Brady, Chapter 7: Aes Judge of Nat Env and Aes Communication

• Chapter attempts to establish the objectivity of aes judge of nature
• General points about Brady's objectivty
• Some type of obj is essential if aes value is to be taken seriously in env planning and policy
• Rejects idea that aes value is mere personal pref/mere expression of personal taste
• Instead it is a matter of rational aes judge
• Own experiences do matter, so she defends objectivity as intersubjective validity of aes judge not rigid objectivity which leaves out subjective dimensions entirely
• Obj Aes Judge-Aes Justification-Aes Comm-Aes Ed: Are all tied together
• Objectivity of aes judgements comes from practice/explanation of aes justification and involves strong relation to aes communication and aes education to enable discovery of aes value in env.
• A simple argument against aes judgment as mere personal pref or expression of personal taste
• We argue about aes judgments and we would not do this if mere personal taste.
• "I like vanilla better than chocolate" (mere personal taste)
• No one would try to argue with me
• Since we do argue about aes judge--that was a great movie-not it stunk-we are not simply stating our personal preferences
• Brady likes Kant's idea that we can "demand" or expect agreement on our aes judgments
• Brady adopts moderate aes realism
• Strong aes realism: aes properties objective and non-relational (intrinsic); their existence is not dependent on our aes judgement about them and the values and beliefs we hold
• Moderate aes realism: aes properties are relational (to the subject of aes exp?) and supervene on non-aes objective properties
• Anti-realists about aesthetic properties: deny independent and real status of aes properties, play up relational character of aes judge and stress disagreement even among skilled judges
• Brady rejects a Humean idea that there are ideal judges (and a standard of taste) of aes value that settle the objective truth of aes judgments
• These judges or "true critics" who are free from defects of taste, including lack of good sense, failure of practice, failure to make comparisons, prejudices/biases
• But she does use a lot of these ideas in her own articulation of objectivity!
• She objects to Hume's idea that these rules/principles can be established via empirical observation, generalization and induction.


• KEY DIMENSIONS OF BRADY'S VERSION OF OBJECTIVITY
• Brady's objectivity stresses explanation and justification, rather than reference to a standard of truth (as in Hume or Carlson?)
• Rejects Carlson's objectivity that appeals to natural science to ground aes judgments as correct or true
• I'm not even sure how this would work?
• Objectivity w/o truth: Aes responses are acceptable (or not) not because true or false but because reasonable and understandable (and explainable and communicable)
• Reasonableness not found in scientific standard of correctness nor in professional/expert nature critics
• NOT RELY ON EXPERT KN
• Rely on sensitive perception for noticing and discerning aes qualities
• Does Brady in the end appeal to a type of aesthetic expertise (that rules out your average Joe?)
• But in explanations and justifications for aes judgements that appeal to a range of sources
• Aes responses not private, but shareable and communicable (while retaining their individuality)
• Brady accepts critical pluralism
• Range of acceptable interpretations according to reasonableness and relevance (not just truth and falsity)
• Instead of a single correct interpretation, may be a set of interpretations that make sense
• Does not accept eccentric or idiosyncratic interpretations
• So there are also a range of unacceptable interpretations


• BRADY'S USE OF SIBLEY ON AES EXPLANATION/JUSTIFICATION
• 3 features of Sibley's aes evaluation
• One: non-aes description
• No aes sensitivity required and agreement is expected
• Tree has a full rounded shape or piece of moss is green and wet
• Two: Aes description
• The horse moves gracefully
• The desert sand ripples like a vast ocean
• Need aes sensitivity and discrimination and poss of disagreement increases
• This capacity to discern aes qualities is common among normal perceivers
• Three: Overall verdicts
• Aes judgment express general verdict or evaluation of aes object
• What a magnificent horse


• Supervenience and color analogy
• Supervenience of aes qual on non-aes qualities (non aes qualities determine aes qualities): Any change in non-aes qualities cause change in aes qualities
• This is how we explain our aes des
• But never infer from existence of set of nonaes qual that a particular aes quality exists
• No rules or standards of this sort
• Not a science, no inference from general criteria
• Don't give inferential reasons for aes judge but rather explanatory reasons
• Aes qualities are like color qualities in being relational and about which we expect agreement
• Aes qualities are secondary qualities (as are color qualities) and thus they are relational involving a perceiver in relation to sense data
• Aes not independent of human perceivers
• As with colors, we expect others will recognize same aes qualities we do
• Some variation and disagreement about colors, but more so with aes qualities



