Nature, Aesthetic Judgment
and Objectivity
From Aesthetics and the Environment
Allen Carlson
Notes by Shannon Maylath
Nature and Objectivity
Opposition to the view that (some) aesthetic judgments are objective
fall into one of two camps:
Such views are
untenable concerning
aesthetic judgments
in general – art or
environment
 Hold some version
of subjectivist,
relativist and/or a
noncognitivist view
about aesthetic
judgments

Reject these views
about art, but have
reservations about
rejecting it when its
about nature.
 Ok – “Guernica is
dynamic” Not Ok –
“the Grand Tetons
are majestic”
 ** This paper

Walton’s Position

The truth value of aesthetic judgments
about a work of art depend on two
things:
◦ The perceptual properties a work actually has
◦ The perceived status of such perceptual
properties when a work is perceived in its
correct category(ies) of art.

Standard, contra standard, variable
Guernica. Pablo Picasso. 1937.
Walton’s 4 Circumstances for
Correct Perception (of Guernica)
That it has a relatively large number of
properties standard with respect to
cubism.
 That it is a better painting when
perceived as a cubist painting
 That Picasso intended or expected it to
be perceived as a cubist painting
 That the category of cubist paintings was
well established in and recognized by the
society in which Guernica was produced

Nature and Culture

Carlson believes the distinction between art and
natural aesthetic judgments held by Walton and
others based on the construction of the
argument is inconsistent/implausible
◦ Some judgments as nature seem to strike virtually
everyone as true or false
◦ Some other judgments seems like paradigms of
aesthetic judgment in the way humans appreciate
aesthetics.

Cultural accounts of the aesthetic are the basic
reason for a bifurcated view of aesthetic
judgments .. But this is promising, and should not
be simply rejected.
Nature and Walton’s Psychological
Claim

The psychological claim: “The aesthetic
judgments that seem true or false of a
work are a function of the perceptual
status of its perceptual properties given
any category in which the work is
perceived.”
◦ Small elephant example
◦ Exemplifies the standard, contra standard and
variable categories initially applied to artwork
only
What about the psychological
claim’s application to landscapes?

Example of the beach vs. tidal basin vs.
seafloor
◦ Example illustrates a shift of aesthetic response
from “wild, glad emptiness” to “disturbing
weirdness” with more information about the
natural event you are experiencing aesthetically.
◦ The standard, contra standard and variable
classifications are useful here again in more
accurately classifying a perception.
◦ Thus, the psychological implications of
categorization that Walton only found possible in
man-made art, also apply to natural environments.
Psychological  Philosophical

This consistency in the psychological
perceptions and categorizations between
art and nature being proven, Carlson
moves on to his more important
questions about the correctness of such
judgments.
◦ Should he opt for the category-relative
interpretation of aesthetic judgments of
nature, or is it possible to consider certain
categories of nature to be correct or
incorrect (the same way art is handled)?
The Correct Categories of Nature

Thus the psychological claims proven to
be possible above inform the truth value
of aesthetic responses to nature.
◦ So some categories of nature are true, and
others are not.
 There are easy cases of this – i.e. the small elephant
 There are more difficult ones – whale = fish or
mammal? (This is where perceptual properties may
not be enough to decide a category.)
Preliminary Argument

Whale as fish or mammal example
◦ We don’t produce but discover natural objects
◦ So we don’t produce, but discover categories for
natural objects.
◦ As art relies on art critics or historians for this
type of knowledge, natural aesthetics will rely on
naturalists or scientists.

This at best shifts the burden of proof to
those who defend category-relative
interpretations.
Goal:

To prove that it is correct to perceive an
object in the category of what it is, as
opposed to what it appears to be, even in
difficult cases where its perceptual
properties do not themselves count
toward one or the other categories being
correct.
◦ Example: a scenic coastline that appears to be
natural, but is in fact man-made
First Coastline Example - 65

Two indistinguishable coastlines – one natural one
manmade.
◦ On some level, we aesthetically appreciate them equally
◦ At a “deeper” level, we don’t. And this is the more
important level for aesthetic experience.
◦ Additionally, there are important distinctions between the
two coastlines, and not appreciating these differences is
negligent, if not dangerous.
This provides grounds for calling something a
“correct category,” even in cases that are unclear.
 And the conclusion depends neither on very broad
or very different types of objects being compared.

Second Coastline Example - 66

There is an ethical argument for categorizing things correctly.
◦ This is the best way to keep our aesthetics and ethics inharmony
◦ Playboy centerfold example

“If our aesthetic appreciation of nature helps to determine
our ethical views concerning nature, then our aesthtic
appreciation of nature should be as it in fact is, rather than as
what it may appear to be.
◦ Implications for natural aesthetics may include safety or
environmental concerns. What we know about that environment
within its category will shape the ethical choices we make in our
treatment of it.

This does not logically defend “discovering” correct
categories, but it does establish ethical merit in using correct
or incorrect categories.
Conclusion

Carlson has kept aesthetic appreciation within the
confines of a cultural account, the same way manmade art objects are treated. The difference is:
◦ In art, art history and art criticism play a role as bodies of
knowledge to inform aesthetic judgment.
◦ For nature, natural history and natural science will fill this
role.
We can choose to simply appreciate nature formally,
but the methods he has employed and the
psychological/philosophical arguments he has made
have provided a way to appreciate more appropriately
and deeply.
 This is not only more interesting/fulfilling/appropriate
for Carlson; it is essential.
