Environmental Aesthetics
Created: Wed Jun 18 2025 20:00:00 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
Word vomit and notes on readings mixed with some thoughts
Notes on Environmental Aesthetics from Stanford article
So did terms like "picturesque" and "sublime" come from philosophers? I wonder what other words come from philosophy that describes art.
Kant
- Beauty of nature is its form, shape only. Not colour or its function.
- "dynamic sublime" refers to powerful natural objects, such as waterfalls. Dynamic implimes movement.
- "mathematical sublime" refers to experiencing vastness, such as being on top of a mountain. Not sure why Kant uses mathetmatical as term.
Wilderness
- To be conquered. Landscape and people...colonialist view.
- Emerson and Thoreau, philosophers, wanted to protect wildnerness because of its spiritual value. See nature as an entity.
"Nature's masterpieces"
Park systems derived from the idea of picteresque, to protect the visual, the beauty of landscapes.
"positive aesthetics" - John Muir. Ugliness is when human intervenes, while everything in nature is beautiful, even environmental disasters like hurricanes or tornadoes.
Motorized tourism
"One line of thought, for example, argued that because nature is not intentionally designed, it cannot be aesthetically appreciated (Mannison 1980; Elliot 1982; though see Elliot 1997)." Who thought this...robots?
"Should we aim to experience and appreciate the widest variety of environments, or should we instead cultivate our attachments to those select few places to which we feel some special, affective attachment?" - What I think about on do we actually need to travel to appreciate what we have?
Natural Environmental Model
- Viewing nature for what it is through natural history and natural sciences. Moving beyond seeing it as picteresque landscape.
- Knowing about the ecology of a place in turns makes an informed viewer, and such can be a better advocater for the place.
- To truly appreciate, it can't just be about aesthetics.
"sense of place"
cognitive vs non-cognitive / conceptual vs non-conceptual / narrative vs ambient
- cog: non-human origin, stories about nature through myths and folklore. NEM -> scientific cognitivism
- non-cog: emotional, nature's otherness, the mysterious hold it has on us, "formal qualities", in quotes maybe to relate to that nature doesn't have formal qualities because it's not art? metaphysical ideas and insights, imagination
- Critique: still relies on our judgement and beliefs which would be considered cog
- critique of this binary: would say any conceptual binary is flawed since nothing is ever black and white. Maybe 1/0, booleans. It's saying that that there's a separation between logical and emotional. That in science there wouldn't be imagination involved or emotions. This reminds me of scientists being inspired by Picasso's cubist paintings to think about atoms and quantum mechanics differently. So if art can illicit inspiration for scientists, why wouldn't scientist be able to have imagination and be inspired by nature?
"anthropogenic climate change is creating unprecedented and unpredictable types of “mixed environments” that may not fit the aesthetic concepts of the past"
- What I think about during wildfires and the smoke. Recently, June 2025, there was a wildfire from Canada's westcoast. The smoke travelled acrossed Canada and the Atlantic Ocean and made it's way to Geneva. I noticed one morning the sun was really red and glowing. I thought it was unusual and beautiful. A couple days later, I had a conversation with a friend and they also made a similar remark. At the time, I didn't know the visual appearance was due to the smoke but when talking to my friend, I did. And we both acknowledged that it was beautiful but also daunting.
- What is this feeling called when something is beautiful but also knowing that it's caused by environmental damange?
Aesthetic Protectionism
- There's an aesthetic value of nature that motivates us to preserve, protect and restore.
- "that preserve the beauty of an environment may arguably also render it something that is no longer natural". Is it because we are now intervening on what nature should look like, by maintaining or protecting it? In that, if we didn't interact with it, then we would let nature takes it course.
- What has an aesthetic value to us, may blindside us from what should be protected or has greater value to the environment. Mountains vs wetland.
Positive Aesthetics
- Seen similiar to NEM. Nothing is ugly and all of nature has an aesthetic value. Well, then how do you choose what to protect? Is there a scale of beauty?
