Emily Brady, Chapt 4: Contemporary Theories of Aes App of Nature from Aes of Nat Env.

COGNITIVE VS NON-COGNITIVE THEORIES
Debate is about the role of kn in aes app of nature
Like debate in phil of art: Is art historical and other kn necessary (or important) for judgements about art?

COGNITIVISTS:

Allen Carlson (Natural Env. Model), Holmes Rolston, Marcia Eaton

Stresses knowledge and correct/incorrect appreciation

Kn is essential (or important?) for appro, correct, deep, serious app

Carlson example: Is it a cute woodchuck or a massive rat? The aes response depends on the factual matter.

W/o sufficient kn, mistakes are liable
What kind of knowledge?

Cognitivists above stress scientific: Such as ecological, geological kn

"and it's common sense predecessors and analogs"
It's hard to avoid common sense knowledge being a part of aes app, so all views involve this?

As defined cog views might admit other sources of knowledge than sci

Mythology, religion, emotion

Rolston, for example, requires participatory experience/kn

Cog tend to focus on objective side of aes ex; "object oriented" approach (as opposed to subject oriented approach)

Valuing nature "on its own terms"

More essentialist (aes app of nature requires something specific), monist (only one correct way to appreciate)

NON-COGNITIVISTS (more diverse group)

Who: Arnold Berleant's aes of engagement, Noel Carroll's arousal theory, Ronald Hepburn's multi-dimensional aes, Stan Godlovitch's natural or green aesthetics, Cheryl Foster's ambient approach and Emily Brady's integrated approach

Emphasizes: Sensuous surface, imagination, and emotion, rather than kn

More focus on subjective side of aes exp; on personal exp of appreciator

Generally more pluralistic: a number of frameworks for appro aes app, and there is no correct one

Allows that various models are acceptable ways to app nature (Carroll), not Godlovitch

None has an "epistemological" (knowledge) condition for appropriate aes app
Which does not mean they don't draw distinction between appro and inappro aes exp. of nature

All? do (except Berleant?)
Find alternative to knowledge for this distinction
Hepburn has dist trivial and serious
Or overly humanizing and overly distancing ways of app nature

Post-modern view-anything goes-falls on non-cog side

Anything can count as an appropriate frame for aes app, none is misleading
No one holds this position

Thomas Heyd in "Aesthetic Appreciation and the Many Stories of Nature"? And Berleant come the closest

All of non cog mentioned hold that aes exp of nature needs to be respectful
None allows use of nature for "mere flights of fancy and mere pleasure-seeking"
Examples of disrespectful and mere flights of fancy

Outlines of clouds as resemble a basket of washed clothes: Trivial, shallow appraisal of a freakish element;
That stalagmite looks Snow White and the Seven Dwarves

CARLSON'S NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL MODEL (NEM)

How to guide aes app of nature in absence of frame used to guide aes app of art
Shows how aes app of nature not arbitrary or subjective and justified by kn
What are appro categories for nature app?

Answer: Science, natural history

DISCUSSION OF WALTON'S FAMOUS ARTICLE "CATEGORIES OF ART"

In art, appro app involves determining the appropriate art historical category

E.g. cubist versus impressionist painting, tango versus waltz

App must be guided by kn that allows us to perceive art object in correct cat.

Correct cat for given work depends on 1-having large numbers of properties standard to that cat, 2-more aes pleasing when perceive in that cat, 3- intended by artist to be in that cat, 4-socially recognized cat

Walton rejects formalism

Formalism: Perception of form, design, and color is all that is needed for appro app

It excludes content, representation and any external information
Makes kn irrelevant to aes app

Walton says unlike art, there is no correct app of nature (because there are not correct categories for nature app); nature app is relative to what we perceive and unlike art there are not correct and incorrect ways to appreciate

But because 1, 2, and 4 above apply, why can't natural objects have correct and incorrect categories applied to them?

CARLSON USES WALTON'S SCHEMA AND REPLACES ART HISTORICAL CATS WITH KN OF NATURAL SCI AND "COMMONSENSE PREDECESSORS AND ANALOGUES".

