Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art Chapter Two - Environmental Aesthetics: Natural Beauty Robert Stecker

1
Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art Chapter Two
- Environmental Aesthetics Natural BeautyRobert
Stecker

• -When we think about nature, beauty is the first
  thing to come to mind
• -When compared to an art piece, one may think it
  is easier to understand natures beauty

This chapter is concerned with the Aesthetic
Appreciation of Nature. We must first define
Aesthetic Appreciation, as broad and complex
topic, rather than just concerning natural
environments
2
Outline

• Objects and Models
• -Impressionist, Object, Landscape, and Artwork
  Models.
• Digression Is Nature an Artwork
• The Distortion Objection
• -A Severe Modest Objection
• Evaluating The Distortion Objection

• The Environmental Model
• Knowledge and Nature Appreciation
• Are There Norms of Nature Appreciation
• When Is Nature Appreciation Aesthetic

3
Objects and Models

• When appreciating art works or objects, the works
  themselves and/or the performance is what is
  appreciated
• Why is this method problematic with nature?
• - In nature, we can be confused as to which
  parts we should appreciate.
• Ex. A view of the sunset at the beach
• - As well as misjudging some aspects
• as inappropriate or incorrect
• Ex. A cheetah killing an impala

4
Objects and Models Impressionist (1)

• The Impressionist Model this model suggests that
  we should appreciate nature by not focusing
  specific objects, but rather the appearances
  (scenes) that nature presents at that moment.
• Ex. Cezanna painted Mount St. Victoire numerous
  times, capturing the mountains contently
  changing views

This model is based on impression paintings
5
Objects and Models Object (2)

• The Object Model this model suggests we should
  focus on a particular object. When doing so, we
  should not take into consideration the
  environment that this particular object is
  currently in.
• Ex. If we find a rock on a hiking trail, we can
  appreciate it the same if we were to take it home
  and put it on display.
• The environment does not have anything to do
  with this particular objects appreciation.

According to the object model, these rocks should
be appreciated equally despite one having a
natural environment.

6
Objects and Models Landscape (3)

• The Landscape Model This model suggests we
  should focus (from a fixed point) on a view,
  rather than a particular object.
• -One must take themselves out of what is viewed
• -Sometimes (not required) creates scenic
  turnouts. This landscape model does not ask us
  to appreciate landscapes as if they were
  landscape paintings (the view Carlson rejects).

7
Objects and Models Artwork (As if) (4)

• The Artwork Model This model suggests we should
  appreciate nature as if it was created as an
  artwork, or artwork created by God. (Derives from
  a religious conception of nature appreciation.)
• Why people want to appreciate nature as artwork
• How we aesthetically appreciate art is an easy
  way to attempt to aesthetically appreciate nature
  (the only way we know how to do)
• Appreciating nature as if were artwork is
  problematic because we can assume that people
  recognized natural environments as aesthetically
  pleasing before art even existed.

For example, We should not aesthetically judge a
real view of the Grand Canyon, as if a painted
picture of the Grand Canyon.
8
Digression Is Nature an Artwork?

• Is Nature an Artwork? When asking this
  question, we are assuming that nature is Gods
  (or an intelligent designer) artwork. This
  artwork was created the way artists produce
  artwork, but it is also perfect.
• -This view only appeals to those who believe in
  the idea of an intelligent being.
• Stecker does not agree or deny that nature was
  created by an intelligent being, but does not
  believe that if an intelligent created nature, it
  did not do so as artwork. God, or an intelligent
  designer, could have created nature for a
  different purpose other than art.
• Stecker also believes that some laws of biology
  create some of what we appreciate We do not know
  if God, or an intelligent designer, created the
  actual trees in a forest, or if the trees are the
  way they due to the natural laws of biology.

9
The Distortion ObjectionSevere and Modest

• The Severe Distortion Objection All of the
  previously stated models distort or misrepresent
  the proper appreciation of nature ? they should
  be rejected.

• Impressionist Model When we are required to
  focus on the particular scene at that moment, we
  may get caught up in focusing on colors, shapes,
  and sounds. (Mountain at night example).

• Objection Model When we focus on a single object
  we are ignoring important properties that would
  define the object. (Rock example)

• Landscape Model When we are required to have a
  fixed point of view of the scene, we are taking
  ourselves out of nature ? we are not experiencing
  nature. (Waterfall example)

10
Steckers Response to these Objections

• In general, Stecker does not believe that these
  models distort aesthetic appreciation of nature,
  but he believes them to be partial (the
  individual models do not cover everything we
  should take into consideration when appreciating
  nature).

Stecker believes those who look at the pink
trillium through the object model may view and
appreciate the flower differently than those who
view the flower in its environment. Ex. A
single flower, rather than a whole field of
flowers
-In relation to the Object Model According to
Stecker, this model does not distort, but allows
the viewer to select certain elements of nature.
Ex. Pink trillium
11
Steckers Response to these Objections, cont

• Stecker also does not believe that the
  impressionist model and the landscape distort due
  to having a selective view of nature.

