Brady, Ch 8: Aesthetics, Ethics and Environmental Conservation

(See a brief summary of some of this material at the end of these notes)

Chapter Question: What role does (should?) the aes app of nature play in env. conservation (=env. protection)

She criticizes the usual use of aes in env. conservation as too narrow and suggests her integrated aes and the notion of aes character & aes integrity can lead to a fuller and better use

Brady accepts that often other values will outweigh aes values in conservation

"Conservation decisions involve broad range of concerns, such as ecological and economic values, values that will be, in many cases, more important than aes ones." 241

Quick reason to think aes valuing of nature does play a role in conservation

Aes exp one of most common and accessible ways we value nature

Walking dog, jogging through forest, working in a field, studying ecosystem of a canal
In all these we app the aes qualities of our surroundings for their own sake

Such positive aes valuing of nature may encourage us to care for it

Why the weak may and not will?

TENSION BETWEEN HOW WE VALUE NATURE AND HOW WE PROTECT IT
Aes value central to our valuing environment yet peripheral to our protection of environment

Paradoxical, inconsistency?

Despite the fact that aes value is a sig factor in our valuing envs, it gets short shrift in actual env. practice

Gap between people's actual exp and enjoyment of nature and inclusion of this exp in env. decision making

Aes value not taken very seriously in env. conservation

Ignored in favor of other values (ecological and sci) value

Eco value: preserve habitat of rare species

Env. values believed to be more objective get more attention

Is Brady suggesting that ecological values are not more objective than aes ones?

A prejudice, due to belief that

One: Aes value is too subjective and idiosyncratic to serve as basis of strong arg against, e.g., building airport runway in a natural area
She's shown (in her defense of integrated aes) that this common sense view of aes is mistaken ("not supported by critical reflection")
Two: Aes given less attention because considered less important

Aes is a lightweight, less serious, than science or ethics
Aes seen as a luxury, what people do in leisure time
Is Aes less serious/important than science or ethics (or economics)?

BIAS FOR AES AS SCENERY
When aes value is given a place in conservation, tends to be a focus on value of scenic and formal qualities

Yes, but given that this is the main way we value nature aesthetically (see below), that is not surprising

Brady would say, however that it is unfortunate

Also this is a response to Brady's claim above that our strong aes valuing of nature is not translated into an aes role in conservation

It is, as the protection of fine scenery

Of course Brady, argues this is a truncated aesthetic and we need incorporate more than scenery valuing in both our aes valuing of nature and our protection of nature based on that aes valuing
Does Brady think that in fact we do aes value nature in a much richer way than scenery worship?

Survey of visitors to Britain's national parks found that main source of visitor enjoyment was

Scenery (true in North America too)
Followed by fresh clean air, peace and quiet, lack of crowds

In Britain, National Parks (NP), Areas of Outstanding Natural beauty (AONB) and National Scenic Areas (NSA) are selected by criteria that are

Strongly visual in orientation
Favor grandly scenic over unscenic
Use objective descriptions to capture these scenic and formal qualities

Less emotive words dominate

Reasons for scenic bias
One: Human ocularcentrism (predominance of visual sense on our exp of world and preoccupation with it at expense of other senses and modes of knowing the world)

Explains the visual bias in landscape tastes and assessment of aes value
Natural beauty not equivalent to scenic beauty, but scenic qualities play central role as vision is our dominant sense

All visual aes qualities are not scenic, are they?

Two: Presence of Scenery Cult in landscape tastes

Approach to aes app that treats landscapes as picture postcards or paintings, avoids multi-dimensional aes app for two dimensional approach, where env. become scenes laid out before us

Criticism of the scenic orientation/bias to aes value:

Narrow scenic app is superficial, misses many aes qualities
Nat env. place dif demands on appreciators than scenes
Not static like paintings, but grow and change
Scenery model creates distance between humans and nature as if we were only observers rather than participants of env.
All philosophers who write about env. aes think it important to see the natural env as environments rather than scenes

Scenic orientation related to mistaken objetivizing tendency in landscape categorization and assessment

Attempt to categorize aes value as objective and publically observable, as if under aes value in terms of what see/the look of things, got rid of subjective components

Landscape "visual assessments" try to be quantitative
Use highly descriptive language to designate landscapes and avoid more subjectively oriented language

Assumption is that to defend natural beauty designations and protect these areas need objective basis or developers will challenge the designation

Brady allows that scenic has a place in app and conservation

It is a significant and common perspective on landscape value
Visual impact of a place is among the first and most fundamental ways we come to app envs.

