Aesthetics and the Philosophy of Art
Chapter Two - Environmental Aesthetics:
Natural Beauty
Robert Stecker
-When we think about nature, beauty is
the first thing to come to mind
-When compared to an art piece, one
may think it is easier to understand
nature’s beauty
This chapter is concerned with
the Aesthetic Appreciation of
Nature.
We must first define Aesthetic
Appreciation, as “broad and
complex topic, rather than just
concerning natural
environments”
Outline

Objects and Models:
-Impressionist, Object, Landscape, and
Artwork Models.

Digression: Is Nature an Artwork

The Distortion Objection
-A Severe & Modest Objection
 The Environmental Model

Evaluating The Distortion Objection
 Knowledge and Nature Appreciation
 Are There Norms of Nature
Appreciation
 When Is Nature Appreciation
Aesthetic
Objects and Models
 When appreciating art works or objects, the works
themselves and/or the performance is what is
appreciated
 Why is this method problematic with nature?
- In nature, we can be confused as to which parts
we should appreciate.
Ex. A view of the sunset at the beach
- As well as misjudging some aspects
as inappropriate or incorrect
Ex. A cheetah killing an impala
Objects and Models :
Impressionist (1)
 The Impressionist Model: this model suggests that
we should appreciate nature by not focusing specific
objects, but rather the appearances (scenes) that
nature presents at that moment.
 Ex. Cezanna painted Mount St. Victoire numerous times,
capturing the mountain’s contently changing views
This model is
based on
impression
paintings
Objects and Models: Object (2)
 The Object Model: this model suggests we
should focus on a particular object. When
doing so, we should not take into
consideration the environment that this
particular object is currently in.
 Ex. If we find a rock on a hiking trail, we can
appreciate it the same if we were to take it
home and put it on display.
*The environment does not have anything to
do with this particular object’s appreciation.
=
According to the object
model, these rocks
should be appreciated
equally despite one
having a natural
environment.
Objects and Models: Landscape
(3)
The Landscape Model: This model suggests we should focus
(from a fixed point) on a view, rather than a particular object.
-One must take themselves out of what is viewed
-Sometimes (not required) creates “scenic
turnouts”. This landscape model does not ask us to
appreciate landscapes as if they were landscape
paintings (the view Carlson rejects).
Objects and Models: Artwork (As
if) (4)
 The Artwork Model: This model suggests we should
appreciate nature as if it was created as an artwork, or
artwork created by God. (Derives from a religious
conception of nature appreciation.)
 Why people want to appreciate nature as artwork:
 How we aesthetically appreciate art is an easy
way to attempt to aesthetically appreciate nature
(the only way we know how to do)
 Appreciating nature as if were artwork is
problematic because we can assume that
people recognized natural environments as
aesthetically pleasing before art even existed.
For example, We should not
aesthetically judge a real
view of the Grand Canyon,
as if a painted picture of the
Grand Canyon.
Digression: Is Nature an Artwork?
Is Nature an Artwork? : When asking this question, we are assuming
that nature is God’s (or an intelligent designer) artwork. This artwork
was created the way artists produce artwork, but it is also perfect.
-This view only appeals to those who believe in the idea of an
intelligent being.
-Stecker does not agree or deny that nature was created by an
intelligent being, but does not believe that if an intelligent created
nature, it did not do so as artwork. God, or an intelligent designer,
could have created nature for a different purpose other than art.
-Stecker also believes that some laws of biology create some of what
we appreciate: We do not know if God, or an intelligent designer,
created the actual trees in a forest, or if the trees are the way they due
to the natural laws of biology.
The Distortion Objection:
Severe and Modest
 The Severe Distortion Objection: All of the previously
stated models distort or misrepresent the proper
appreciation of nature ∴ they should be rejected.
 Impressionist Model: When
we are required to focus on
 Objection Model: When we
the particular scene at that
focus on a single object we
moment, we may get caught
are ignoring important
up in focusing on colors,
properties that would define
shapes, and sounds.
the object. (Rock example)
(Mountain at night example).
 Landscape Model: When we are
required to have a fixed point
of view of the scene, we are
taking ourselves out of nature ∴
we are not experiencing nature.
(Waterfall example)
Stecker’s Response to these
Objections
 In general, Stecker does not believe that
these models distort aesthetic
appreciation of nature, but he believes
them to be partial (the individual models
do not cover everything we should take
into consideration when appreciating
nature).
-In relation to the Object
Model: According to Stecker,
this model does not distort, but
allows the viewer to select
certain elements of nature. Ex.
Pink trillium
Stecker believes those who look
at the pink trillium through the
object model may view and
appreciate the flower differently
than those who view the flower
in its environment.
Ex. A single flower,
rather than a whole
field of flowers
Stecker’s Response to these
Objections, cont
Stecker also does not believe that the
impressionist model and the
landscape distort due to having a
selective view of nature.
Ex. A snow field at sunset. At the
moment one is viewing a snow
field at sunset, they are seeing an
array of beautiful colors. In
relation to the impressionist
model, the viewer is only
focusing on the colors shown
rather than the sunset causing
these colors.
Stecker’s Modest Objection:
These models should not be
viewed as individually and
exclusively correct.
Stecker’s concern: if the
viewer were to focus on
each of the model’s criteria,
one may leave out crucial
criteria when attempting to
aesthetically appreciate
nature.
The Environmental Model
 Carlson is credited with this model
 This model claims to be a “complete guide”
to appreciating nature, aesthetically; while