Science allows us to know nature as nature and place natural aes objects in their correct categories
For nature, some cats are correct and others not (as with art)

Appro and significant aes app of natural objects and envs requires knowing what they are and something about them, thus it requires kn of natural sciences

Science not only deepens app, but w/o it we are not likely to make aes judgements that are true

Can overlook, misapprehend aes qualities in nature if miss the science

Example: Starry Night as post impressionist or expressionist painting

If see it in incorrect category (as expressionism), will appear subdued

Example: Whale: Rorqual whale is graceful and majestic mammal; but perceived as a fish would appear more lumbering, somewhat oafish, even bit clumsy

Would be wrong to judge the whale as clumsy if judged in incorrect cat
Like wrong if judged one of Picasso's works (Guernica) to be a poor attempt at impressionism

Carlson's an objectivist model with strong objectivity
"Object oriented/focused approach; in contrast to a subject oriented approach"

Individual objects qualities should dt what knowledge or other info is relevant

Dif objects make dif demands

Objective app is app object for what it is and properties it has

App subjectively involves subject/appreciator and its properties being imposed on object; or something other than object imposed on it
This ignores idea that subjectivity is aimed at exploring the subject's reaction, not taking that reaction and pretending its part of the object

Relevant info must be factual/objective, for Carlson
Nature is not designed, so we app it by appreciating its order

We select aspects of nature and focuses on the order found there
Focusing and selecting guided by non aes/ non artistic story of science

Sci kn is nec for appro app

App w/o such kn occurs all time in practice, and Carlson has to say it is superficial, badly informed or incorrect, not important aes app, or at least not as serious and deep app

NEM applies best to wild nature and cultural, non-sci knowledge is appro when enter realm of cultural landscapes

When discussing urban/ag landscapes kn of function replaces science
Does allow alternative stories to science when info is suff culturally embedded to count as objective.

BRADY'S CRITICISMS OF/OBJECTIONS TO COG
One: Carlson's argument by analogy for scientific app of nature is weak and ignores aesthetic sources of nature appreciation

True art history categories not appropriate, but why choose science as the alternative background kn needed?
Why is sci the correct category type? Why better than other sources for aes appreciation
Carlson's reply: because app should be directed at features of object itself and science is what tells us about natural objects
Carlson assumes science objective and less subject to personal views and more likely to value nature on own terms, rather than impose cultural/personal frameworks onto it
Are there other sources of knowledge of nature?

Philosophy? Religion? History?

Brady's aes alternative to Carlson's science frame:

Given context is aesthetic, why run to exp/kn of scientists rather than aes exp of poets, painters, photographers, env. artists, and others like indigenous people living on the land, or visitors to local natural areas?
Why is scientists' knowledge more appropriate for aes app than Wordsworth's intimate experience of Lake District or dog walker's daily exp of a forest?
They have greater aes sensitivity to particular envs than do naturalists or ecologists (but do they?)

She may get the particular part, but not the sensitivity
Naturalists are different from scientists and have a more aesthetic approach

Why is sci kn more appro for aes app than intimate experience with the land? (Even when it is based on ignorance?)

Two: Various problems with the nature of the type of kn (sci) supposed to guide app
Two A: Cog falsely assume that the aim of aes app of nature is a conceptual understanding of nature, when it is really a non-intellectual engagement

While it is true that scientists can app aes qualities of nature with "their knowledge in tow"

But they must be careful this kn does not detract: "Too much knowledge brought into app can impede attention to aes qual and detract from them"

And while background beliefs can be fed into appreciation
Aes exp is predominantly non-intellectual engagement with the world

Hepburn: "Aes mode of experience seeks to explore/intensify the subjective, human perceptual, evaluative, and emotional experience"

It is about the life world and not the objective world of the scientist

Why not be pluralist here and say it involves both?

What is the aim of appreciation?
Cog think it is correct app (according to science)
- Tidal basin example
- Need to know that tidal basin is sometimes beach, sometimes sea-bed and app it as both

But could believe aim is to enhance app

On this account partial app of tidal basin (only as a beach or as a sea-bed) would not be diminished app.

Two B: Carlson is unclear whether the knowledge required is detailed scientific knowledge or more general common sense kn and he vacillates between these depending on his purposes
But Brady thinks it clear that science is not essential for may aes exp of nature:
Wave example: "One can app the perfect curve of a wave combined with rushing white foam of wave crashing onto sand w/o knowing how waves are caused. Judging wave as spectacular and exhilaration can depend solely on app of perceptual qualitites and associated feelings. Not an ill-founded or inappropriate app.