Allows that w/o seeking objectivity, it is difficult to be taken seriously
Even if under that app of landscapes is not merely skin deep hard to communicate this effectively
But reductionist approach to aes value of nature than turns it into scenic and formal qualities needs to be challenged
Brady thinks her integrated aes can help as shows how

More subjective components can be included while still getting enough objectivity for justification of judgments of aes value

SUBJECTIVITY, PREFERENCES, AND NATURE OF OBJECTIVITY IN AESTHETICS
One response to subjectivity, is to try to quantify but this is a mistake: Objectivity not same as quantifiability
A common assumption that aes app is subjective, involving personal pref and not rational judgments and debate
- "Scenery is difficult subject to debate because beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What we enjoy is strongly influenced by our individual pref and taste and these cannot be measured in any sci way"
The response of those who do want to include aes in env. policy is to try to quantify aes value/scenery (thereby gaining objectivity)
This confuses objectivity with quantifiability, as if objectivity only poss via measurement
- Eaton: "objectivity not a matter of reducing things to numeric formula; but grounding one's claims in evidence in such a way that interpersonal agreement or disagreement is meaningful"
- Note: Getting a discussion where disagreement is meaningful, is not the same as having a discussion where people agree or where good reasons win out (or even what counts as good reasons are agreed upon)

Attempt to get objective also often leads to ignoring of local, non-expert input/knowledge (for their views are assumed to be subjective)
- Assumption is experts with scientific and economic arguments are wholly objective
- Assumption is that local inhabitants/frequent visitors who are non-experts are just stating their personal subjective opinion
- Mistake as they often posses solid, reliable grasp of aes value of a place based on experience of the env.
- Don't ignore expert opinion, but give a serious voice to local knowledge too.
Brady's IA shows that aes value is not a matter of subjective pref and that subjectivity can be integrated into an aesthetic valuing that has a type of objectivity that would allow it an important role in conservation

AES CHARACTER OF AN ENV
- Character descriptions of people try to give an overall description or a person including personality, moral and physical traits
Aes character is an overall description of environment's aes qualities
- Aes character def: a second-order aes quality, standing in relation to first order aes qualities much as 1^st order aes qual stand to non-aes qualities
- An emergent quality from constituent aes qualities
- Based on des of aes qual as well as non-aes base properties on which aes qualities depend
- The overall quality that gives a landscape a distinctive look or feel
- Identifying aes character is a top down (not down up) process:
  - Begin by identifying overall aes impact of place, then trace the particular aes and non-aes qualities that give it that character
- Likely to be a set of qualities make up character and it may included strongly contrasting properties:
  - Delicate strength of new spring flower
- May not be able to articulate the distinctive feel of a place, but has it as we have exp it
- Landscape must be exp first had to grasp its character
Wind development example of change in aes character:
- Introducing a wind development with its huge white whirring wind turbines into a desolate moor likely transform its dramatically remote character with its windswept and romantic atmosphere into a (still) windswept expanse that now takes on a cultural character through a tech presence
Example: Urban place unlikely to be tranquil, except in very early hours and even then a very dif sort of tranquillity than found in wilderness

Aesthetic character narratives: How aes character unfolds over time
Aes qualities and character can change over time (due to nature or culture)
So think of environments as having aes narratives
Aes qualities change over time and their shifts affect how aes character unfolds

Factors that affect aes character include:
Human modification/management, dynamic forces of nature and app situation of subject all can affect character of landscape.
- Is it problematic to say landscape character depends on app situation of subject?
- Landscape the same, but its character changes because the person experiencing its character changes?
App situation of subject central to attributing a particular aes character to a place, so there is a subjective dimension to aes character
Aes character of a place begins with perceptual qualities found there (visual qualities, sounds, tactile, olfactory gustatory qualities all may enable us to identify aes feel of a place)

In addition to multi sensuous engagement, thought, emotion, and imagination help us grasp aes qualities on which aes character rests
- Expressive qualities especially relevant and often they alone define character of apace
- Imagining a cleared forest before and after it was cut down helps us emphasize the empty, stark aes character of the place
- Memory of the land in the past plays a role
- Sci belief is not required to grasp aes character of landscapes present state
To get overall character (beyond aesthetic character) of place will need specialist kn (e.g., sci kn) to supplement aes des

