Allen Carlson: Appreciation and the Natural Env. 1979 JAAC Ch 4 A&E

APPRECIATION REQUIRES KNOWING WHAT AND HOW TO APP
What: What is object of app and what is not; what are its parts and what is it a part of
How: Acts of aspection (=what you do when appreciate aes)
For Art, answers clear (what aes relevant/not relevant)

Sound of piano, not coughing
That a painting is graceful, its color; not that it hangs in the Louvre

Dif aes objects, require dif acts of aspection:

How drink brandy vs how drink beer
Look not smell to a painting

What explains this kn for art?

We made it, so know what it is, its parts, its purpose and what to do with it.
By knowing type of art, we know what and how to app it

WHAT GROUNDS THE WHAT AND HOW TO APP NATURE, GIVEN THAT IT'S NOT OUR CREATION?

Two artistic paradigms

Object and Landscape Models-and

Carlson's NEM

OBJECT MODEL

Natural objects like non-rep sculpture

No rep connection, no relational connection to surroundings
App its sensuous and design (order) qual and abstract expressive qual:
Driftwood on shelf
Answers the what/how questions

Carlson rejects two versions of object model

N.O are found art, ready mades

This is to appreciate art, not nature
"App sculpture that was once driftwood is no closer to app nature than app a totem pole that was once a tree"

N.O. viewed as N.O. (not art) while being actually/contemplatively isolated

N.O., unlike art objects, can't be appreciated in isolation from context of creation and display
N.O. context of creation and existence essential to proper app of them
Removing NO affects its aes qualities

Rock on the mantel loses qualities it had in env. (expressive of forces that shaped it and its relation to place)
Might even get aes qualities (solidity) that it didn't have in its env.

Can app object of nature in this way: a rock or piece of driftwood

Actually or contemplatively remove it from its surroundings and dwell on sensuous, design, and expressive qual
Nat objects often so app: mantel pieces littered with rock and driftwood
Nat objects like non-rep sculpture do not have rep ties to rest of reality
This involves using an accepted, traditional aes approach to the app of nature

Rejects object model:

App objects of nature ans not nature

Nature has indeterminate form, though objects in it have dt form, but if direct attention to them,
But we have to app pieces of nature, don't we, can't app all of nature at once

One version of object model turns objects of nature into found art (ready made(s) art);

Like artistic enfanchisement turned Duchamp's urinal into Fountain,

So too a piece of driftwood becomes art

Get answers to what and now to app

But App of nature lost, now appreciating art

Conversion from nature to art/artifact is complete
Take a piece of driftwood, put it on a mantel, app it
We've turned it into art (converted it into an artifact) and no longer are appreciating nature,

Dif version of object model: (Continue to view as a natural object)

Still actually or contemplatively remove natural objects from surroundings but they remain natural objects and don't become art
Don't consider rock on mantel as ready-made sculpture but as an aes pleasing rock;
App object not qua art objects but as natural objects
Our app limited to sensuous and design and expressive qual of rock: smooth, gracefully curved and expresses solidity

If remove an a aesthetically self-contained art object from the env of its creation and display, won't affect it aes qualities
But natural objects have an organic unity with their environments of creation/existence which are relevant to aes app of them

Env of creation are aes relevant to natural objects, as they are part of and developed out of elements of their env by means of forces at work there
So too are the env of display equally relevant

Removing natural object affects its aes qualities
E.G.: The rock on the mantel may express different qualities when it its env-

Expressive of forces that shape it, its relation to its place, and even qualities it has when removed-expressive of solidity, may disappear when in its env.
Isolating them thus leads to mistakes

Object model ignores a large part of what is aes appreciable about the natural object.

PICTURESQUE (-picture like; SCENERY CULT'S KEY CONCEPT) LANDSCAPE MODEL OF AES APP NATURE

Landscape model suggests perceive nature as if landscape painting:

Usually as grand prospect (suitable for taking a picture of) seen from specific standpoint and distance
Nature is divided into scenes, aiming at an ideal dictated by art, esp landscape painting (Claude glass helped them see landscape as they would art)
Centers attention on those aes qualities of color and design that are seen best at a distance

When aes app a landscape painting, or any rep painting, emphasis is not on actual object (painting), nor on the object represented (the landscape), rather on the rep of the object and its rep features

For landscape painting, app emphasis on those qualities that play essential role in rep a prospect: visual qualities related to coloration and overall design

Some Ethical Criticisms of This Model

R. Rees criticizes the "scenery cult" for "it is an unfortunate lapse which allows us to abuse our local environments and venerate the Alps and the Rockies."

Carlson attributes this to the picturesque or landscape model of aes of nature.
It seems to me this is a new dimension and doesn't follow from scenery cult concept in the previous chapter
This is James' dramatic landscape idea-the picturesque?

Aesthetic criticism of landscape model

Reduces env to a scene or view, but env. is not a rep, not static, not two dimensional;
So has us app it for what it is not and so model is inappro to nature of object of app
This model limits our appreciation (it limits us to visual qual like color and overall design) also misleads us

Assumes nature made for our pleasure "A special form of arrogance in exp nature in the cats of art-involves acceptance that natural elements arranged for sake of man's aes pleasure.

Like art objects

Confirmed our anthro by suggesting nature exists to please as well as serve us
Kant said "it is we who receive nature with favor and not nature that does us a favor"
But flower color and odor has been fashioned to organisms are attracted to flowers.

NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL MODEL: NEM

LM is inadequate as inapp to nature of natural env
So to see how to app nat env must consider its nature
NEM: app natural env. (1) as an env. and (2) as natural

There is something right about idea that if you try to app something in a manner appropriate for something else which it isn't then, then you are likely to app in a manner inappro to it.

Env. is something we are a sentient part of, our surroundings, our background

Our relation to it is self to setting, not subject to object or traveler to scene
It is something we take for granted, hardly notice and nec unobtrusive

If a part becomes obtrusive, in danger of being seen as an object

That nat env is an unobtrusive background suggests implications for what and how to app

What: everything, for an essentially unobtrusive setting there seems little basis for including and excluding
How: those ways in which we normally are aware of and exp our surroundings

Eye and ear loose privilege, use all senses
Like an animal fully present to the senses or like a child?

But Carlson argues we can't app anything that is only an unobtrusive background

Agrees with Dewey that anything aes app must be obtrusive and must be foreground
Ned: we have to pay attention to it

And we can't app everything; need to focus our attention

Must be limits and emphases in aes app of nature as in art
W/o limits get Jamesian blooming buzzing confusion;
not aes exp and not even app

So how do we get this focus?

Nat env. is natural, not a work of art so
Nature has no boundaries or foci of aes sig given as a result of our creation or our knowledge due to being involved in that creation

That nature is natural, not our creation doesn't mean we have no kn of it

We can discover things about nature even thought not created/involved in it
Can know lots about it: common sense/sci kn

Common sense/sci knowledge is what substitutes for kn of types of art, artistic traditions, and provides the focus of aes attention

It is the only viable candidate for playing the role concerning app of nature our kn of types of art, artistic traditions, plays for art
The issue is how important is it to find a substitute on a par with art?
And then are there other candidates: Brady, for ex., says imagination.

Common sense/sci knowledge allows us to take the meld of sensations of nature and transform them from raw exp, "blooming, buzzing confusion" into a meaningful determinate aes experience

An exp in which kn and intelligence transform raw exp into something determinate, harmonious, and meaningful

To aes app an env, we exp our surroundings as obtrusive foreground, allowing our kn of that env to select certain foci of aes sig and perhaps exclude others, thereby limiting the exp

Why can't let chance dt our foci?

This kn gives us

the appropriate foci of aes sig
appro boundaries of the setting
And allows our exp becomes one of aes app

For example: For aes app, must recognize the smell of the hay and that of the horse dung and perhaps dist between them, must feel the ant at least as an insect rather than as a twitch

Such recognizing and distinguishing results in aspects of obtrusive foreground becoming foci of aes sig

Lets us for example include sounds of cicadas and exclude sound of distant traffic (like exclude coughing in concert hall)

Since aes app certain kind of env.

If we find an Indian arrow head, should we exclude that from aes app of nature, because it is not nature?

Just as to aes app art need kn of dif traditions and styles within, so to aes app nature must have
Need kn of dif envs of nature and systems and elements within those envs not just for appropriate aes of nature,

But for any aes app, for we need some mechanism for selecting and focusing
He is saying that a person from ghetto of NY city who knew nothing about dif env. and systems of nature would have no aes app when went to rainforest?

Just as art critic and art historian are well equipped to aes app art,

naturalist and ecologist well equipped to aes app nature

KN ALLOWS US TO USE DIFFERENT ACTS OF ASPECTION FOR DIF NATURAL ENVS

And tell us what to look for and sense in dif environments

Dif acts of aspection prairie and forest

Survey a prairie,

look at subtle contours of land,

feel wind blowing across open space,

smell mix of prairie grasses and flowers

Such act of aspection have little place in a dense forest env

Here we must examine and scrutinize, inspect the detail of forest floor, listen carefully for sounds of birds, smell carefully for scent of spruce and pine

Do the acts of aspection not differ all that much but their content does?

It's our kn of those env. that tell us what acts of aspection to use..

Sum of NEM

Nature is an env, a setting in which we exist and normally exp with complete range of senses as an unobtrusive background

For exp to be aes requires unobtrusive background to be exp as obtrusive foreground

The result is the exp of blooming, buzzing confusion

To app it we must temper it by kn we have discovered about that natural env.

Our kn of the nature of particular envs yields

appro boundaries of app,

particular foci of aes sig and

relevant acts of aspection for that type of env

Ned's concerns about argument need to turn booming buzzing confusion into coherent experience

But this is just the point that mere sensation w/o concepts is a blooming buzzing confusion.

So in order to experience our sense coherently it follows we experience them aesthetically?

All this gets you is concepts, not sci knowledge

Miscellaneous

Suggests that natural objects don't have representational ties with rest of nature 43

Like the tango/waltz example;

to criticize the mountain west for lack of vegetation which we are missing is also inappropriate

For them to fulfill this purpose must have this kn

Worry that env. has been human influenced so app it for it's being natural will lead to app mistakes.

How does this fit with his stuff about env. aesthetics and appreciating humanized environments

How to appreciate

Exp our background setting in all ways normally do, sight, touch smell, etc;

But must exp it not as unobtrusive background, but obtrusive foreground

Dewey suggests we exp it like an animal fully present to its senses

YiFu Tuan suggests like a child;

Slip into old clothes so free to stretch out on hay beside brook and bathe in meld of physical sensations

NEM does follow general structure of aes app of art

Quest of what to aes app in natural env to be answered analogous to similar questions art;

Dif is that relevant kn is common sense /sci kn of natural env. in question