- Allen Carson - with scientific understanding, then we will view nature with aesthetic good (ok, but that's just NEM, which is what the article does state). Kind of confusing when people say the same thing but under a different term like PA
- Yuriko Saito - story is at the heart of what drives aesthetic interest. Instead of just looking at things factually, even if it's scientific, what's the story?
- Holmes Rolston - looking at ecology as a system and not as an isolated event. Can view the Rhône at one specific area like the confluence, but you can also start at the glaciers, how it moves from from the mountain to the lake, and how the lake "purifies" it so that it can be clear once it enters the city. But, knowing this, does it add aesthetic value? Can I not appreciate the clarity, the colour, essential the form, without knowing the journey? I think perhaps I have a deeper appreciation knowing how the water becomes clear and where it comes from. But does appreciation have to do anything with aesthetic value?
Biodiversity
- A reason to protect, the endangered species at risk of being extinct. They become rare, therefore more valuable. Not part of our everyday life.
- National Monuments - natural entities being protected by law
"rewild" as a term
- aquariums
- zooms
- digital recreations? not quite...what term could be applied to simulated nature. e-wild?
"Tourist Traffic"
- Places made famous by tv & film. This would go along the "scenic aesthetic", viewing nature as a picteresque landscape, as a backdrop for humans in films but also selifes. Although, when it comes to tv & film, is the aesthetic value of the location is what's driving people's interest? Maybe part of it, but it's no in isolation from the media itself.
- https://www.trtworld.com/arts-and-culture/asian-tourists-crash-land-on-swiss-village-made-famous-by-netflix-series-13551463
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khao_Phing_Kan
“new aesthetics of strangeness and uncertainty”
- Smoke from Canada arriving in Geneva, which reminds me of a volcano eruption happening in maybe 1700s (?) that affected the entire world. Large scale environmental events can now be experienced as a collective due to technology.
"the role of sound in environmental appreciation (J. Fisher 1998, 1999; Dyck 2016; Prior 2017)" Would like to know more about this since it can relate to giving a voice to rivers. But one thing I keep on thinking about is our projection on non-human things. Can we truly do understand and do justice to non-human entities?
Ecological Aesthetics
- land management and landscape architects: suppose these professions are interested in this concept because they have to understand the environment beyond just aesthetics, but how they also function.
- ecological operation and ecological value: how the landscape works and what value does it offer to the system of non-humans and humans
- "organmisms" are not separate from their environment. Is this similar to the German word/concept umwelt?
- Cheng, Chiense philosopher on ecoaesthetics. There are four keystones (look into more). Rejects the binary narrative of human vs nature.
Global Perspectives
- Globalization of aesthetics: how does incorporating other worldviews into a Western framework change our perception and relationship to environmental aesthetics? I wonder what Vietnamese philosophers have contributed to this dialogue.
- Indigenious and local knowledge - In Canada, there is an effort for reconicilation. One initiative is to have land acknowledgements. These are a reminder of the land that we are on, but it could also give appreciation that's beyond just the NEM or ecological aesthetic. It's giving appreciation to those that took care of the land before colonialism.
Back to Sublime and Picturesque
- Isis Brook says picturesque is great for gardens and rural landscapes, to appreciate the wild nature. That was from 2008. I would also say the picturesque is also even more important as humans have moved from rural to urban. Our need to reconnect with nature. And now, even more so with technological societies. Think of retreats where people disconnect from technology to be in nature, or tech companies having nature based names (Mac OS names), or having desktop screensavers of landscapes.
- Why do people have beef with the sublime?
- On sublime, like all sensations and feelings, would we overcome or get use to sublime if our environment was living in the mountains?
The Aesthetics of Animals
- Cuteness
- Attractiveness -> leads to protectionism
- "animation" of animals, the movement of animals. reminds me of locomotive studies, eg. Muybridge or the animated film Turning Red and how animators studied red pandas and their movement
- Ugliness of animals. Their features but if a postivist POV, then no animal is ugly. What about animal behaviour that is predatory? Since animals do not have morals, we cannot impose their actions as being ugly.
Mediated Appreciation
- "new technologies have radically expanded the possibilities for aesthetic engagement with the natural world by providing new ways of seeing (Lopes 2003)"
- Time lapsed photography
- Infrared photography
- What about VR? Digital experiences.
