Noel Carroll
“On Being Moved by Nature =(BMBN): Between Religion and Natural History”
1. Allen
Carlson unfairly excludes BMBN as a legitimate way to aes app nature
2. Examples of
BMBN
a.
Standing under a
waterfall and being excited by its grandeur
b.
Walking barefoot
through the woods and feeling homey- ness
c.
Being taken by
the grace of deer as they vault over a stream
3. BMBN involves
a. Being
emotionally aroused by nature (arousal theory)
b. Letting
nature put you in an emotional state
c. This is a
common app response to nature
d. More
visceral, less intellectual (than Carlson’s natural history model)
i.
Carlson seems
committed to idea professional knowledge required for (best?) appreciation of
nature
e. This less
informed, naïve emotional response is
acceptable
i.
Did Carlson ever say it wasn’t acceptable?
f. A non-scientific arousal (even though its emotional
component has a cognitive dimension that permits objectivity, this dimension is
not systematic common sense or scientific knowledge)
4. Uninformed
emotional arousal possible and acceptable in both art and nature
a. One can appreciate art appropriately and be
emotionally aroused w/o knowledge of genre/style/relevant art history (253)
b. A legitimate alternative to app response of informed connoisseur
c. Examples
d. Children can be amused w/o knowing tradition or place
among artistic genres
i.
https://www.commedia-dell-arte.com/
ii.
Would Carlson say sure such arousal is appropriate for
children, but childish or at least naïve, unsophisticated, shallow for adults?
e.
Appreciate insult
in Duchamp’s fountain w/o knowing details of art history
f.
Viewing Man Ray’s
“the Gift” (iron with nails on bottom):
Can appreciate the dark humor and realize the object is at odds with
itself w/o knowing its place in Dada and art history context
5.
Carroll a pluralist: More than one appropriate way to
app nature (Carlson a monist?)
a.
Carlson’s
naturalist’s appreciation of nature is proper, but so is arousal model (even
object model can be appropriate sometimes 253)
b.
BMBN and
naturalist’s appreciation can come together
i.
BMBN can be due
to naturalist’s knowledge
1.
Glaciers see as
rivers of ice
2.
Pitcher plants
being carnivorous
ii.
But BMBN need not
be due to naturalists knowledge
6.
How Carroll’s BMBN solves problem of aesthetic focus
w/o relying on natural history
a.
Rejects Carlson’s
science by elimination argument
i.
Problem of aes
focus: what relevant? What focus on?
ii.
Unlike in art where have artistic categories, with
nature app artistic categories not appropriate
iii.
So must be
natural science categories that allow us to focus
iv.
What else could
do this?
b.
Carroll says in
BMBN aes focus fixed in process of emotional arousal
i.
There are natural
frames and natural saliences
ii.
Given the kinds
of beings we are with the senses we have
iii.
Our attention
will be directed to certain things and not others (e.g., sounds of the water)
iv.
This requires no
particular cultural information (and specifically not scientific information)
v.
Some emotional
arousals bred in the bone and not culturally based
7.
Carroll’s BMBN allows for objectivity in aes app of
nature (something Carlson’s NEM allows that Carroll supports)
i.
Both deny
Fisher’s suggestion that only art app is objective (no mistake if think Tetons
are agonized rather than majestic, but a mistake if think Munch’s “The Scream”
is joyful.
b.
Carroll thinks
judgments of aes app such as the “Tetons are majestic” are objective (and
true?)
c.
Agrees that
bringing in science as Carlson does gets you objectivity
i.
E.g., Whale a
clumsy fish or impressive mammal
d.
But can get
objectivity w/o science (w/o seeing nature appreciation as a type of natural
history)
e.
Can reject the
view that it is appropriate to appreciate nature any way one wants
(subjectivism) even if this appreciation is emotion based
8. BMBN can
have objectivity for emotions have objectivity (257-258)
a. As an emotional state, BMBN is appropriate or not
b. Appropriateness is the truth (objectivity) of emotions
i.
Being amused
by suffering of babies inappropriate
ii.
Laughing at
Munch’s the scream is an inappropriate emotional response
c. Emotions are cognitive (they are underpinned by
beliefs, thoughts and patterns of attention)
d. Emotions are directed at objects
i.
Some emotions
appropriately directed at some objects and others not
ii.
Fear of
oncoming tank (appropriate)
iii.
Fear of
chicken soup (inappropriate)
1. Unless you believe it is poisoned
9. Objective
emotions are those where
a. The emotion is appropriate for its object
b. The beliefs
underlying the emotion are ones reasonable for others to share
10.
Emotions
directed at nature can be objective (or not)
a. Being excited by the grandeur of something (e.g., Tetons)
one believes is of large scale is appropriate
b. If the belief in its large scale is reasonable for
others to hold, it is an objective emotional arousal (not subjective,
distorted, or wayward)
c. Person who says Tetons are not of a large scale is
either
i.
Irrational
ii.
Has wrong
comparison class (Tetons are not large scale because they are tiny compared to
the Galaxy)
d. Person who says they are large scale but not exciting
has inappropriate emotional response
11.
Thus, Carroll’s emotional arousal model
(BMBN) can allow for objectivity in aes app of nature as does Carlson’s
naturalists knowledge model (NEM)
12.
Carroll
thinks one can be appro moved by nature even with false beliefs about it
i.
Contra
Carlson’s idea that appro app of nature requires naturalist knowledge of nature
ii.
Carroll
argues that knowledge needn’t be relevant for even false belief is okay
b. Examples
i.
Excited by
grandeur of size, force, water displaced of a blue whale and believe it is a
fish. Not inappro.
ii.
Moved by
skeleton of T-rex and not know if it is a reptile, bird, or mammal
iii.
Don’t both these examples involve some scientific (or
at least relatively sophisticated common sense) knowledge?
c. Notice
that Carroll’s examples are ones where
the false belief does not influence the aesthetic response
i.
When the false belief affects the aes response, it is
not clear that the response is appro when based on false belief
ii.
Examples:
1. A awesome rat
or a cute woodchuck?
2. An awkward
deer or a graceful moose?
13.
Carroll’s
response to Carlson’s implicit criticism that BMBN is not a deep aesthetic
response
a.
Carlson might say
BMBN is not inappropriate, but rather simply a shallow, trivial, mere enjoyment
of nature and not the serious deep appreciation of naturalists (whose
appreciation is informed by knowledge)
b. Carroll’s
reply:
c.
If “deep” means
objective, not simply enjoying nature whatever way one pleases, then show that
BMBN has objectivity and is deep in this sense
d. If “deep” means time/length of appreciation, okay
perhaps BMBN is less deep in this sense, as naturalists appreciation can go on
and on as she learns more and emotional arousal ends quickly
e. If “deep” means intensity of involvement, the BMBN is
just as deep, perhaps deeper, than scientific-based app
f. We will be
reading an article by Hepburn where he explores the meaning of shallow
versus deep in the aes app of nature
14.
BMBN is not
some displaced religious feeling but can be explained naturalistically as built
in by natural selection
a. Those who had positive emotional responses
environments that we prospered in
(savannahs) prospered, those who didn’t and like harmful environments
(jungles) didn’t survive.
b.
BMBN is “between
religion and natural history”