Would it be richer if added some scientific knoweldge?

Brady is not a formalist (not saying kn irrelevant to aes app) but a pluralist (there are many frameworks that can be appro used to app nature)

Does Brady allow the cognitivist/scientific form of nature app?

Two C: While Carlson's appeals to science seems to give him objectivity, this reduces aes considerations to ecological/scientific ones and thus aes is no longer a distinctive voice in the conservation debate.
Further, Carlson's appeal to science is elitist as it rules out non-expert opinion; only aes judgments of those with sci knowledge count as appropriate.

Three: Essentialism objection to Cognitivism

Essentialism in aes app of nature = there is one necessary and sufficient way to go about app nature
Cog, especially NEM, is too restrictive of the range of aes app that are reasonable
We should not assume that only one single kn frame is correct

Brady's pluralism of acceptable frames is a middle ground between a single correct frame and anything goes

Not assume that science is the only appro basis for nature app

There are serious app of nature that are not based on science
E.g., ignores poss of Carroll's emotionally moved by nature (e.g., standing under a thundering waterfall and being moved by nature)

The cognitivists' argument against non-science frames are mistaken

Cogs argue that science reveals nature's real properties, while other "narratives" may falsify it

Science is a narrative?! A story about nature on the par with fair tales, myths, and fiction?

But non-sci accounts need not lead to partial or misleading app

As would app nature as if it was a work of art

Also, why think that non-science frames "imposes human values on nature" whereas science does not?
Sci is also cultural human frame, why assume that it reveals nature's properties as they are where as other cultural frames do not?

"We ought not to pretend that science will achieve a perspective-less aes valuing" 116

Well, the goal of science is to describe nature objectively

Tthe frames of poetry, or fiction, or imagination do not aim at this
Is the debate here between a scientific realism and an anti-realism or relativism about nature of the natural world?

SUMMARY OF NON-COGNITIVE THEORIES
- Kant's traditional disinterested theory is noncognitive
- But so is Berleant's phen personally engaged theory
- So degree of DI says nothing about cognitive/non-cognitive
Yuriko Saito pluralistic approach
- In between cog and noncog
- Aes exp begins and ends with sensuous surface

Plurality of appreciative frameworks that include science
Supports role of science, but challenges its centrality,
Concerned that aes encounters grounded in moral attitude towards nature
App of nature must be on nature's own terms rather than human terms (avoid an overly humanizing approach to nature app)
Nature tells its story through sensuous qualities and also science, myth, folklore and indigenous tales

Saito on science

Not desirable because it gives true/correct app
Science informs app that may be more respectful of nature
It prevents overly humanizing app, but not only route to treating nature in own terms
Science not free from cultural influences: It makes our observations of nature intelligible to us, but its stories are stories of natural objects own lives
Only sci cats relevant are those based on observation and perception of 2^nd qual
Sci can enhance app but also distract us from aes qualities

"Molecular structure of rock or medicinal value of a spring too removed from immediate perceptual arena to be realizable on sensuous surface and so not aes relevant."

HEPBURN'S MULTI-DIMENSIONAL AES
A non-cog theory that urges a multi-dimensional aes encounter with envs

Involves perception, emotion, imagination and thought
Expressive qualities in nature are grasped via perceptual and imaginative exploration

He foregrounds immediate perceptual exp and backgrounds kn

Avoids too intellectual/factual aes exp
Sci kn no fundamental role, but can be part of bel fed into app

Role of thoughts/belief

"Though-content" in aes response, for we think in bel about object in relation to perceived qual
Thoughts not nec conscious or verbal, but interact intimately with feeling and perception
Are not required to think in perception transcending ideas or explanations

Discovery or aes understanding via perceptual and imaginative activity toward aes obj
- E.g., "Realize" the height of cumulo-nimbus cloud, not simply taking note of the height, but imagining myself climbing into the cloud in an airplane or I superimpose an image of a mountain known for vastness onto it

Not an objective approach whereby we come armed with facts that we use as categories through which we perceive nature
Both imagination and knowledge playing a role here.

