Focus on particular objects (a stone, a butterfly) in isolation
Whether or not we appreciate natural objects in or out of their natural
setting does not matter as focusing only on the object (in isolation)
Could put stone on mantel or pin butterfly on the wall
The landscape model
Focus on a "view" or vista rather than a discrete object
Something seen from a fixed point (outside of what is viewed)
Sometimes (but not necessarily) focus on spectacular scenes (such as views from scenic
turnouts on highways)
But model does not require this focus on the scenic (here Stecker's account
differs from Carlson's account of landscape model)
Artwork model:
Should app nature as an artwork (either literally as God's art or "as if" it were an artwork)
Why app nature as if art?
Because art app is our only real model of aes app, so if we want
to aes app nature, better treat it as art
Stecker would reject this and so should we: People appreciated natural beauty before they appreciated art; appreciation of natural beauty is a paradigm for aesthetic appreciation
"Is nature an artwork?" (Namely, God's artwork?)
Two assumptions
(1) There is an intelligent designer of the nature
(2) This intelligent designer created nature as an artwork (in
way similar to how artists create artworks, only much better)
(1) does not imply (2).
Lots of things are created but are not artworks
God could
have created nature but not as an artwork (but as a home for
humans and other creatures)
Reason for thinking (2) is false
When artists create artworks they create the particular art
object
But when God created nature, God created it to operate
according to general laws
God did not directly create specific
parts of nature that we might appreciate, such as beech trees on a
ridge
What explains the origin of the beech trees on the ridge is
forest ecology, nature of beech trees, laws of biology
Not that God produced the forest directly, though God may well have produced general laws and the original material from which they were made
"DISTORTION OBJECTION" (Severe and modest versions)
Severe: All above models distort/misrepresent proper app and should be
rejected
"As if artwork" model app nature as if it was an artifact, but it isn't
and when we see a sunset we aren't appreciating it as if someone painted it
Object model treats natural object like a stone in isolation from the
env. in which it has an organic unity and thus is likely to hide aes
relevant properties and distort others (in
isolation, it might appear solid and represent permanence, but on the scree slope where it was found, it would
not)
Landscape model falsely treats nature as if two dimensional, cuts us
off from multi sensual engagement with nature, and ignores that we
move around in nature by requiring a fixed point of view outside
nature
Impressionist model falsely treats nature as mere patterns of light and
sound or color and shape
"EVALUATING THE DISTORTION OBJECTION"
Stecker's general response is that though these models are partial, selective, aesthetic responses to nature, they do not distort; in particular, that they are partial, does not mean they distort
Object model does not distort; it merely selects certain features of
nature to pay attention to
Not clear such selective attention is improper
To appreciate some but not other properties of an object is not to
distort it but to appreciate it selectively
Not distorting to admire pale pink color and three petal/three
leaf pattern
Those with knowledge of the trillium and its connection to the
environment might appreciate it differently or have enhanced
appreciation
Know that pink flowers are near the end of their bloom compared with
white flowers
Realize lucky to see it because its blooming season is so short
See the flowers as evidence of fruit to come
See the flowers and think of the morels that are likely to be around at same time
But those who app only the flower in isolation--though they may miss
these appreciating enhancing properties--don't attribute to it
properties that it doesn't have
But such selective partial appreciation can lead to distortion, as was the case with
the isolated rock thought to express permanence and solidity of nature which it does
not express when it is appreciated in its context on the scree slope
This is precisely Patricia Matthews' point about the importance of knowledge: Without appreciation being informed by knowledge one can't know if one's appreciative response is inappropriate (will be reversed with more knowledge)
Landscape model and impressionist model also promote selective
appreciations that need not distort
Merely promote a selective appreciation of limited properties of
nature and are not distortions
Winter snow field example: Ignoring that it is a winter field covered with snow reflecting the
sunset that is responsible for the pinks, golds, and grays that I'm attending
too (impressionist model) does not distort anything. These colors really are
presented.
Stecker himself notes that pinks and golds are normally considered to be warm colors; knowing that they are colors of a snowfield would make them appear/feel colder
Worry: Is this like going to a symphony and listening only to the French
Horns instead of the entire ensemble? Nothing wrong with doing that
for a while, but if this is all one did and ignored the relations of those
horns with the other instruments and ignored the sound of the music
as a whole, such a selective appreciation would be impoverished (if
not distorted)
Stecker thinks it implausible to treat these models as saying they individually
are the only way to correctly appreciate nature
Each provides a legitimate way to partially appreciate nature;
none is the only way
Are they too incomplete to be legitimate?