Objectivity in aes character
IA gives us ground for objectivity in aes character of landscapes
Assumes so-called normal capacities, can recognize
- Dif backgrounds of perceivers coming to land
- More or less kn and exp of the place
- More or less aes sensitivity
- Particular biases and pref
- One's mood at the time
- Might also be cultural influences that shape the perception of landscape character
- Identify and acknowledge idiosyncratic elements in subject's approach and use them to explain divergence in character des
- Brady thinks her arguments in chap 7 for objectivity in aes judge will help with objectivity for aes character

AES CHARACTER AND AES INTEGRITY AND ENV. CONSERVATION
- Question: How to manage/maintain aes character of env. in face of changes caused by human activity
- Brady uses protection of aes character to help resolve aes dimensions of conservation decisions/policies
- See summary at the end

Harris Superquarry example:

Proposal to build a super quarry on isle of Harris off west coast of Scotland
Huge project, lasting 60 years, leaving behind crater 370 meters above sea level and 180 meters below, 1km wide and 2 long
Computer simulated aerial photos show how superquarry would look in this remote coastal landscape
Shocking change; great white gouge out of the landscape, as if someone literally wounded the land
Aes character of the place would be destroyed altogether as a result of the sheer scale and pace of change to env.
Arguments for: Jobs and economic gain for an area suffered from depopulation

Brady's character des of the site of proposed superquarry
Aes character of this part of Harris result of minimal human activity
Area has a dominant, rocky coastline , with small mountains behind it, all set beside the brilliant deep blue-green of the sea
Colors range from grey browns to bright green and se-blue
When sun shines and it is still, atmosphere borders on quiet beauty, but quite opposite of pastoral beauty
Tough env., aes qual not delicate or fine, but solid, imposing and powerful
Frequent heavy weather gives island windswept but uplifting and exhilarating feeling-strong winds and sea crashing on coast to immediate south and east
Dominant character of magnificent sublimity
Fishing in the bay, tourism, and local wool industry

Brady's assessment of how superquarry would affect aes character of Harris site
Super quarry would create great changes both to look and feel of the place
Look altered from magnificently sublime and harmonious in colors and forms to stark contrast produced by great white hole in the shoreline
The move from darkish moor to the edge of white hole would be abrupt and dislocating in its strangeness
Sublime tranquillity would be interrupted by jarring noise, dust and ground vibrations from diggers and blasting
These sound disrupt natural sounds from sea and bird life
Comings and goings of ships and other work in quarry would create much more activity than present
Dark night sky free of light pollution would be lit up by lights from work at the quarry and proposed harbor

AESTHETIC CHARACTER AND CONSERVATION
Are the above changes in aes desirable? To determine this, should we
- Attempt to restore particular aes features which are no longer apparent in landscape and thus restore (earlier) aes character?
- Preserve features as they are -- minimize change to aes character?
- Simply allow for or even welcome changes to that character as might occur through natural processes or human development?
Brady takes a moderate historicist approach to conservation
Conservation =
"preserve the future as a realization of the potential in the past...negotiating the transition from the past to future in such a way as to secure the transfer of maximum significance" (Holland O'Neill)

Her historicism about aes character is like the historicism in art

Traditionalism versus Historicism in art

Traditionalism

Art remains same through history; only relevant history is history prior to and at time of their production
Look at art through original conditions by reference to artist's intention and way audience at time would have viewed the work
Aes character is fixed by its original qualities
Examples:

Changes to nonaes qualities (faded color), should be remedied by restoration to original condition
Authentic performance of music requires the original instruments and their sound

Historicism

Recognize historical character of art
Historical events after creation of artwork can contribute to its aes character,
Under and evaluation a work based on ongoing narrative, not single point in time
Examples

Only minimal conservation to prevent deterioration is called for
Changes such as faded color or sound of modern instruments are incorporated into the interpretation of the artwork

Critique of traditionalism

Hard to defend in art
Harder to defend in conservation where changes is much larger than in art

Brady's criticisms of idea that conservation should preserve or restore env to its pre-human disturbance state

Problems with aim of conservation to preserve or restore landscape to its most authentic state, a state that eliminates traces of human culture
One: Which natural state? Pre or post glacial? One hundred or five hundred years ago?

which is original or authentic state
Forested or early agricultural one
Create a museum piece, undermines the aim to free the place of human activity
Idea of returning env to what its present natural state would have been if there had been no human activity, faces problems of determining exactly what this would be

