I don't quarrel with the artistic/aesthetic side of the argument. Sure, it's a hunk of rock, how pretty could it be? Scientifically, I find the pictures somewhat exciting. They're not familiar at all. Only on the surface do we think they look like terrestrial desserts but we don't know what's underneath. I guess scientists look at potential and this journalist looks at the already actualized, to be platonic about it.

But look here, images of Mars are colored anyway, aren't they? Mars is no more red from up close than the horsehead nebula is an array of fantastic hues. Part of the disappointment in the article, I venture, is from this kind of disappointment. Disappointment of false expectations unfulfilled. It's not enough that we've managed to send a hunk of robot over to Mars (another freaking planet!!!) but that the pictures it takes has to be "purty" as well? Isn't that thought itself a bit arrogant and provincial?