"THE ENV. MODEL" (Carlson's model)
Offered as a more complete, and comprehensive account of nature
app and thus superior to the others
Two features:
(1) Holism: Object of app not confined to discrete objects, views, or
impressions, but to an object-in-an-environment (or a collection objects that
form a part of env.).
(2) Knowledge: Properties of these objects to be app should be picked out
by science or commonsense knowledge of env., and if not so selected, the appreciative response is
malfounded or inappropriate
Carlson: "To aes app nature we must have knowledge of the different environments
and systems and elements in those environments"
Technical scientific knowledge required? Or ordinary common sense knowledge enough?
Versions of env. model
(1) Immersion approach: Immerse oneself in nature with all one
senses alive and take in as much of a given env. as possible
(Berleant's Aesthetics of Engagement)
(2) & (3) Ecological & order approach: Appreciate the relations of
dependence in the env and the causes the produce and sustain the
objects in nature
Stecker thinks all these models have value and denies env. model is
comprehensive and superior
Argues that we should take these three versions of env. model as
legitimate but also all the earlier ones to get an even more
comprehensive env. aesthetics.
Sees env. model as adding some important options for appreciation
(immersion, order app) not available in earlier models, instead of
finding a way of unifying all of these models under a single idea and
showing the inappropriateness of alternatives
"KNOWLEDGE AND NATURE APP"
Overview of questions Stecker addresses about the role of knowledge in aes
app of nature
(and his answers)
When and how does knowledge enhance aes app of nature?
Is there some minimum of required knowledge for such app to be proper or
appropriate?
(Yes, but is is minor)
Should appreciation based on false belief be regarded as
essentially flawed?
(Only when we should be expected to have
that knowledge and it affects our perception)
Are there norms of nature app so we can say some attempts at app are
malfounded, improper, or inappropriate?
(Yes, but they are weak)
Is the app of nature really aes app?
(?It can be, but it might also
involve a different kind of app than aesthetic.)
Knowledge can both enhance and sometimes irrevocably alter our app exp of
nature
Knowledge can allows us to perceive nature in more complex ways
Examples:
If under how tidal pools work, see little interconnected world
Lack this knowledge, may see merely a collection of objects
Naturalists (or people who hunt/fish) look at environments as habitats for
animals and see these areas in more fine grained ways than someone
who merely looks at them for a view
Knowledge can "thicken" one's enjoyment
Examples:
Flower in spring indicates certain state of spring when other natural
objects appear; can indicate things to come (blossoms indicate fruit)
Knowledge that the pink trillium is a later (and end) stage of a white one
makes one more appreciative of seeing it
Knowledge can irrevocably alter ones perception
When one becomes familiar with a species and knows which is
deformed or diseased and which is unusually fine
Some knowledge that has bearing on app clearly changes one's very perception of
nature
Some claims this is the unique requirement on knowledge that is relevant to
app nature--Matthews 2002
(That is, if knowledge does not alter perception, it is not relevant.)
Stecker rejects this: some knowledge enhances appreciation but does not alter
perception (e.g., knowledge that blooming of trillium foreshadows appearance
of morels; instead it enhances one's immersion in a complex natural
env)
Some knowledge does not enhance app
Doubts that knowing chemical basis of change in trillium color
enhances app
But doesn't think we can predict that it never will
Value of knowledge of nature is relative:
That knowledge can enhance and alter app of nature for individuals doesn't imply
must do so uniformly across all individuals
He doubts that new information given to similarly knowledgeable
individuals will have uniform affect on their app exp
People disposed to respond in different ways
Ignores that there are two questions here
How in fact people will respond
How they should respond (assuming there are better and worse ways
to aes respond to nature given new information)
Perhaps certain knowledge should enhance and alter aes
response in certain ways, even if for some/many it does not
Stecker rejects (for the most part) the idea that there is a minimum of
required knowledge for nature appreciation to be proper or appropriate
Just appreciating the surface features of a clump of flowers or a
snowfield (as in impressionist model) is not to appreciate nature in an
inappropriate way
Improper or impoverished? But if we change the language from "improper" or "inappropriate"
appreciation to "partial" rather than full, "shallow" rather than deep, or
"impoverished" rather than enriched or enhanced, then perhaps some knowledge (sometimes?) will be required for these better sorts of appreciation
Stecker himself says such knowledge can enhance aes app of nature
Should appreciation based on false belief be regarded as essentially flawed?