**Two: Not coherent to eliminate traces of human culture given that many envs have been so affected or even largely formed by human activity

Brady explains why it is sometimes bad to erase human presence from landscape

Human activity on land has sig effect on aes character

Signs of human culture (ruins of old cottages to agriculture and farm buildings make a landscape feel less wild, less remote, less other
Not nec bad, but simply a difference that is important
Aiming to eradicate the cultural aspects from every env disrespects the narrative of a place and fails to capture the historicity of the place

Is this true if we do this to some places or only if we are doing it to many places?
An argument against ever erasing the human presence

May not be desirable to respect every state of narrative, esp when some human tragedy or env. catastrophe happened that a community would rather forget
Brady wants honesty
If we want to be true to the past, then must recognize the human culture that may have been part of shaping the place's character

Conservation ranges from minimal management to dramatic changes of restoration projects

By arguing for historicist position, Brady not against restoration but wants flexibility instead of rigid approach
Changes to landscaped called for by many restoration projects nec alter aes character of a place
That is what she worries about, extremes
Extreme historicist position might argue against conservation completely, and encourage us to just leave things alone to take their natural course, to let narrative unfold in whatever way it will

Another extreme she wants to avoid

AESTHETIC INTEGRITY

Manage character so to preserve integrity as it develops through time?

Integrity: intactness of a thing as sound and unimpaired
Human integrity

Moral concept; solid and unwavering character and consistent approach to following moral principles

Ecosystem integrity

Ecosystem that is undisturbed by human action, unimpaired, balanced, stable

Aesthetic integrity: unity, wholeness, harmony

Maintaining integrity is to be true to the sort of thing it is, its qualities and character, its origins and genesis
Synchronic (=occurring at the same time) approach to integrity would give us a position like the traditionalists

She rejects this

Diachronic (developing though time) integrity

Being faithful to what has gone before
Not preserving or returning to some natural state free from human interference and frozen in time
Need to consider env with a temporal context
Determine the most appropriate trajectory or direction for the narrative to take

Might have to adjudicate between multiple narratives

Aim for a kind of intactness and wholeness or continuity via an appropriate trajectory
Being true to the past seen as temporal dynamic and not historical state

Diachronic integrity applied to aesthetic integrity helps us decide how to protect aes character of a landscape

Aes features part of integrated whole that makes up aes character of an env
Be true to that character
Maintain its soundness while being faithful to its narrative
Inappropriate to ignore role culture had in shaping aes character of an env

Two loose guidelines for aes integrity
One: Sensitivity to diachronic approach: true to aes narrative of an env
take on board history of env in question

**Two: Decide how best to conserve predominant aes character in relation to past and present changes and poss changes in future

What do you do with the possible changes that human development may involve

**Aim for integrity by avoiding sharp breaks in the narrative through change on a grand scale that creates incongruity and strangeness

Application to Harris superquarry

Site was a remote, tranquil, windswept rocky coastline with minimal human activity

Aes character is magnificently sublime
If quarry went ahead, place would be dramatically altered by introduction of noise, quarry traffic and the transformation of Roineabhal mountain into a white scar on the landscape

**Could changes to Harris caused by superquarry be aes positive?
Aes character not destroyed in change from mountain to quarry, but merely transformed
Aes value can be found in the quarry
One might become accustomed to the change and learn to app the glistening white of the newly quarried hillside as set against brilliant blue-green sea
Brady's response:
Brady thinks changes proposed are too sharp a break from the narrative that has come before

At least because it undermines the predominant character associated with this coastal landscape
Aes integrity would be seriously undermined, even if the new quarry created an aes impact of another distinct kind

Familiarity and congruity are not nec good and strangeness and incongruity not nec bad

Brady needs to talk about this because her view of preserving diachronic aes integrity seem to be supporting familiarity and congruity over strangeness and incongruity

Familiarity can result in failing to take notice of aes qualities
Congruity can result in ugliness through dullness or orderliness
Incongruity and strangeness will not nec undermine integrity
Strangeness or feeling of otherness is basis of the sublime
Strangeness and incongruity result in surprises and contrasts that startle in an exciting way
Positive ways these features shape aes character and sense of place depend on particular setting and way in which changes introduced

More assessment of the quarry:

Likely that white gouge created by superquarry would create incongruity

A strange env that would appear
Disjointed from natural undulations of rocky shore
Scale would be inhuman and alien
The sort of strangeness introduced via superquarry would not be welcome or of any particular aes interest
A highly tech operation set amidst a non-industrial and relatively wild env.

