The Critique goes somehow as follows: 1) The pair of Viking photos did not rule out a natural geological formation. Thus they were inconclusive as far as the exclusive and obvious Fine-Art was concerned.
2) A major goal of MGS was to settle the issue of the Face. It was reimaged and promptly released. Skeptics had excuse in denying artificiality due to the obvious meaningless of that infamous positive at sunrise.
3) Ignatius Graffeo solved the puzzle by showing that excellent Fine-Art was present in the 'negative' of the MGS photo. He correctly announced (just 3 days after NASA release) that "The Face on Mars is Real!".
4) Ignatius, leader in Ufology, became ignored, due to poor divulgation, by skeptics and defenders of the Face as well.
5) Dr. Lahoz published monograph: "Sacred Martian Face = Sagrada Faz Marciana" (UNIAM, dec-2000) explaining in every detail the riddle of the Face, but, unaware of Ignatius' publication, he said in there that Dr. Van Flandern had firstly announced 'conclusive evidence' of Fine-Art (artificiality) in the Face. Now such priority case is here corrected; and the work of Kelly-Fleming-Van Flandern remains moderately respected since the negative was used anyway, even for the wrong purpose of pretending a SYMMETRIC Face-Mesa. Such symmetry is not there as already explained.
6) Dr. Lahoz gave artistic interpretation of both intended Art-Faces (sunset and sunrise respectively). Above picture does not need more comments. There is, conclusively, extraordinary Fine-Art and Craft in the Face-mesa.