• Two stages in process of justification of aes judge
• One: Explanation
• Appreciator points out where aes and nonaes qual lie and why object has aes character that it does
• Aes app is enriched and deepened as a result of such articulation
• Two: Justification
• Mainly involves perceptual "proof" (this includes imagination and emotion too)
• It is not a rational (or irrational); not reason giving
• Try to help others see and judge aes qualities for themselves
• Point out a quality overlooked or relationship between nonaes and aes quality missed
• Might be unsuccessful.
• A public persuasive method that gets one some objectivity
• Justification involves 7 critical activities
• Uses example of Lancaster Canal as having an aes character of pastoral , yet eclectic, beauty
• One: Pointing out nonaes qualities
• Mixture of human and natural elements (canal boats and elegant swans) to show it isn't pristine or attractive in conventional way
• Mixture of built and natural features to support judgment of canal as having a comfortable, familiar and unthreatening feeling about it because it is on a human scale
• Two: Directly mention aes qual
• Notice the elegant swans or listen to soft sound of canal boat
• Smell the complex and wonderfully intermingled scent in the air-it brings together town and country in one whiff
• Three: Linking remarks about aes and nonaes features
• The common occurrence of swans contributes to the elegant and pastoral aspect of canal as a hole
• Four: Use of metaphors to bring out aes qualities
• Canal is a green life-line between nature and culture
• The ducks are real comedians (helps to find expression in their movement)
• Five: Use contrasts, comparisons, and reminiscences in reference to aes qual
• Compare this canal (which is small scale) to other much larger canals with steep mountains on each side; latter more grand and dramatic, even sublime
• Personal experiences of walking or jogging along the canal and what happened, the mood, sighting of tern, practices of fishermen
• Or use stories of the place told by others
• Use of narrative to help explain why found particular qualities in this place
• Six: Repeating (and reiteration) earlier points with some variation
• Persuasive part
• Take companion back to the place several times
• Seven: Role of appropriate gestures, tones of voice, expression, nods, looks; it is a performance
• Encourages discovery of aes qualities
• Sounds more like rhetoric and not philosophical justification


• There is some role for subjectivity in this critical exercise that involves a sort of objectivity
• Allows imagination, emotion, and individual background exp as these may reasonable enter into kinds of explanation and support
• Imaginative and expressive qualities are connected closely enough to aes and non aes qualities to be part of aes judgment
• Which subjective elements ruled out?
• Irrelevant or eccentric imaginativeand emotional linkages are ruled out
• Critical explanation and discussion enables the recognition of judgments that are largely out of sync with other appreciators
• Does this mean that the majority or vast majority of appreciators can't be wrong about their responses and that any response that is "largely out of sync with typical appreciators" is ruled out as inappropriate or irrelevant?
• This does not seem to fit with her arguments later about better and worse critical assessment



• REASONS FOR DIVERGENCE IN AES JUDGE
• Lots of agreement
• Anti-objectivism (e.g., beauty is in the eye of the beholder language) usually overstate extent of disagreement
• More consensus in aes judge than opponents admit, especially about great works of art and architecture and great landscapes
• "There have been psychological and sci studies indicating widespread cross-cultural agreement concerning preferences for both artworks and landscapes"
• Seriously question judgment of someone wh found Chartres Cathedral or the Grand Canyon ugly
• Are some exemplars of excellence in art and beauty in nature
• There is commonality in our underlying cognitive-sensory-affective make up
• (But she says "overstatement to say aes universals across cultures or even within them")
• But divergence in judgments exists and many deep disagreements are never settled
• She doesn't think this shows aes judge of nature are strongly relative or subjective; still have objectivity
• Four types of reasons behind such disagreement that will allow us to explain away a good deal of disagreement (thought not all)
• Includes reasons for being able or unable to discern aes qual
• One: Inappropriate attention (regarding aes object or aes qualities)
• not paying attention through lack of interest or distraction
• Or paying attention in a superficial or careless way
• Paying keen attention but not directed appro: miss atmosphere of forest if they focused on floor anticipating next sighting of a mushroom
• Two: differences in experience
• Cultural dif in appreciative contexts
• Dif in background knowledge and exp of aes object
• more/less practice of aes criticism (which results in weaker and stronger ability to discern aes qual
• To someone used to forested landscapes, Scottish Highlands may appear denuded and barren
• A critical blind spot due to lack of exp of type of environment
• Lack of exp of an aes object often results in failing to locate aes qualities, especially in cases of "unscenic nature"
• Accustom to grand views may be unable to find aes value in something that at first glance is unfamiliar or not striking
• Wetlands/bogs for ex, might only discover aes qualities with help of someone who has exp them
• More or less practice in aes criticism
• Through app can develop perceptual imagination, and emotional sensitivity needed to discern aes qualities, make comparative aes judge, and feel confident enough to enter into discussion or argument about them
• Develop vocabulary of aes concepts, learn to make aes comparisons and deeper and richer aes descriptions
• Three: prejudice or bias
• Every appreciator comes to aes object with particular prejudices
• Some will be shared, but many will be too individual o provide defensible ground of explanation
• So this really is a standard of intersubjective agreement in fact?
• Shared prejudice is okay?
• Removal of all bias is impossible and not desirable either; instead try to pinpoint biases that are limiting, inappropriate or eccentric.
• Many hate the winter cold, but for some hatred so vile it prevents them from seeing exquisite lacing of ice on trees after an ice storm
• Other biases arise from bad exp-bee stings, dog bites, caught in stormy weather on mountain top might make it impossible to appreciate these things
• When such prejudices become known easier to under why disagreement
• I'm assuming she saying that the side with the prejudice is the mistaken side?
• Four: multiple legitimate experiences of aes object
• Dif ways to exp same aes object and many will be equally legit (assuming appro attention and lack of bias/prejudice)
• Dif in background kn ground varying but still relevant/reasonable aes judge
• Can these judge be incompatible?
• E.g., dif in aes response between someone who has known the place a long time and first time visitor; both may be able to show the other things they have missed; the knowledge of the local inhabitant and the fresh perspective of the visitor as informed by a potentially unique background
• Ones own aes responses may change over time.
• First contact with aes object versus long time exp with it. Long exp may enable us to exp otherwise absent aes quality, but the first contact-though lacking depth may gain from heightened kind of awareness
• Divergences and disagreements may be good as allow an aes community to capture the depth and breadth of aes value of the place
• But not all aes des and evals will be equally valid