If so, then some knowledge is required.
Stecker argues that certain sorts of false belief permit genuine appreciation
if one is faultless in holding them (or does so for good reasons)
People of earlier times had all sorts of false beliefs about the human body, but it is ridiculous to think this prevented them from appreciating the beauty of the human body
In earlier times people faultless in their false belief that whales were
fish, and so they could still appreciate the beauty of these creature
Stecker unsure if true but finds plausible the idea that where false belief is
easily avoidable and where such knowledge changes our perception then
proper app requires such knowledge
Common knowledge that whales are not fish and if this alters our perception of
whales, we can require this for proper appreciation of them
Large sea animal (whale) might look clumsy (oafish) if thought to be a fish, but graceful if a mammal (suggests Carlson)
Thus aesthetic properties perceived can change depending on categorization.
More technical and recondite knowledge (even if it alters perception?) is not required
for proper ("non bogus") appreciation
But might it be required for the best sort of appreciation?
"ARE THERE NORMS OF NATURE APPRECIATON?"
Norms tell us what we should do
Stecker thinks norms of nature appreciation are weak though not nonexistence
Some knowledge needed for proper nature appreciation, but this is mostly observational
rather than theoretical scientific knowledge, with exception of scientific concepts that have
become part of common knowledge.
"There is enormous leeway in the knowledge we must bring to nature in
order to properly app nature"
Additional knowledge can enhance or alter our appreciation but it is usually
optional whether we employ such knowledge
If knowledge can enhance app, and if our norm is "better, enhanced
app" then we need to use that knowledge (but not if the norm
in question is "proper app")
Again, consider Matthews claim that until we have the additional knowledge we can't be sure that our aesthetic responses are appropriate, for such knowledge may lead us to revise them.
Should not assume that knowledge is the only factor that constrains how we
should aes appreciate
For example, Emily Brady claims we need multi sensuous
engagement and to use imagination.
ENV HARM AND ENV AES VALUE
Does knowledge about env. harmful affects of an env. object affect its
aesthetic value?
Purple Loosestrife in bloom seems obviously beautiful w/o knowledge that
it is an invasive exotic
It is an introduced garden plant that escaped and takes over
and dries up wetlands and provides poor habitat and food for wildlife
compared to the natives it out competes
Some people report that when they learn what purple loosestrife does
to the environment their aes experience changes (no longer think it beautiful)
Has this knowledge corrected their judgment of the scene's beauty by
changing their experience?
Sunsets we find most beautiful caused by refractions of light
due to higher than normal particles in the air
A typical cause of increase in particles is air pollution
"So sunsets we typically appreciate most are caused by air pollution"
This does not follow from the above
What follows is that some (perhaps many or even most?) of the
most beautiful sunsets are (or could be?) caused (to some extent) by air
pollution
Does this change our experience of sunsets and should it alter our
judgment of their beauty?
Two typical responses to apparent env beauty that involves env harm
Cease to find them beautiful
Continue to find them beautiful, but deplore them on ethical grounds
No uniform change in exp across observers sensitive to env. issues
This is an empirical claim, but what is really at stake is the normative
one of which of these is a better or the proper response (if either)?
The empirical observation does not settle the normative issue
Stecker takes the side that they are still beautiful, but ethically bad
Should (morally) get rid of the loosestrife and those sunsets, but we
are sacrificing something, namely beautiful sights
One could grant this sacrifice and still say that the objects are
not beautiful (thought "the sights" are)
Our tendency to believe only ugly things cause env. harm misleads us
here
But if ethics can sometimes be integrated into aesthetic responses/judgments, then one might judge pollution sunsets and purple loosestrife as not aesthetically positive (beautiful)
Consider Matthews' case of a multi-colored patch on a child's face: Do we really want to say that something beautiful is lost when we prevent the child abuse that leads to this?
"WHEN IS NATURE APP AESTHETIC?"
