Allen Carlson, "Appreciation and the Natural Environment"
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism (1979)


OBJECT MODEL

  • Natural objects are to be appreciated like non-representational sculpture
    • App it as the actual physical object it is
    • App its sensuous and design (order) qualities and abstract expressive qualities
      • E.g., it glistens, has balance and grace, and expresses flight itself
    • It has no representation connections, no relational connections to surroundings
  • In contrast, Leonardo da Vinci's Last Supper is representational
    • It refers to, represents (and thus is related to) something besides itself
    • Michelangelo's David is a also representational sculpture
  • Can app object of nature in this way (as a non-representational sculpture)
    • Consider a rock or piece of driftwood actually or contemplatively remove it from its surroundings and dwell on its sensuous, design, and expressive qualities
    • Natural objects are often so app: mantel pieces littered with rocks and driftwood

  • CARLSON REJECTS OBJECT MODEL
    • One version of object model turns objects of nature into found art (like ready-made art)
      • As artistic enfranchisement turned Duchamp's urinal into Fountain
      • So too a piece of driftwood becomes art by being placed on the mantel
      • Do get answers to what and how to app questions
        • Treat it like a non-representational sculpture and appreciate its form, expressive qualities, etc
    • But app of nature lost, now appreciating art
      • App a sculpture that was once driftwood is no closer to app nature than is app a totem pole that was once a tree
      • Conversion from nature to art/artifact is complete
      • Take a piece of driftwood, put it on a mantel, app it as a sculpture
      • We've turned it into art (converted it into an artifact) and no longer are appreciating nature
    • Different version of object model (continues to view it 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 the object not qua art object but as natural object
      • Our app will be limited to sensuous and design and expressive qualities of rock
        • It is smooth, gracefully curved and expresses solidity
    • Problem: Removing natural object affects its aes qualities
        • If remove an aesthetically self-contained art object from the environment 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
        • Forces that created a natural object and its environment of existence matter to the aes app of that object
      • E.G.: The rock on the mantel may express different qualities when it is in its environment
        • On the mantel it may express solidity
        • Leave that rock on a scree slope where it was found and it might not look so solid
      • Isolating natural objects (physically or in contemplation) thus leads to aesthetic mistakes
    • Object model ignores a large part of what is aes appreciable about the natural object (its relation to its environment of existence and creation)

PICTURESQUE/LANDSCAPE MODEL OF AES APP NATURE

  • Landscape model suggests perceive nature as if were a 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, especially landscape painting
      • Claude glass once used to help nature appreciators see landscape as landscape paintings
    • Centers attention on those aes qualities of color and design that are seen best at a distance

  • CARLSON REJECTS LANDSCAPE MODEL
  • Ethical criticism of this model (part of scenery cult)
    • Carlson ties the landscape model of aes app of nature to the scenery cult and the picturesque approach to nature appreciation
    • Scenery cult: Only dramatic natural landscapes are appreciated; only nature that is "picturesque" (suitable for a picture or a picture postcard) is appreciated
      • Swamps, prairies, backyards not appreciable
    • 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"
      • Assumes nature made for our pleasure
      • "A special form of arrogance involved in experiencing nature in the categories of art. It involves accepting idea that natural elements arranged for sake of man's aes pleasure (as are traditional art objects)"
      • Confirms our anthropocentrism by suggesting nature exists to please us (as well as serve us)
  • Aesthetic criticism of landscape model
    • Reduces environment to a scene or view,
    • But env. is not a representation, not static, not two dimensional
    • So this model has us app nature for what it is not and so is an inappropriate model
    • Assumption: We should appreciate things for what they are and not for what they are not
      • The idea is that if you try to app something in a manner appropriate for something else which it isn't, then you are likely to app in a manner inappropriate to it
      • E.g., trying to appreciate a tango (or dance to tango music) as if it were a waltz will lead to inappropriate aesthetic responses
    • This model also limits our appreciation to visual qualities like color and overall design and this is misleading (as it ignores other senses)
    • Robert Stecker supports the object and landscape models as partial modes (one way) of appreciating nature

     

CARLSON'S NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL MODEL: NEM

  • NEM: App natural env. (1) as an env. and (2) as natural
  • 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 is necessarily unobtrusive
  • That natural environment is an unobtrusive background suggests implications for what and how to app
    • What appreciate?
      • Everything, for an essentially unobtrusive setting there seems little basis for including and excluding
    • How appreciate?
      • Those ways in which we normally are aware of and exp our surroundings
      • Eye and ear lose 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 to appreciate anything it must be made obtrusive and must be foregrounded
      • 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 (like a baby experiencing the world without concepts)
      • Not aes exp (nor any experience at all)
  • So how do we get this focus?
    • Unlike humanly created art that we can understand and appreciate by way of knowledge of the purposes of this creation and our involvement in it
    • Nature is not our creation and can't be known or appreciated on this basis
  • That nature is not our creation doesn't mean we have no knowledge of it
    • We have learned much about nature using common sense & scientific knowledge
  • Thus, common sense/scientific knowledge of nature is what allows to focus our aesthetic experience of environment (and answer the what and how questions)
    • Like knowledge of types of art and artistic traditions allows us to appreciate art
    • Might there be other ways to focus aesthetic response to nature besides knowledge of it, such as emotional response (Noel Carroll) or imagination (Emily Brady)?

  • Knowledge of different environments of nature and systems and elements within those environments necessary for (an appropriate? for any?) aes app of nature, for we need some mechanism for selecting and focusing our attention
    • Does this mean that a person from ghetto of New York city who knew nothing about different environments and systems of nature would have no aes app when she goes to the rainforest (or perhaps only a rudimentary sensuous response)?

  • Just as art critic and art historian are well equipped to aes appreciate art
  • So naturalist and ecologist are well equipped to aes appreciate nature
    • If they are well equipped, then those who lack that information are "poorly equipped"
  • Example: Better equipped to appreciate a valley if you know how it was formed?
  • Examples: For aes app
    • Must recognize the smell of the hay and that of the horse dung and perhaps distinguish between them
    • Must feel the ant at least as an insect rather than as a twitch
    • Must have some way to include sounds of cicadas and exclude sound of distant traffic (like exclude coughing in concert hall)
      • Since the traffic is not nature
    • Must appreciate a prairie differently than a forest (different "acts of aspection")
      • Survey a prairie
        • Look at subtle contours of land
        • Feel wind blowing across open space
        • Smell mix of prairie grasses and flowers
      • In a dense forest environment
        • Examine and scrutinize, inspect the detail of forest floor, listen carefully for sounds of birds, smell carefully for scent of spruce and pine
      • It's our knowledge of those environments that tell us what acts of aspection to use