for himself in most cases, not on commssion from an agency seeking funding. http://www.alanbeangallery.com/ Another example is the artist Robert McCall. I'm sure most of us are familiar with his paintings, most famously those concerned with the Apollo program, and the landmark film "2001: A Space Odyssey". http://www.mccallstudios.com/gallery_index.html Again, highly stylized, intentionally meant to instill a feeling of adventure and wonder in the viewer. That is the magic of art. To read politics into it is to do the artist- and yourself- a disservice. I'll bet you no members of Congress see those NASA paintings, although those guys certainly are naive. I happen to think that Mars is pretty thrilling- without the crumbling fortresses. -----Original Message----- From: bau@desnews.com To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Sent: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 9:00 AM Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] How red is Mars, anyway? Interesting discussion, though I don't feel naive in matters of art. After thinking about it, my take is that NASA is hoking it up to generate enthusiasm, presenting an unrealistic picture that harkens back to pulp sc-fi covers. It's an attempt to mislead the public -- just a bit -- by making Mars look thrilling. I suppose the goal is to persuade Congress to be more generous in appropriations. Next time they should paint in a distant ruined fortress, crumbling away next to the Face on Mars. -- Joe ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.