Climate Change and Aesthteics
- Moral emotions that come up due to us damaging the environment. Some emotions, guilt, shame, sadness
- awe and wonder in conjunction with "strangeness and uncertainity"
- "Would ignoring the moral taint of the degraded environments of the Anthropocene be a similar sort of error?" Question about separating appreciation of a work or an environment, from its flaws. For example, if it's music. Can we separate Kayne West from his music? Can we appreciate the music while ignoring who he is? In similar fashion, what the article is asking is, can we appreciate the damaged environment while ignoring the cause of the damage?
- If we find beauty in environmental damage, then we are also encouraging these practices. At least this is what the artcile is saying. I don't think I agree. I think you can acknowledge that there's something beautiful, even if it's strange, while also saying, this is beautiful only because of this damage.
Notes on Performing Nature by John Andrew Fisher
The paper addresses whether we can appreciate nature through a performance model rather and takes inspiration from the arts as references.
Performing existing works
An orchestra performing a musical piece or an actor performing a scripted play. Here there is a existing material and there's a complete ending. Relating to nature, there is a existing material that is independent of us and that we should respect it, similar to how we should respect the original creation of a work when performing it.
Performing as improvisation
Muscians jamming or an actor playing the yes and game in improve. Still working within parameters because for music, you're playing within a musical range or scale and for actors, you're still doing improve under the circumstance for comdey and laugther and the absurd. For nature, this model is attractive because nature is an unbounding and unpredictable at times.
Performing as performance-art
The artist, the moment, the materials in-front of them and the uniqueness. "In performance-art either there are no obvious materials or the materials are said to be ideas." (Fisher 23). Critique here for using this model with nature is that artists use whatever they can to make their point, whetehr it's respecting or about nature.
Author tries to shift our perspective on land art as being a performance rather than scultpures. Fisher poses questions rather give answers and it's up the reader to make a conclusion. Or rather, are the questions rhetorical?
With performance, there must be an audience. When peforming nature though, who is the audience? It is us, the viewer. We are performing for ourselves. We take notice what we want from nature.
Andy Goldsworthy
Artworks that uses materials of the environment the artwork is situated. For example, fallen leaves on the ground, rearranged by colour to create a striking visual that contrasts what we normally see in nature yet, still be in nature. What kind of art is this?
- Scultpure
- In a sense yes because it's using a raw material to create a 3D dimenional work. However, it's not an object that lasts nor is it a monument meant to commemorate or memorialize a figure or time period. It is also specific to the environment.
- Abstract object / Gesture
- Comparison to Fountain by Marcel Duchamp. In the sense, it's not about the leaves being leaves, but rather being with the environment and working with the material and drawing attention to the environment.
- Ideas
- This I don't agree with. Wouldn't all artworks have an idea behind them? Even if a painting is expressing colours and form, there's an idea to arrange them in a certain way which in turn can tell us what the painter was thinking.
Fisher does note that Goldsworthy artworks are not performace-art because the materials are used too freely. I guess he means, is the artist really examining what the leaf is a material and using it for it's capabilities? In the sense, no other than using the colour of the leaves.
To appreciate nature through a performance model, it is to respect nature and to apprecaite it as nature.
Ends with the problem of documentation and capturing a performance or artwork. This then aligns with the reproduction issue of artworks, but specifically about the point of appreciating nature as nature since we are actually not in front of the artwork which is situated in nature. So can we truly appreciate through a reproduction? In this sense, we would be appreciating the documentation, the moment, and the idea.
Notes on From Allen Carlson to Richard Long: The Art-Based Appreciation of Nature by Marta Tafalla
Allen Carlson and NEM (natural environment model)
- to appreciate anything aesthetically, it involves knowledge. For art, knowing about colour theory, art/design principles or art history.
- natural science is the type of knowledge that allows us to appreciate nature aesthetically "In order to appreciate the colouring of a deciduous forest in autumn, one needs to understand why the leaves change colour." (Tafalla 494). Like the author, I'm also skeptical that you need to understand the science behind this in order to appreciate nature. What is the initial feeling that people get when they witness a natural phenomonen? What is this sensation that overtakes them? It is not the science, but the view and perhaps the knowing that change is happening, that a new season is in progress. In this case, are they appreciating nature for what it's providing in the rhythm of life.