Three considerations/answers
(1) When it is the appreciation of aesthetic properties
Behavioral features (stillness, fragility, or grace)
Second-order perceptual features (vivid or gaudy)
Some of these (being graceful) are more specific,
descriptive value properties than general value properties like beauty
Some purely descriptive (sad)
No negative value here?
According to the view under consideration (app of nature is aesthetic when it is the app of aesthetic properties), recognizing the more general value properties (beauty) depends on
perceiving other properties on the list above (all of which are aesthetic)
These properties are in turn taken in by perceiving non-aes perceptual (base)
properties (such as color and shape)
Aesthetic properties do not include color and shape
Perceptual ("lower level," "first order," "base") properties like color and shape
Stecker thinks aes properties not that (or always) important to aes app:
Much of our aes exp of nature does not seem to involve less general aes
properties but judgments of beauty based directly on first order perceptual
properties or second order non aes properties
My app of trillium bound up with delight in color and shape closely
observed
Neither color nor shape are aesthetic properties (but non-aes base properties)
But not clear referring to aes property of stillness but to a first
order perception of lack of movement on surface of lake
Since no taste or sensitivity is required (and this is
needed if taking in aes properties according to some), one is not experiencing an aesthetic property
Sometimes our app of nature involves aes properties:
Enjoy vivid colors of fall, the graceful movement of deer, and
grotesque appearance of bare apple trees
But recognition of aes properties is optional, as many exp of nature involve
aes app w/o noting the descriptively thicker aes properties
Thus Stecker rejects idea aes app is defined by app of aes properties
(2) Nature app is aesthetic when it involves aes experience
Aes exp is attention to formal (arrangements of parts, repetitions of shapes),
sensuous, meaning properties of objects valued for
their own sake
Env. objects have natural meanings (like causal
connections of human significance --blossoms indicating fruit--or cultural
meanings),
Stecker adds to the above three properties structural or etiological properties (involved in "order appreciation")
Importance of close observation and knowledge of observable
properties
Possibility of app being enhanced by additional knowledge
Optional or variable importance of aes properties
(3) If app of nature modeled on art app, then some app of nature need not be aes
(as some app of art is not aesthetic) (and it involves more than aes app)
Which means there can be non-aes app of nature just like non
aes app of art (artistic app?)
For art
Have to bring certain categories to art app (intention, convention,
style, genre, context) to property identify aes features of artworks
Artistic value not limited to aesthetic value (value proper to good art
includes aes value but also cognitive value, art-historical value, ethical value, etc)
For app of nature must find analogues of these
More complex set of criteria of proper nature app (than merely aesthetic)
Result might be more constrained conception of appropriate aes exp of
nature
Perhaps appreciation of nature is more complex than simply deriving aes value from
observing and interacting with nature
As with art, ethical, cognitive and other considerations might be
relevant to proper conception of nature appreciation and not just aesthetic considerations
Might justify ideas that env. model is the correct model of nature app or that
ethical considerations are important for such app
He doubts that could successfully argue that for proper app of nature we
have to bring in the specific mix of considerations mentioned above
He thinks that a hybrid, several factor type of appreciation is another
option we have for appreciating nature
"SUMMARY/CONCLUSION"
Most models of app nature are legitimate
No one correct model of nature app, for nature is so diverse and unlike art
no guiding intentions or conventions to narrow our focus
MISCELLANEOUS
What is wrong with the idea that "something is art if it is a beautiful
thing"
Plenty of non beautiful art (art that aims at something other than the
beautiful, e.g., to be shocking, or bad art)
Human artifacts that are beautiful, but not art: cars, utensils, math
proofs
Beautiful nature is not art, unless you believe it is God's art (both
produced by God and produce by God with artistic aims)
Formalism: To properly appreciate an artwork (or nature) one should attend
to its form rather than content, where form is conceived as something
immediately available to the senses (independent of background knowledge)
Formalism in nature app claims proper app of nature should be
confined to properties/appearances immediately available to the
senses, w/o reliance on background knowledge (like science)
Tempting to think
Beauty in nature is the main thing we value (where as beauty in art is
not).
Beauty in nature simpler than in art. Stares you in the face
Env aes includes nature aes but also aes of humanized environments
Our ability to discriminate beauty is determined by
Availability: if mountains and ridges available, hard to find cornfields
beautiful.
If only cornfields available, will learn to find more beauty
in some than others