Incongruity and strangeness can threaten aes integrity
So can familiarity and congruity
She argues for not too much and not too little familiarity
Supports a mean between two extremes:

Immobilizing the dynamism of aes change in the interest of preserving familiarity at all costs
Overturning familiarity altogether and dislocating one's sense of place

Same with congruity: too much leads to tidiness and a taste for perfect beauty, too little (under some conditions) leads to disfiguring contrasts

Small scale change (e.g.,quarry) okay:

Increased activity and larger community evolved in this part of Harris, it might not be a problem if it followed narrative of the place

Small-scale quarrying might be an appro way to continue the narrative, as long as effects did not create a great impact on aes character of island

Aes integrity must be flexible so as to allow character to evolve thought change

But superquarry case changes to env would be too huge a scale and to great a pace to constitute appropriate trajectory

So slow development of the quarry could be okay?

Summary of Brady's position on aes based conservation:

Preserve the integrity of the narrative of aesthetic character

Her position is to locate aes character but recognize and be open to changes in that character
Focus on the narrative of aesthetic character and preserves/restore aesthetic integrity
Respect the historical aes narrative of a place
Allow for change that continues the story in a good way
- That transfers the aes meaning of the place into the future
Determine the most appropriate trajectory or direction for the narrative to take
Aim for a kind of intactness and wholeness or continuity via an appropriate trajectory
Manage character so to preserve integrity as it develops through time
Decide how best to conserve predominant aes character in relation to past and present changes and poss changes in future
- What do you do with the possible changes that human development may involve
Human caused changes to landscapes aes character can be good parts of the aes narrative of a place and, in fact, essential to it
Honesty requires we not eradicate or hide these dimensions of a place's aesthetic character
Inappropriate to ignore role culture had in shaping aes character of an env
Avoid extreme changes in aes character
Worried both about restoration that radically changes aes character of a place
And about an extreme historicism that allows all changes to take place
Aim for integrity by avoiding sharp breaks in the narrative through change on a grand scale that creates incongruity and strangeness
May not be desirable to respect every state of narrative, esp when some human tragedy or env. catastrophe happened that a community would rather forget
Virtues of Brady's "preserve the integrity of the narrative of aesthetic character"
- Consider the argument that destroying a natural area and replacing it with a humanized area is not nec a loss of aes value if the new area also has substantial aes value
- Her account of preserving aes integrity prevents this
- Even in cases where the replacement has much greater aes value.
- So she would not have us do a kind of aesthetic consequentialist analysis: Aes value before human induced change compared with aes value afterwards and compare the two and preserve or change depending on greatest aes value
Example in Brady's favor:
- Argument for replacing housing projects with upscale developments or apartments
- Clearly the projects have lower aes value (is this clear?), but the replacement is too sharp and quick a break
I worry about what this does to aes argument for rapid changes to degraded human envs on grounds of improved aesthetics (see below)
Case against her would seem to be rapid restoration after env. pollution
What about a case where there has been a lot of trash thrown around for a long time (old refrigerators, toilets and so on)-this is distinctive character of a place and we go in and clean it up and plant some native species and greenery

Brady needs a sense of negative aesthetic character or she needs one to handle these cases.
Preserving the aes character of a humanized landscape would seem to only make sense when that character is positive.

More worries
Brady's views seem good for preservation of wild land, bad for restoration of degraded land, and problematic for what to do with humanized landscapes?
Does Brady's insistence that we honor the human culture of these landscapes allow for respect for nature as other?
Death by a thousand cuts objection?
Degradation as long as done it slowly, over time?
- Harris quarry proposal was over 60 years; would that time frame be enough to insure aes character changed slowly enough to keep its integrity?
Worries about implications of Brady's views for restoration
- Conservative position; not no change, but slow change and this undermines restoration

What is present gets precedence even if a human degraded land

Would not allow restoration, as it is a dramatic change that totally shifts aes character?

Examples

After Exxon Valdez oil spill beaches had distinctive character;

I suppose restoration there (removing affects of human action) could be seen as recovering earlier character rather than a dramatic change in character (as long as the time interval was short)

Lake Powell

Should not restore those desert canyons by removing the dam
Dam has been there 80 years and now a new aes character been established
Unlike right after Exxon Valdez where new aes character has not had time to form

Butte Montana example

As a town its character depends on the mining pit, at least now
So we should not restore that mining pit?