# Aspection in [[Allen Carlson]]'s *[[Aesthetics and the Environment]]* [[Creative Aspection and AI Art]] In *[[Aesthetics and the Environment]]*, [[Allen Carlson]] delves into [[the concept]] of 'aspection' as a fundamental element of [[aesthetic appreciation]]. This concept, originally introduced by [[Paul Ziff]], refers to the various acts or ways of attending to an object that are essential for its appropriate appreciation. Carlson employs 'aspection' to bridge the gap between the [[aesthetic appreciation]] of art and nature, highlighting how knowledge and understanding of [[the object]]'s nature guide our appreciative responses. --- ## Aspection in Art Appreciation Carlson begins by addressing the clarity with which we approach the [[aesthetic appreciation]] of art objects. He notes: > *"With art objects there is a straightforward sense in which we know both what and how to aesthetically appreciate."* This clarity arises because art objects are human creations with defined boundaries and recognised aspects of aesthetic significance. We can distinguish what is part of the artwork and what is not, as well as which aspects are aesthetically relevant. Carlson explains: > *"We [[know what]] to appreciate in that, first, we can distinguish a work and its parts from that which is not it nor a part of it. And, second, we can distinguish its aesthetically relevant aspects from its aspects without such relevance."* For example, in a concert hall, we appreciate the sound of the piano but not the coughing that interrupts it. In a museum, we appreciate that a painting is graceful, but not necessarily that it hangs in the Louvre. Central to this understanding is [[the concept]] of 'acts of aspection.' Carlson, drawing on [[Paul Ziff]]'s insights, elaborates: > *"In a similar vein, we know how to appreciate in that we [[know what]] 'acts of aspection' to perform concerning different works."* Ziff provides a vivid illustration: > *"...to contemplate a painting is to perform one act of aspection; to scan it is to perform another; to study, observe, survey, inspect, examine, scrutinise, 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?"* This indicates that different artworks demand different acts of aspection based on their styles, schools, and inherent qualities. Our knowledge of art informs these acts: > *"Works of different particular types have different kinds of boundaries, have different foci of aesthetic significance, and perhaps most important, demand different acts of aspection. In knowing the type we know what and how to appreciate."* By understanding the type or category of art, we are guided on how to engage with it appropriately. Ziff emphasises: > *"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."* For instance, we look for light in a Claude, colour in a Bonnard, and contoured volume in a Signorelli. This knowledge dictates relevant acts of aspection and guides our appreciative response. --- ## Challenges in Applying Aspection to Nature Transitioning from art to nature, Carlson acknowledges that the straightforward application of 'aspection' is not as evident: > *"But the subject of this chapter is not art nor the artworld. Rather it is the aesthetic appreciation of nature. The question I wish to investigate is the question of what and how to aesthetically appreciate concerning the natural environment."* He points out that the account used for art cannot be directly applied to nature without modifications: > *"It is of interest since the account that is implicit in the above remarks, and that I believe to be the correct account for art, cannot be applied to the natural environment without at least some modification."* The primary reason is that natural environments are not human creations: > *"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."* Unlike art, where we have clear knowledge of boundaries and significant aspects due to our role in its creation, nature lacks these predefined guidelines. Therefore, the questions of what and how to appreciate in nature are open and require exploration. --- ## Experiencing Nature: From Background to Foreground To address this, Carlson suggests a shift in how we experience nature. He proposes that we should move from perceiving nature as an unobtrusive background to experiencing it as an obtrusive foreground: > *"We must experience our background setting in all those ways in which we normally experience it, by sight, smell, touch, and whatever. However, we must experience it not as unobtrusive background, but as obtrusive foreground."* This involves engaging with nature using all our senses, similar to how animals interact with their environment. Carlson references John Dewey's insights: > *"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."* By immersing ourselves fully in the natural environment, we open ourselves to a richer aesthetic experience. --- ## The Role of Knowledge in Nature Aspection However, simply experiencing nature without guidance leads to sensory overload—a "blooming, buzzing confusion" devoid of meaning. Carlson emphasises the necessity of knowledge to provide structure to our experience: > *"Without such limits and emphases our experience of the natural environment would be only 'a meld of physical sensations' without any meaning or significance. It would be a Jamesian 'blooming, buzzing confusion' that truly substituted 'confusion for order' and, I suspect contra to Tuan, would not be wholly satisfying."* Our knowledge, particularly common-sense and scientific understanding, helps us identify boundaries and foci of aesthetic significance in nature: > *"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."* This knowledge informs our acts of aspection, guiding us on what to focus on and how to appreciate it. --- ## Acts of Aspection in Different Natural Environments Just as different art forms require different acts of aspection, various natural environments demand unique approaches. Carlson explains: > *"Different natural environments require different acts of aspection; and as in the case of what to appreciate, our knowledge of the environment in question indicates how to appreciate—that is, indicates the appropriate act of aspection."* For example: - **Prairie Environment**: - **Act of Aspection**: Survey - **Engagement**: "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." - **Dense Forest Environment**: - **Act of Aspection**: Examine and Scrutinise - **Engagement**: "Inspecting the detail of the forest floor, listening carefully for the sounds of birds, and smelling carefully for the scent of spruce and pine." These acts are informed by our knowledge of the specific environment, allowing us to engage with it meaningfully. --- ## Avoiding Inappropriate Assimilation Carlson cautions against assimilating the appreciation of nature to that of art, as this can lead to inappropriate acts of aspection: > *"Frequently the appreciation of nature is assimilated to the appreciation of art. Such an assimilation is both a theoretical mistake and an appreciative pity."* He warns that this assimilation can result in: - **Theoretical Mistake**: Misunderstanding the distinct natures of art and nature. - **Appreciative Pity**: Failing to appreciate nature appropriately by "relying on the wrong information, engaging in the wrong acts of aspection, and having the wrong responses." By recognising that nature is not a work of art, we can avoid imposing art-specific acts of aspection on natural environments, thus appreciating them on their own terms. --- ## Object-Oriented Appreciation Central to Carlson's understanding of 'aspection' is the concept of object-oriented appreciation. Appreciation should be guided by the nature of the object itself, whether art or nature: > *"Appreciation is a set of activities not only responsive to the object but incorporating knowledge of it as an essential component."* This means that: - **In Art**: Our appreciation is informed by knowledge of the artwork's type, style, and historical context. - **In Nature**: Our appreciation is guided by our understanding of natural processes, ecosystems, and the specific characteristics of the environment. By following the lead of the object, we ensure that our acts of aspection are appropriate and meaningful. --- ## Design Appreciation vs. Order Appreciation Carlson distinguishes between different models of appreciation: - **Design Appreciation** (Art): - Focuses on the interplay between the artist's intention, the design, and the resulting artwork. - Involves making judgments about the success or failure of the design. - Requires knowledge of artistic conventions and history. - **Order Appreciation** (Nature): - Focuses on the inherent order and patterns in nature resulting from natural forces. - Appreciates nature's complexity without imposing human designs. - Informed by scientific and common-sense understanding of natural processes. He asserts that: > *"Nature appreciation differs in certain substantive ways from the appreciation of those works of art and anti-art for which order appreciation is also appropriate. Following the lead of the object, as demanded by the object-oriented