Wants to avoid overly strong subjectivity; fantasy, pleasure-seeking, and trivializing responses not appro

Avoid subjectivity by keeping our imaginings relevant to the perceptual qualities of the object

This doesn't handle his wash basket cloud example where he says that aes app a cloud as looking like a wash basket is a trivial type of aes response.
Outlines of clouds as resemble a basket of washing

Trivial, shallow appraisal of a freakish element
Focus on inner turbulence and 250 mile wind speeds in cloud that determine its structure
Less superficial experience, more worth having

Rock made by great pressure (or looks like a funny face)

Accepts a scale of serious vs trivial types of aes response

Avoid aes response that "distorts, ignores, suppresses truth about objects, feels and thinks about them in ways that falsify how nature really is"

Mean between overly humanizing nature and overly distancing ourselves from it

So some humanizing of nature is okay?

Wants an aes response consistent with respect for nature, but not ground aes in ethical

Recognition of nature's otherness bound up with respect for nature
Use meta imag to engage with nature as other and this exp brings forward ideas concerning our relation to nature and cosmos

BERLEANT AES OF ENGAGEMENT
A phenomenological, personally total mental, sensory, and bodily engagement theory of aes app
Critical of subject/object split in aes app (viz., envs are app as objects from a disembodied, contemplative appreciator) and goes for immersion of humans in the environment
- Puddleman
Aes app demands participation, activity, involvement, not passivity/distancing
Critique of disinterestedness: rejects detachment, distancing and passivity
"We perceive envs from within, not looking at it but in it; nature as a realm in which we live as participants, not observers; not disinterested contemplation but total engagement, sensory immersion in nature"
Subjectivist/cultural infused app: Individual appreciator's emotions, values, beliefs, memories are as important as aes env.

Subjectivity is strong here: endorses personal exp/meaning in relation to nature

Includes science as one poss cultural frame brought into env. exp
Applies to broadest range of envs: artworks, built envs, wild nature

No special frame for nature as opposed to art; engagement for all aes

Brady worries about his being an overly human-oriented view of nature and is pan-culturalism

CARROLL'S AROUSAL MODEL
Feeling and emotion are important and common in aes response to nature, including Kant's simple pleasurable feeling of delight/enjoyment and Carroll's being moved emotionally as we stand under a waterfall.
Objective emotions: In response to worry feelings/emotions are arbitrary, subjective, no communicable develops notion of objective emotions

Emotions not subjective projections onto the landscape, not one-sided, but due in part to something about the object perceived

Has a cognitive theory of emotion (though Brady classifies him as non-cog) that allows for objectivity

Emotion can be a part of appro (or inappropriate) response to nature depending on whether the beliefs behind the emotion are reasonable for others to have.
E.g., fear of an oncoming tank vs fear of chicken soup.

Non-aes features of nature (large scale, sheer size of waterfall) serve to justify particular emotional responses to nature

E.g., being moved by size of Niagra falls versus being bored or thinking it puny

Godlovitch's Natural (green ) Aesthetics

Integrate env aes into env. phil
Anti-cultural and strongly natural
Rejects humanizing subjectivity and is still non-cog
Concept of nature as other in aes perception should replace humanistic or romantic conceptions of it
Even science only gives us "our own articulated images."
Recognizing nature's ineffability should guide our aes response to nature and any other frame (science, emotion, sensuous engagement) is inappro (unethical attitude and involves human appropriation)
Only aloofness and sense of mystery secures requirement of nature's autonomy
Problems
- Is this an aesthetic response?

Can we truly care for nature if we can not get closer to it?

STRENGTH'S AND WEAKNESSES OF NON-COG
Some non-cog positions humanize nature unacceptably and fail to take nature on own terms (but others do not)

Project onto nature lots of properties it doesn't have
The problem of too much subjectivity

WHAT IS INVOLVED IN TAKING NATURE ON ITS OWN TERMS?
Saito: achieved by taking a moral attitude towards nature and building aes on that

Brady thinks this approach is likely to over moralize and nature has its own disturbing events

Godlovitch thinks it means not knowing nature at all (as nature is mystery)
Rol, Eaton, Carson assume it means grasping nature through its true qualities and these are known by science

Any other framework (including minimal commonsense knowledge) amount to not taking nature on own terms
Brady wonders if we can ever know what terms nature would have us appreciate it on
Brady thinks cog not provided enough support for their claims science is the only thing that does this

"We ought not to pretend that science will achieve a perspective-less aes valuing" 116

Why use the peculiar language of taking nature on own terms?
Why not use Carlson's language of aes app nature for what it is (and not what it is not). And Science tells us what nature is like

Brady says science not the answer as over-reliance on it dissolves or overwhelms the perceptual aspect of app

But this would not show that a proper reliance on it doesn't get nature in its own terms.