Thought: if there's a relationship to the knowledge of art through theory and history, and making the connection to appreciating nature through a natural science perspective, then could we go back and use this logic of knowing about the science of colours and perception to have a true appreciation of art?
Criticism against NEM
- Normativism. There are many ways to appreciate nature and not just one. Towards a pluralist model. However, as Fisher asks in Performing Nature “Is there then any way to avoid a self-indulgent subjectivism while acknowledging the non-intentional, exceedingly complex and unruly character of nature?” (Fisher 19). So, how to avoid being only subjective in a pluralist model. And the question is, why is it important to not be in an individual subjective view? Well, if everything is subjective, then anything goes.
- Purely cognitive and no other ways that humans can show appreciation. What about emotions, imagination, stories.
- "the distance between the subject and the object disappears" a refernce to Arnold Berleant's take on appreciating nature. Immersion in the environment.
- Look into Emily Brady's theory of imagination
- Other types of knowledge. Ex. myths, folklore.
- False opposition b/w Art & Science. Science is the only way to understand nature while art is subjective and doesn't produce knowledge.
"does landscape painting teach us to appreciate nature?" (Tafalla 499)
- A question in response to the medium and subject that Carlson uses for his argument. Which I would then ask, are paintings supposed to teach? Are they an educational tool?
Land art developed in 60s and 70s at the same time with the new developments of philo of nature. Land art was an answer to landscsape painting, in the way that they were site specific, and forced people to view them in their location (or through documentation), which prompts people to wonder about the surrounding environment that the artwork is in rather than art that is framed and viewed in a gallery.
Land art is not mimesis which landscape painting is. Although, there could be an argument that it's not just representational (painting) because if it's expressive, then it's trying to capture somethingt that is abstract, like a feeling, a fleeting moment.
For land art to show us appreciation of nature, it shouldn't be destructive or altering the landscape that isn't aligned with nature itself. Example the author gives is Richard Long who walks as his medium. As he goes back and forth in a line, it eventually leaves a path. Similar to paths we see in urban environments where people cut through an area even though there's a designed path, but usually there's a shorter path people want and they will take it. While the urban environment is about efficency and speed and fighting against a designed environment, Richard Long, is using his walking path to demonstrate his time with nature. The path created is harmless and eventually with fade away.
What remains are photos of the work. It's giving a bit Nazca lines and crop circles vibes but in an art context.
Arte Povera - Perhaps using this art period because it originates from the 60s/70s and has a similar ethos by using unconventional materials of the time for art that could be considered hodge podge. More on arte povera: https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/a/arte-povera
The author makes note of the criticism from Carlson and that his medium and subject was the landscape painting and some other land art but disregards other artworks. Although this statement "Long’s is an art that consists of entering into nature, passing through it, experiencing it in three dimensions, with all five senses, getting to know it, exploring it and living it." (Tafalla 508) Is from the point of view of the artist. So its the act of making art, doing this performance as a solo person is what constitutes appreciation, but for only one person if we are to take into consideration this immersive experience as being the way for appreciating nature.
However, it's not about being immersive in nature is what produces knowledge about nature. By seeing remnants of a path, Long is showing us that walking is a simple act (for those able-bodies) to connect with nature. It's a path that you can take again, and someone else too since you forged it for them. Making you not only connect with nature, but also humanity. To align with performance-art, it is the body and the mind that is the central piece yet there's no literal depiction of human in the documentation.
Notes on Appreciation and the Natural Environment by Allen Carlson
To appreciate, we first are able to distinguish what is part of an artwork and what isn't. The word used is aspection, which is a way to actively look, in another word, observation.
"In creating a painting, we know that what we make is a painting. In knowing this we know that it ends at its frame, that its colors are aesthetically important, but where it hangs is not, and that we are to look at it rather than, say, listen to " (Carlson 267).
