Marcia Eaton, Fact and Fiction in Aes App of Nature
(Response to Emily Brady's "Imagination and the Aes App of Nature")

• On connection nature aes and env. protection
• If people see how beautiful ecosystems are, will tend to act in ways that better protect them and other environments
• If true that pos aes response leads to care, important to learn how to generate aes response
• But also imp to learn how to produce right care; many actions that people see as caring for a landscape are not sustainable
• Mowing with a gas engine
• Fertilizing with chemicals that pollute ground water
• Wants to generate aes responses that will lead to sustainable care
• Seems like an instrumental view of aes app of nature
• Is Eaton expanding app of nature to include taking care of nature?
• Does this violate Brady's (and others) requirement that aes app must be disinterested (not use nature instrumentally)?
• Brady too wants to use aes app of nature for env. protection
• Is Eaton saying that appro aes responses to nature must lead to the protection of nature? That an aes response to nature that led to destruction of nature was an inappropriate one?
• A positive aes response to green lawns is aes inappropriate (because it is env. harmful)?
• "As long as people want large, green, closely mowed yards no matter what the climate or soil or water conditions, they will continue to use polluting gasoline mowers and a toxic cocktail of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides." Marcia Eaton



• Contrasts cog model with Brady's imaginative model of nature app
• Carlson's cog model
• Since app of nature must be directed at nature, aes app of nature must be directed by kn about it, kn from dif env sciences
• W/o sci kn, one can't be certain that one's response is to nature and not something else
• Many feel Carlson's model is over intellectualized
• Brady thinks Carlson doesn't account for sig of imag in exp of nature
• Imag has been given short shrift in western thought and Brady wants to rehabilitate it for aes app of nature
• Brady worries that cog restrictions precludes access to richness of images insight



• Eaton wants to connect Carlson's cog model with Brady's imagination model
• Eaton thinks that one manifestation of imag-fiction-plays big role in shaping a culture's response to nature (how it perceives/conceives of env)
• (By fiction, Eaton means objects created by appeal to the imag)
• We must give attention to how fiction and other art forms shape thought in our efforts to establish successful and sustainable practices
• Role artistic culture plays in shaping human attitudes toward env

• EATON'S ACCOUNT OF BRADY
• Imag
• Not just make believe
• Visualizing or otherwise coming up with ranges of poss
• Like Kant, Brady thinks "free play of imagination" is central to human aes pleasure
• Kant thought aes disinterested in sense
• Put aside ordinary sci, ethic, or personal interests and respond to objects as we please
• Allow imag full rein
• Can think of tree as a person, animal, tower, or mountain
• This freedom gives us tremendous pleasure
• Brady agrees (but not clear with details of Kant's version of disinterestedness)
• Because no artistic intentions, the aes response is additionally free from any concern about what is intended to be expressed or how it functions as an object



• KN OF FUNCTION/CONTEXT OF NAT OBJECT IMPORTANT TO PROPER APP OF IT (IF GOAL IS ENV. PROTECTION...)
•  Eaton argues that (unlike the absence of artistic intention) info about context is not nonexistent or irrelevant in app nature
• Kn about how natural objects function in a particular context plays a major role in app of nature (she thinks Brady fails to see this)
• Failure to under proper function of certain types of trees or soils within a context/ecosystem has led to mismanagement of forests even when providing aes value has been one goal
• That lack of functional kn of nature leads to bad management for practical reasons (whether to promote aes pleasure or provision of food) does not show these functional concerns relevant to aes app of nature
• Blackened forest example: Concern to protect forests from fires because burned areas are ugly meant that plants that need burning become rarer
• So teaching people to aes app blackened forests (which presumably involves teaching them the useful functions of fire in some ecosystems) is important for env. protection
• Does this show that such information is aes relevant?



• Eaton allows that imag plays a big role:
• Imag can intensify exp
• Imagine what forest looked like before fire and what it will look like through various stages of succession
• Need rich imag to develop new metaphors for designing sustainable lands
• Thinking about destruction of remaining old growth surely requires imagination
• But the type of imagination that is required is informed imagination



• Examples of potential troubling imags
• Small thicket (as a child) was a jungle where kids fought off variety of foreign enemies
• Any harm in thinking that poisonous snakes lurked under blackberry bushes?
• Env. harm of people fearing, hating, demonizing and killing off snakes
• Or that not only an enemy soldier but tiger might spring from behind elm tree?
• Who really cares that tigers and elms don't share same biotic patches?
• More informed (better?) imag would be that a cougar might spring from elm tree



• What does Eaton have against imag or fiction in app of nature?
• Brady's own imaginative flights Eaton sees as probably "harmless, even charming"
• Tree: Tree clefts as mountains/valleys; Tree as seasoned old man, deep wrinkles; Tree as stalwart; So she respects it like wise old sage
• Lamb: Truth about innocence; Contemplating fresh whiteness small fragile stature; Images of purity and naivete
• Notice that these are thoughts, but not sci thoughts



