Allen Carlson

Is Environmental Art an Aesthetic Affront to Nature

In this discussion I consider one aesthetic issue which arises from certain intimate relationships between art and nature. The background to these relationships can be traced to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It includes factors of considerable importance in the history of the aesthetic appreciation of nature such as the eighteenth century infatuation with landscape gardening and the continuingly influential role of landscape painting. Here, however, I concentrate on these relationships only as exemplified in a contemporary phenomenon environmental art. By environmental art I mean both the earthworks and earthmarks of artists such as Robert Smithson, Michael Heizer, and Dennis Oppenheim and certain structures on the land such as those of Robert Morris, Michael Singer, and Christo. Some paradigm cases are Smithsons Spiral Jetty (1970), Heizers Double Negative (1969-70), Singers Lily Pond Ritual Series (1975), and Christos Running Fence (1972-76).

Education for Appreciation: What is the Correct Curriculum for Landscape?.

The natural landscape is an indeterminate object; it almost always contains enough diversity to allow the eye a great liberty in selecting, emphasizing, and grouping its elements, and it is furthermore rich in suggestion and in vague emotional stimulus. A landscape to be seen has to be composed....then we feel that the landscape is beautiful.... This is a beauty dependent on reverie, fancy, and objectified emotion. The promiscuous natural landscape cannot be enjoyed in any other way.

Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature and Environmentalism

There can be no doubt that aesthetic appreciation of nature has frequently been a major factor in how we regard and treat the natural environment. In his historical study of American environmental attitudes, environmental philosopher Eugene Hargrove documents the ways in which aesthetic value was extremely influential concerning the preservation of some of North Americas most magnificent natural environments. Other environmental philosophers agree. J. Baird Callicott claims that historically ‘aesthetic evaluation… has made a terrific difference to American conservation policy and management’, pointing out that one of ‘the main reasons that we have set aside certain natural areas as national, state, and county parks is because they are considered beautiful’, and arguing that many ‘more of our conservation and management decisions have been motivated by aesthetic rather than ethical values’. Likewise environmental philosopher Ned Hettinger concludes his investigation of the significance of aesthetic appreciation for the ‘protection of the environment’ by affirming that ‘environmental ethics would benefit from taking environmental aesthetics more seriously’. Callicott sums up the situation as follows: ‘What kinds of country we consider to be exceptionally beautiful makes a huge difference when we come to decide which places to save, which to restore or enhance, and which to allocate to other uses’ concluding that ‘a sound natural aesthetics is crucial to sound conservation policy and land management’.

The Link Between Aesthetic Appreciation and the Preservation Imperative

Aldo Leopold famously observed that a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. In this chapter, we pursue Leopold’s insight by investigating the relationship between aesthetic appreciation and nature preservation. We note that in general there is a strong link between our aesthetic appreciation of an object and its preservation, but that in the case of nature it is important to understand the role of ecological concepts, such as integrity and stability, in this link. Examining the place of such ecological knowledge in the relationship between aesthetic appreciation and nature preservation requires pursuing the question of the nature of aesthetic appreciation itself. We first consider traditional answers to this question, grouping them into what we call the formalist/picturesque approach and the relativist/postmodern approach. We argue that these approaches not only exclude or belittle ecological knowledge, but also give somewhat inadequate accounts of the true nature and scope of our actual aesthetic experience of nature, specifically concerning the link between appreciation and preservation. We then introduce a cognitive approach to aesthetic appreciation, arguing that, in granting a significant role to ecological knowledge in the appreciation of nature, this approach not only gives a more adequate account of our actual aesthetic experience of nature, but also strongly supports the link between aesthetic appreciation and nature preservation. Moreover, it provides an elaboration of Leopold’s insight.

Distinguishing intention and function in art appreciation

We applaud Bullot & Rebers (B&Rs) attempt to encompass the function of artworks within their psycho-historical model of art appreciation. However, we suggest that in order to fully realize this aim, they require a clearer distinction between an artists intentions toward an artwork and its proper functions. We also show how such a distinction improves the internal coherence of their model.

Science and the Perception of Nature: British Landscape Art in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries

Examining the areas in which art and science came into contact with one another in the late-18th and early-19th centuries, this work argues that the common thread running through the changes in art and science was the emergence of a new phenomenalist conception of experience.