• WORKING TOWARD CONVERGENCE IN AES JUDGE
• Aim of the 7 critical activities is justification for aes judge, but aes discussion that emerges also involves aes persuasion (aiming at agreement)



• She rejects Hume's idea of the "true critic" and "a standard of taste."
• How then reach agreement or dist sound aes judge from those plane eccentric if not by comparing our judge to Humean standard?
• Poor judges not those who lack expert kn, but appreciators who suffer from bias, fail to properly attend to or make an effort or who lack background (cultural or experiential) to even begin to app an env.
• DI helps as prevents exp world thought narrow scope of one's personal pref
• Who is best judge?
• Someone who is not biased or attending inappropriately
• Might be several best judges
• Imagination useful as allows one to go beyond hackneyed or shallow impressions
• Demands for good judgement not unattainable for many people, some judge will clearly have more authority
• But judges are not a narrow elite group of individuals
• In many cases advantageous to have some exp of landscape under evaluation (this is too weak)
• AESTHETIC COMMUNICATION
• Communicatabilty of aes judge is also part of getting agreement and securing objectivity
• Aes judge not private and not unsharable, but about a shared experience of world and are deeply public
• Communicatability is inseparable from aes judge
• This is another dimension of objectivity of aes judge
• But kind of judge we discuss and argue about



• Must think for oneself, think from standpoint of everyone else (assume a standpoint beyond one's individual perspective), and think consistently: an unprejudiced, broadened and consistent way of thinking.



• (Taste communities) Aes communities who get the joke or metaphor feel a kind of spontaneous togetherness
• Not forced onto others
• Want agreement because we want a shared world
• Don't want our taste and enjoyment to be a fluke
• Aes judgements entail a motivation to share them, so seek agreement not disagreement
• Not only is aes judge objective, but we want them to have objective import



• AES CRITICISM AND ENV AES EDUCATION
• Aes criticism of env
• Positive and neg aes judge of individual nature objects and envs and comparative judge
• Some env. will be judged to have more value than others
• One waterfall is more dramatic than another, one species more delightfully complex than another
• Godlovitch says rankings decided according to relative standards
• Families of value, league of major versus minor waterfalls
• Rankings are context sensitive and depend on adjusting our expectations to the league in question
• Great anti positive aes quotes from Godlovitch and Hepburn



• Some of most heated debates will be about comparative judgments
• Often people with exp of particular place, however plain it appears to an outsider, will insist it has as much value as landscape of obvious magnificence

• Aes criticism and aes ed go hand in had
• Berleant thinks aes criticism of env. will focus attention on env, help assume it has an equal place with other more commonly recognized env values, can develop aes app of env. as sophisticated as that of art
• Env criticism builds a literature it will gain authority and influence



• Aes ed
• Achieved by developing aes sensitivities through aes engagement with envs, using imagination, senses, emotions, cognitive capacity, physical activity
• Practice in making judgements, discovering aes qualities by having others help us find them and deepening our aes under through others judgements
• Public communication of aes judgements is central to this
• Need first hand exp of envs
• Most effective env. edu not matter of instruction via env. interpretation (displays, pamphlets, information boards)
• Okay for background kn
• Ineffective as fails to engage interest
• Stories and poems work better than facts
• Environmental sensitivity training; learning to see and app landscapes