• Imaginings directed by fiction can lead to very harmful env. attitudes
• Bambi (1923, Felix Salten's book and the Disney's classic movie)
• We can't look at deer and see them true to what they are)
• In certain contexts, deer are an overpopulated, dominating species that destroy habitat for themselves and for other species which are in decline
• All we see is Bambi
• Sweet innocent gentle deer
• Never kill anything (which is false)
• A sentimental image that is hard to shake
• Sentimental: emotional idealism, having an excess of sentiment
• Makes it hard for forest managers to convince public we need to reduce numbers of deer



• Swamps: Inhabited by monsters, so hard to get people to appreciate wetlands



• EATON THINKS THE PROPER USE OF IMAG AND BRADY'S ATTEMPT TO LIMIT IMAG REQUIRES GUIDANCE BY A COGNITIVE DIMENSION
• Is responding to little white lamb by reflecting on innocence or tree as stalwart man or haggard witch
• Appropriate?
• Do they indicate sense of what to look for?
• Avoid being shallow or naive?
• Eaton claims that one can't answer these quest w/o relying on type of cog model Carlson insists on
• I'm not sure why and not sure she is right that only way to "clip the wings of imagination" is with cognitive thought.
• Did (didn't) Brady limit imagination without such a cog appeal?
• Kn doesn't simply deepen exp that imagination provides
• Kn directs imag experiences
• Or should direct them if we hope to preserve/design sustainable landscapes
• So is her analysis and critique of imags role (that im must be directed by knowledge) only valid if we accept this pragmatic view of role of aes app?
• Or is it valid even for aes app not aimed at this purpose?
• Brady's "imagining well" presupposes knowledge
• Imaging well makes no sense unless know what the object is one is talking about, and as much as possible about it and its context
• Bottom line for Eaton on role of imag and kn
• Eaton does believe in a positive role for fiction and imagination in general in developing a sound nature aes
• But imag must be based upon, tempered by, directed and enriched by solid ecological knowledge



• If sustainable env are goal, then fiction/imag must be at the service of fact
• I don't see why guiding imag by natural facts is best for sust env? Ignorance of certain facts could be real trouble, but hiding other facts might also benefit nature?



• Grants existence of societies with sust relation to nature where sci kn played no role in aes response
• Priority of cog no universal for an adequate nature aes
• Aes planning is site specific
• Non tech societies work quite well w/o our science
• Example of native Congo person dancing in forest "alone" at night, but really with the trees and the moon
• This is clearly a false sci view of what is going on, but it is ecologically quite beneficial
• More generally seeing nature as filled with conscious souls, spirits like ours (native American's rocks are alive), might have good env. consequences and thus on Eaton's view generate good aes response
• But they are clearly mistaken, scientifically speaking
• Eaton is not worried about imag in such cultural aes responses to nature
• But for us, where stewardship is viewed almost exclusively as developing adequate tech, we must insist that imagination is based on solid kn



• DOES KN ADD TO OR SUBTRACT FROM AES ENJOYMENT?
• Doesn't insisting upon sci basis for app of nature take all the fun out of it?
• "I just want to read Jane Austen's work; I don't want to learn about her life or the techniques she employs in her writing"
• "I just want to enjoy nature; I don't want to have to learn all about it and how it works"
• No; Eaton claims sci typically enhances aes app
• She does not bel that kn kills aes pleasure
• Looking closely does not decrease but increase aes exp
• Kn of a variety of species likely to draw one's attention to a variety of colors, not detract from them
• Sometimes a sense of wonder, mystery, comes only when have kn
• Example: Minnesota trout lily grows only in two counties and nowhere else on earth
• Even knowing the names of flowers can lead one to see them
• Seeing is essential to aes app and
• Seeing is more likely if we look for it and we look for it only if we know where and what to look for
• Even if it were true that kn takes some of fun out if it, it's worth price
• Only with kn will sust practice develop
• Must be aware of poss harm of imag



• EATON ON HOW DISTINCTIVE AES IS
• Does the cog model deprive aes of something distinctive?
• Brady: over reliance on kn will not provide a clearly aes frame and makes aes value hard to dist from other env. values (eco, hist, cultural)
• Eaton does not think cog approach gives away the store to these other values
• Aes interest not separate from our other interests as humans
• This is her response to Brady's attempt to distinguish and separate aes response from other responses
• We go back and forth between contemplating aes object and thinking about other things
• No need to carve out unique niche for aes
• Human valuings are holistic
• Rarely exp something purely aesthetically or ethically, religiously or scientifically
• So less worried than Brady that kn will get in way of aes exp

• Goal of nature aes for Eaton: Give aes response to nature the kn that guides imagination so as to insure env. sound behavior
• Develop ways of using delight humans take in flights of imagination, connected to solid cog under of what makes for sust env and produce kind of attitudes/ pref that will generate the kind of care we want.