# Appreciation and the Natural Environment ![rw-book-cover](https://readwise-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/media/reader/parsed_document_assets/226495594/mVlDEaNyLoJo-iRu-5Uq-kMVIpOD28ej03svzT9nJ-o-cove_G9dTl64.png) ## Metadata - Author: [[Allen Carlson]] - Full Title: Appreciation and the Natural Environment - Category: #articles - Summary: insert summary - My notes: - Summary: The text explores how to appreciate the natural environment aesthetically, suggesting that traditional art appreciation models are inadequate for nature. It proposes a "natural environmental model," which emphasizes understanding the specific qualities and contexts of natural environments. This approach allows us to appreciate nature for what it truly is, rather than comparing it to art. - URL: https://readwise.io/reader/document_raw_content/226495594 - Source File: APPRECIATION AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT by carlson.pdf ## LLM Chats ## NotebookLM ## LLM Audio ## Highlights > APPRECIATION AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jc892m434rrs4wwxmkpeh5y2)) > …to contemplate a painting is to perform one act of aspection; to scan it is to perform another; to study, observe, survey, inspect, examine, scrutinize, etc., are still other acts of aspection… I survey a Tintoretto, while I scan an H.Bosch. Thus I step back to look at the Tintoretto, up to look at the Bosch. Different actions are involved. Do you drink brandy in the way you drink beer? ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jc88hgwyb7q6ntbch8s5fy63)) > Generally speaking, a different act of aspection is performed in connection with works belonging to different schools of art, which is why the classification of style is of the essence. Venetian paintings lend themselves to an act of aspection involving attention to balanced masses: contours are of no importance, for they are scarcely to be found. The Florentine school demands attention to contours, the linear style predominates. Look for light in a Claude, for color in a Bonnard, for contoured volume in a Signorelli.2 ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jc88h2p1ny8233wvwjx9v51e)) > To grasp the sources of esthetic experience it is…necessary to have recourse to animal life below the human scale… The live animal is fully present, all there, in all of its actions: in its wary glances, its sharp sniffing, its abrupt cocking of ears. All senses are equally on the *qui vive.*18 ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jazmf3krv861y4g42wqgxrbs)) > The fact that nature is natural—not our creation—does not mean, however, that we must be without knowledge of it. Natural objects are such that we can discover things about them that are independent of any involvement by us in their creation. Thus, although we have not created nature, we yet know a great deal about it. This knowledge, essentially common-sense/scientific knowledge, seems to me the only viable candidate for playing the role concerning the appreciation of nature that our knowledge of types of art, artistic traditions, and the like plays concerning the appreciation of art. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jc8950qcvcp0b09n4h9xh78z)) > Consider the aesthetic appreciation of an environment such as that described by Tuan. We experience the environment as obtrusive foreground— the smell of the hay and of the horse dung, the feel of the ant, the sound of the cicadas and of the distant traffic all force themselves upon us. We experience a “meld of sensations” but, as noted, if our state is to be aesthetic appreciation rather than just the having of raw experience, the meld cannot be simply a “blooming, buzzing confusion.” Rather it must be what Dewey called a consummatory experience: one in which knowledge and intelligence transform raw experience by making it determinate, harmonious, and meaningful. For example, in order for there to be aesthetic appreciation we must recognize the smell of the hay and that of the horse dung and perhaps distinguish between them; we must feel the ant at least as an insect rather than as, say, a twitch. Such recognizing and distinguishing results in certain aspects of the obtrusive foreground becoming foci of aesthetic significance. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jc8968fvxya94ef76h3fxg9k)) > What I am suggesting is that the question of what to aesthetically appreciate in the natural environment is to be answered in a way analogous to the similar question about art. The difference is that in the case of the natural environment the relevant > knowledge is the common-sense/scientific knowledge that we have discovered about the environment in question. This knowledge gives us the appropriate foci of aesthetic significance and the appropriate boundaries of the setting so that our experience becomes one of aesthetic appreciation. If to aesthetically appreciate art we must have knowledge of artistic traditions and styles within those traditions, to aesthetically appreciate nature we must have knowledge of the different environments of nature and of the systems and elements within those environments. In the way in which the art critic and the art historian are well equipped to aesthetically appreciate art, the naturalist and the ecologist are well equipped to aesthetically appreciate nature ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jc892e34e3aysmytngecyhzz)) > I suggest that Tuan’s description seems to indicate a general act of aspection appropriate for any environment. However, since natural environments differ in type it seems that within this general act of aspection there might be differences which should be noted. To aesthetically appreciate an environment we experience our surroundings as obtrusive foreground, allowing our knowledge of that environment to select certain foci of aesthetic significance and perhaps exclude others, thereby limiting the experience. But certainly there are also different kinds of appropriate acts of aspection which can likewise be selected by our knowledge of environments. Ziff tells us to look for contours in the Florentine school and for color in a Bonnard, to survey a Tintoretto and to scan a Bosch. Consider different natural environments. It seems that we must survey a prairie environment, looking at the subtle contours of the land, feeling the wind blowing across the open space, and smelling the mix of prairie grasses and flowers. But such an act of aspection has little place in a dense forest environment. Here we must examine and scrutinize, inspecting the detail of the forest floor, listening carefully for the sounds of birds, and smelling carefully for the scent of spruce and pine. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jc89a99s11xq9r90nwdm1c97)) > ” Consider again the case of art. In this case, as noted in the first section of this chapter, the boundaries and foci of aesthetic significance of works of art are a function of the type of art in question, e.g., paintings end at their frames and their colors are significant. Moreover, I suggested that our knowledge of such matters is due to art works being our creations. Here it is relevant to note the second point that I wish to emphasize about natural environments: they are natural. The natural environment is not a work of art. As such it has no boundaries or foci of aesthetic significance that are given as a result of our creation nor of which we have knowledge because of our involvement in such creation. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jafg34h953r3sxwc5d82gw5g)) > We experience a “meld of sensations” but, as noted, if our state is to be aesthetic appreciation rather than just the having of raw experience, the meld cannot be simply a “blooming, buzzing confusion.” Rather it must be what Dewey called a consummatory experience: one in which knowledge and intelligence transform raw experience by making it determinate, harmonious, and meaningful. For example, in order for there to be aesthetic appreciation we must recognize the smell of the hay and that of the horse dung and perhaps distinguish between them; we must feel the ant at least as an insect rather than as, say, a twitch. Such recognizing and distinguishing results in certain aspects of the obtrusive foreground becoming foci of aesthetic significance. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01jafg4ya0frf79ambhs5k0sdv)) > What I am suggesting is that the question of what to aesthetically appreciate in the natural environment is to be answered in a way analogous to the similar question about art. The difference is that in the case of the natural environment the relevant ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ja7v438ms63pba2jfasq3d33)) > 50 AESTHETICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT knowledge is the common-sense/scientific knowledge that we have discovered about the environment in question. This knowledge gives us the appropriate foci of aesthetic significance and the appropriate boundaries of the setting so that our experience becomes one of aesthetic appreciation. If to aesthetically appreciate art we must have knowledge of artistic traditions and styles within those traditions, to aesthetically appreciate nature we must have knowledge of the different environments of nature and of the systems and elements within those environments. In the way in which the art critic and the art historian are well equipped to aesthetically appreciate art, the naturalist and the ecologist are well equipped to aesthetically appreciate nature.21 ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01ja7v3zhxeqp854gh8aay5p16))