deeming the other models as incomplete.
 Two main claims of this model: 1. the
environment being viewed is a collection of
objects and/or views, rather than
individualizing certain objects and/or views. 2.
Properties of the collection of objects and/or
views should be accompanied by scientific
and/or commonsense knowledge. (if the 2nd
criteria is not met, the appreciation created is
inappropriate)
Three versions of the Environmental
Model:
Immersion Approach: One must
immerse themselves in nature, in order
to take in everything that is needed to
aesthetically appreciate nature.
Ecological Approach: finding aesthetic
appreciation in the “balance and/or
harmony” that the natural environment
is displaying.
Order Approach: “One must focus on
the order imposed on selected natural
objects by the causes that
produce/sustain them”.
Stecker’s view on the
Environmental Model
Stecker does not disagree with Carlson’s
Environmental Model, but:
1. once again says that it is incomplete (as are the
previously stated models).
2. Adds some new important issues to consider
when attempting to aesthetically appreciating
nature.
3. Does not believe it to be better than the other
models (which Carlson believes it to be).
Knowledge and Nature
Appreciation
How Knowledge Affects Nature Appreciation:
1.
Knowledge can enhance/alter our aesthetic experience with nature
Knowledge can cause us to view nature in more “complex ways” (Ex. Tidal Pool).
2.
Knowledge can “thicken one’s enjoyment” (Ex. Pink trillium turning white).
3.
Knowledge can “irrevocably alter a perception” of a certain object and/or view (Ex.
Deformed/Diseased Animal)
-Matthews believes #4 is “the unique requirement on knowledge that is relevant
to appreciating nature”.
-Stecker does not agree with this, due to his opinions on knowledge enhancing
and not altering perceptions of nature
4.
Some knowledge may not enhance aesthetic appreciation
-We have no way of guaranteeing that it will or will not enhance our
perceptions
Knowledge and Nature
Appreciation cont.
6. Value of knowledge is relative.
-there is not one standard for everyone
-Stecker believes this point ignores two
questions: How people will respond? How they should
respond?
7. Generally, Stecker disagrees that there is a minimum amount of
knowledge needed for nature appreciation, but believes more
knowledge may lead to a more appropriate appreciation
-(Ex. Noticing basic colors on snow field is not wrong, but may
be considered “partial or impoverished”).
Knowledge and Nature
Appreciation cont.
8. According to Stecker, some knowledge also may be required
if we find out appreciation to be based on false belief.
-Stecker wonders, what if we come about a
“genuine” appreciation of nature, even though it
later turns out to be “flawed”, then it is okay?.
(Ex. Human body & Dolphins as fish)
**If it does then change, it does
not mean that it was a bogus
appreciation
But, What if the false belief is easily avoidable?
-Stecker is not sure if this claim is true, but finds them plausible.
The aesthetic appreciation can change if the properties of what
we are appreciating change.
Are There Norms of Nature
Appreciation?
**These norms attempt tell us what we should do. Although, Stecker believes that these
are insufficient.
1.
Some knowledge is needed for nature appreciation (observational knowledge).
-Using this knowledge is optional
-Can enhance it, but does not make it necessarily correct/incorrect appreciation
-This knowledge can cause us to cease to find the beauty, or still find them
beautiful, but ethically wrong
-Ex. Purple Loosetrife and Pollution Sunsets
*Overall Stecker believes that “there is enormous leeway in the knowledge we must
bring to nature in order to properly appreciate nature”. He believes they are still
beautiful, but ethically bad.
*Those who defend this objection would have to argue for a tighter connection
between ethics and aesthetics”.
When is Nature Appreciation
Aesthetic? (1)
When we are appreciating the aesthetic properties of nature:
1.
General value properties (Beauty..Ugliness)
2.
Formal Features (Balance…Diversity)
3.
Expressive properties (Happiness…Sadness)
4.
Evocative features (Power…Awe Inspiring)
5.
Behavioral Features (Stillness…Fragility)
6.
Second-Order Perceptual Features (Vivid…Gaudy)
*Stecker does not think
these properties are
always necessary in
aesthetically appreciating
nature.
Ex. A lakes stillness. We
are not necessarily
referring to the aesthetic
property of stillness. We
just notice that there is no
movement.
***Recognition of the most general value properties is based on perceiving the other
properties (formal, expressive, etc.) The “other properties” are taken in by
perceiving nonaesthetic properties such as shape and color (Goldman).
When is Nature Appreciation
Aesthetic? (2)
Nature Appreciation is only considered Aesthetic, when relating to an
Aesthetic Experience:
1. Aesthetic Experience is an experience resulting from attention to
formal, sensuous, and meaning properties of an object valued for its
own sake.
-Some objects have natural meanings (ex. Blossoms indicating fruit).
-Some objects may have cultural meanings (ex. Japanese cherry
blossoms).
2. Structural and/or Etiological (study of origins) Properties are
emphasized by order appreciation.
3. Close observation an d Knowledge of the previously stated,
observable properties, could possibly enhance appreciation
When is Nature Appreciation
Aesthetic? (3)
We should not appreciate Nature as if it were an
artwork, but there is a useful analogy between the two
kinds of appreciation.
When appreciating aesthetic features art we
consider:
-Intention, Convention, Style, Genre, and Context
When valuing art we consider:
-Art-Historical Value, Ethical Value, and Cognitive Value
When comparing this to nature, “this
will require a more complex set of
criteria of proper appreciation of
nature”.
Summary
 Stecker believes that the previously mentioned models, are not
wrong, but claims the best way to approach them is to regard
them all as providing a way, but not the way to bring about such
appreciation.
 Nature is very complex and diverse, therefore; we must have
numerous, flexible models to help guide us when attempting to
aseptically appreciate nature.