Loss of faith in natures intelligibility and its ultimate endorsement of human visions and aspirations. No longer is nature the sublime product of God, no longer can nature offer comfort.
What are the main differences between art and nature when it comes to aesthetic appreciation?
Boundaries of traditional art are normally clear; not in nature. Traditional art has an intentional creator. Traditional art is clearly seperate from subject. Subject exists within nature / natural scenes. There is far more contingency in nature, less stability.
What are the main characteristics of a cognitive approach in the aesthetics of nature?
Cognitive approach tries to ground aesthetic appreciation of nature in terms of the natural sciences and common sense knowledge, much as the aesthetic appreciation of art is grounded, according to them, in knowledge derived from art critics and historians. Aesthetic appreciation of nature consists in responding to recognitions about the way nature actually is. The cognitive approach to aesthetics tends to be accompanied by a realist or objectivist view which claims there are objective aesthetic truths, and that aesthetic contemplation aims at forming judgements concerning these. Carlson (2008) is a well known proponent of this view.
What are the main characteristics of a non-cognitive approach in the aesthetics of nature?
A non-cognitive approach to the aesthetics of nature tends to emphasis the emotional, imaginative and immersive aspects of a natural-aesthetic engagement. It will not take aesthetic engagement with nature to be primarily or exclusively intellectual, but rather to be in significant part more primordial, involving perception, emotion, imagination and thought. It will tend to stress indeterminacy, and is generally not accompanied by an aesthetic realism which claims that there are objective aesthetic truths (though Saito may be an exception to this). Hepburn (1966), Berleant (1992), Heyd (2001) and Saito (1996) hold versions of the non-cognitive view. On the immersiveness of natural-aesthetic experiene, Berleant (1992) writes that our environment:
'is transformed into a realm in which we live as participants, not observers... the aesthetic mark of all such times is not disinterested contemplation but total engagement, a sensory immersion in the natural world that reaches the still uncommon experience of unity'What is the role of scientific knowledge in the aesthetic appreciation of nature according to Allen Carlson (2008)?
It helps us understand how to approach the aesthetic appreciation of nature, by serving to clarify the 'what' and the 'how', that is, what it is that we are engaging with and how we can best do so.
What are Thomas Heyd’s (2001) main criticisms of Carlson’s approach in the aesthetics of nature?
It is too cognitive, too restrictive. There are more relevant factors to aesthetic appreciation, for example emotional and imaginative responses, and crucially, for him, the integration of stories and human assosciations.
Explain what is meant by the pictorial appreciation of natural beauty?
The pictorial appreciation of natural beauty appreciates the formal and compositional qualities of a particular natural scene. It relates to natural beauty in a way analogous to looking at a painting in a museum: the qualities of a fixed scene are admired.
Explain what is meant by the associationist appreciation of natural beauty?
Nature is found beautiful in so far as it is associated with human activity, which is the true object of beauty. Only by having human associations projected onto it does it become beautiful.
Why is the pictorial appreciation of nature problematic from an ecological point of view?
Encourages the creation of viewing platforms and an attention to grand vistas at the expense of the minute, the fragile.
What is the difference between Saito’s (1996) and Carlson’s (2008) cognitive approaches to the appreciation of natural beauty?
Carlson is most concerned with defending a realist / objectivist account according to which there are natural aesthetic truths. Saito rather emphasises the moral need to appreciate nature 'on it's own terms', as it is in itself, independently of human projections. Saito's approach to the appreciation of natural beauty is non-cognitive.
References:
Berleant, A. (1992) ‘The Aesthetics of Art and Nature’ in Landscape, Natural Beauty, and the Arts, Salim Kemal and Ivan Gaskell (eds.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). p. 236
Carlson, A. (2008) 'Aesthetic Appreciation of the Natural Environment' in Nature, Aesthetics and Environmentalism. Allen Carlson and Sheila Lintott (eds.) (New York: Columbia University Press)
Hepburn, R. (1966) 'Contemporary Aesthetics and the Neglect of Natural Beauty' in The Aesthetics of Natural Environments. Berleant & Carlson (eds.) (Broadview Press, 2004)
Heyd, T. (2001) 'Aesthetic Appreciation and the Many Stories about Nature' in The Aesthetics of Natural Environments, Berleant & Carlson (eds.) (Broadview Press, 2004)
Saito, Y. (1996) 'Appreciating Nature on Its Own Terms' in The Aesthetics of Natural Environments, Berleant & Carlson (eds.) (Broadview Press, 2004)
No comments:
Post a Comment