Steckers Modest Objection These models should
not be viewed as individually and exclusively
correct. Steckers concern if the viewer were
to focus on each of the models criteria, one may
leave out crucial criteria when attempting to
aesthetically appreciate nature.
Ex. A snow field at sunset. At the moment one is
viewing a snow field at sunset, they are seeing
an array of beautiful colors. In relation to the
impressionist model, the viewer is only focusing
on the colors shown rather than the sunset
causing these colors.
12
The Environmental Model

• Carlson is credited with this model
• This model claims to be a complete guide to
  appreciating nature, aesthetically while deeming
  the other models as incomplete.
• Two main claims of this model 1. the environment
  being viewed is a collection of objects and/or
  views, rather than individualizing certain
  objects and/or views. 2. Properties of the
  collection of objects and/or views should be
  accompanied by scientific and/or commonsense
  knowledge. (if the 2nd criteria is not met, the
  appreciation created is inappropriate)

Three versions of the Environmental
Model Immersion Approach One must immerse
themselves in nature, in order to take in
everything that is needed to aesthetically
appreciate nature. Ecological Approach finding
aesthetic appreciation in the balance and/or
harmony that the natural environment is
displaying. Order Approach One must focus on
the order imposed on selected natural objects by
the causes that produce/sustain them.
13
Steckers view on the Environmental Model

• Stecker does not disagree with Carlsons
  Environmental Model, but
• once again says that it is incomplete (as are the
  previously stated models).
• Adds some new important issues to consider when
  attempting to aesthetically appreciating nature.
• Does not believe it to be better than the other
  models (which Carlson believes it to be).

14
Knowledge and Nature Appreciation

• How Knowledge Affects Nature Appreciation
• 1. Knowledge can enhance/alter our aesthetic
  experience with nature
• Knowledge can cause us to view nature in more
  complex ways (Ex. Tidal Pool).
• 2. Knowledge can thicken ones enjoyment (Ex.
  Pink trillium turning white).
• 3. Knowledge can irrevocably alter a perception
  of a certain object and/or view (Ex.
  Deformed/Diseased Animal)
• -Matthews believes 4 is the unique
  requirement on knowledge that is relevant to
  appreciating nature.
• -Stecker does not agree with this, due to his
  opinions on knowledge enhancing and not altering
  perceptions of nature
• 4. Some knowledge may not enhance aesthetic
  appreciation
• -We have no way of guaranteeing that it will or
  will not enhance our
• perceptions

15
Knowledge and Nature Appreciation cont.

• 6. Value of knowledge is relative.
• -there is not one standard for everyone
• -Stecker believes this point ignores two
  questions How people will respond? How they
  should respond?
• 7. Generally, Stecker disagrees that there is a
  minimum amount of knowledge needed for nature
  appreciation, but believes more knowledge may
  lead to a more appropriate appreciation
• -(Ex. Noticing basic colors on snow field is not
  wrong, but may be considered partial or
  impoverished).

16
Knowledge and Nature Appreciation cont.

• 8. According to Stecker, some knowledge also may
  be required if we find out appreciation to be
  based on false belief.
• -Stecker wonders, what if we come about a
  genuine appreciation of nature, even though
  it later turns out to be flawed, then it is
  okay?.
• (Ex. Human body Dolphins as fish)
• But, What if the false belief is easily
  avoidable?
• -Stecker is not sure if this claim is true, but
  finds them plausible. The aesthetic appreciation
  can change if the properties of what we are
  appreciating change.

If it does then change, it does not mean that
it was a bogus appreciation
17
Are There Norms of Nature Appreciation?

• These norms attempt tell us what we should do.
  Although, Stecker believes that these are
  insufficient.
• Some knowledge is needed for nature appreciation
  (observational knowledge).
• -Using this knowledge is optional
• -Can enhance it, but does not make it
  necessarily correct/incorrect appreciation
• -This knowledge can cause us to cease to find
  the beauty, or still find them beautiful, but
  ethically wrong
• -Ex. Purple Loosetrife and Pollution Sunsets
• Overall Stecker believes that there is enormous
  leeway in the knowledge we must bring to nature
  in order to properly appreciate nature. He
  believes they are still beautiful, but ethically
  bad.
• Those who defend this objection would have to
  argue for a tighter connection between ethics and
  aesthetics.

18
When is Nature Appreciation Aesthetic? (1)

• When we are appreciating the aesthetic properties
  of nature
• General value properties (Beauty..Ugliness)
• Formal Features (BalanceDiversity)
• Expressive properties (HappinessSadness)
• Evocative features (PowerAwe Inspiring)
• Behavioral Features (StillnessFragility)
• Second-Order Perceptual Features (VividGaudy)
• Recognition of the most general value
  properties is based on perceiving the other
  properties (formal, expressive, etc.) The other
  properties are taken in by perceiving
  nonaesthetic properties such as shape and color
  (Goldman).

Stecker does not think these properties are
always necessary in aesthetically appreciating
nature. Ex. A lakes stillness. We are not
necessarily referring to the aesthetic property
of stillness. We just notice that there is no
movement.
19
When is Nature Appreciation Aesthetic? (2)

• Nature Appreciation is only considered Aesthetic,
  when relating to an Aesthetic Experience
• 1. Aesthetic Experience is an experience
  resulting from attention to formal, sensuous, and
  meaning properties of an object valued for its
  own sake.
• -Some objects have natural meanings (ex.
  Blossoms indicating fruit).
• -Some objects may have cultural meanings (ex.
  Japanese cherry blossoms).
• 2. Structural and/or Etiological (study of
  origins) Properties are emphasized by order
  appreciation.
• 3. Close observation an d Knowledge of the
  previously stated, observable properties, could
  possibly enhance appreciation

20
When is Nature Appreciation Aesthetic? (3)

• We should not appreciate Nature as if it were an
  artwork, but there is a useful analogy between
  the two kinds of appreciation.

When appreciating aesthetic features art we
consider -Intention, Convention, Style, Genre,
and Context When valuing art we
consider -Art-Historical Value, Ethical Value,
and Cognitive Value
When comparing this to nature, this will require
a more complex set of criteria of proper
appreciation of nature.
21
Summary

• Stecker believes that the previously mentioned
  models, are not wrong, but claims the best way to
  approach them is to regard them all as providing
  a way, but not the way to bring about such
  appreciation.
• Nature is very complex and diverse, therefore we
  must have numerous, flexible models to help guide
  us when attempting to aseptically appreciate
  nature.