Brady's pluralism: advocates a pluralist interpretation that balances perception, imagination, emotion, and thought-content in aes app, without distorting nature

ETHICS AND THE COGNITIVE VERSUS NON-COGNITIVE DISPUTE

Are the ethical implications of subjectivism dangerous?

If beauty is in eye of beholder, any personal opinion about nature's aes value is as good as any other

And this won't allow aesthetics to play a role in env. policy disputes

Brady sees need make aes judge of nature play role in env. decision and so can't be reduced to arbitrariness of extreme subjectivity

But science isn't only way to avoid this extreme subjectivity

A COG'S ETHICAL OBJECTION: Without appropriate knowledge we are liable to be mistaken in our aes judgments and fail to app harm to the environment

Leopold: Damage to landscape invisible to untutored eye

E.g., find Kudzu covered forest richly beautiful
Find pollution sunset beautiful
Eaton example of green lawns are not beautiful
- "Increasingly, ecologists internationally recognize that in the absence of a change in aesthetic preferences, sound environmental practices have little chance of being widely adopted. (For instance, 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.)" from https://www.aesthetics-online.org/ideas/eaton.html

Aes app uniformed by ecology may be bad for env.
Ned's objection that false ecological beliefs (belief in delicate balance of nature) can be good for env.

Brady's charred landscape ex (114)

Come upon a burned-out section of moorland
Judge it ugly w/o knowing whether caused by controlled burn, natural fire, accident, or vandalism

Not clear that responding to it as ugly is appro;
Might be based on a shallow, picturesque or formalist sense of beauty
Burned landscapes are quite amazing, spectacular
- Burned forest

Upon discovering cause vandalism, you still find it ugly
Dismayed to learn someone harmed land deliberately

And condemn vandal

But whether fire due to natural or human causes, still find black earth ugly

New kn does not change your judgment
Would it be a mistake if it did? Is it a mistake if it does not?

Few days later come back and see young, green shoots coming up through black earth

Now find it poignant, expressive of renewal
Aes judge changes due to observable changes in non-aes qualities
- Is her idea that aes judge may not permissibly change unless observable qualities change? Why can't change in background kn cause change in aes response?

For Brady, ethical concerns do not (or do not legitimately?) affect aes evaluations? (She does not come right out and say this here)
Is this a narrow formalism? (No)

No, because unlike formalists, she allows that emotion and imagination can be relevant

But why isn't ethical emotion relevant?
- Get angry that a vandal burned this beautiful forest
- Why can't that affect your aes judge?
And if it can, then why can't the ethical knowledge of the vandal's acts, independent of the emotion, permissibly affect the aes response?

Brady's take home messages from charred landscape ex:
BRADY WANTS TO PRESERVE AUTONOMY OF AESTHETIC

Preserve distinctiveness of aes value so this special part of human exp can be recognized
With a view to allowing it a place in env. debate
Aes not in business of uncovering actual damage

This is the job of ecologists under via science

STRENGTHS OF NON-COG

Pluralist: Open up aes app to include various aspects of aesthetic response (perception, imagination, emotion, here she does not mention thought)

More flexible and better able to respond to dif envs
Note: A science based app can respond to any env.

Encourage subject elements in aes response, including situation of appreciator

Important for practical contexts where attention to detail and localized kn is important for good judgment
How is this subjective?
Here she says need detailed knowledge for appro aes judge!

Non-experts and insights of locas get included if shareable/intersubjectively reasonable

Gives a place to aes exp of local residents and their sense of place (alongside ecologists and developers voices)
Some of these exp will be shareable (others not), and those that are found reasonable though inter-subjective exchange, are valuable in deliberative process
So the aes exp of locals must pass test of being shareable, and found reasonable
This may constrain them somewhat but not nearly as stringent a test of objectivity as check of getting science right would provide

Awareness that aes valuing nature means bringing ourselves to natural world as cultural beings

Can't avoid this, even science does this (science based aes app not perspective-less valuing)

Brady wants to embrace the richness of human life in engagement with nature and also heed nature's otherness