- Saying that there are characteristics that make up a painting which guide us in making a painting. But the environment and context where the painting ends up is not relevant to the aesthetics of the painting. Don't agree with this since what if a painting is next to another painting, now yes, we can choose to concentrate on one at a time, but it contributes to your aesthetic experience and will change the way you perceive the painting as an invidiual and as a whole exhibition. In addition, if the painting is hanging in someone's home versus in a gallery, each location comes with its own pre-conceived notions that can also influence how you see the painting. But perhaps, what Carlson is saying thought, it doesn't change the fact that the making of the painting was influenced by the environment that it hangs. The paintiner isn't concerned aobut that. So there needs to be a distnction between the artist and the audience.
Paul Ziff - aspection also relates to recognizing art styles and how they inform how an artist or viewer sees the works.
While this paper is focused on the appreciating the natural environment, the above statemetns about art is used as an introduction to setup why these models do not work for aesthetic appreciation in nature.
Object Model
- Ex. sculpture. "The sculpture need not represent anything external to itself" (Carlson 268). A little confused with this statement because wouldn't sculpture represent something? For example, David of Michelangelo, is it not a representation of a person?
- When making the connection, it starts to become clearer what Carlson is talking aobut a "self-contained aesthetic unit". In the same way that we may take a rock out of its natural environment to display on our shelf, it's the same way that the scultupre lives on its own to be appreciated as a standalone object/monument.
- Sparshott "subject/object" model.
- Brancusi is used as a reference for his scultupres to note that there's not representational ties to reality. If a sculpture is abstract, then would this not make it automatically true? Again, what about representational sculptures?
- A natural object has no representational ties with the rest of reality. In that, the rock is the rock. It was not created by us to represent an aspect of reality. So in this sense, nature is nature.
- Of course the obvious criticism here would be that this is talking about an object rather than an environment and an environment has no concrete start and end, it's always changing, in other words, it's not static like a sculpture or a rock that has been taken out of its environment.
- Is it farfetched to appreciate nature as an object similar to how artists have taken everyday objects and made them into art for us to appreciate them aesthetically such as urinal or brillo boxes?
- There are aesthetic qualities that we only appreciate once removed from the environment, to see a rock as expressing solidity only happens once removed from its place. But among other rocks, this aesthetic quality doesn't exist.
Landscape Model
- Landscape painting is appreciated not for the painting as an object, nor the subject matter. Instead, it's the visual qualities like colour and design features like composition, light, contrast etc. I mean, isn't this true of painting? Or is the author more so making a distinction for landscape paintings? I guess it matters here because it showing nature in a way that we only appreciate it on the surface level.
- Appreciating surface level, but at a distance.
- Landscape mode -> Touristic view
- I wonder is, how do popular mediums to represent nature affect our appreciation of nature? Painting is what was available at the time and what people had access to. Then the camera, film/video, and now VR. Would past paradigms apply to new mediums? I guess what I'm getting at, these mediums is what we had available to us, and we aren't actively trying to find ways to appreciate nature through art because perhaps, it's just what we had at the time to create images, similar to how our ancestors drew on cave walls, that's what they had available.
- Maybe it's just limitations of these mediums, and we accept them for what they are. I also wonder, is it wrong to appreciate nature through colours and compositions? TO appreciate one aspect of it, similar to how we can appreciate a single object from nature?
- From Rees, they note that the picturesque and Romantic Movement is problematic because it positions nature as a means for us to enjoy and gain pleasure. This is dangerous becasue if we see nature as an entity that serves us, then that means we can take advantage of it without thinking of reprecussions (ex. now).
- Reducing nature environment to a scene. Similar criticism to the object model that it's static.
Environmental Model
- The name already implies a difference from the landscape and object model because an environment encompasses more than a static represetnation or a scene.
- Carlson remarks that we have an aesthetic appreciation when we recognize what we are seing. We choose what to focus on in the foreground.
- Scientific/common knowledge is what guides us to pick out what to focus on and distinguish from other parts of the environment.
- This view, I can see value in that appreciating nature is a life-long endevaour and that knowledge is never compelete if the envionrment is always changing. As we learn more about an environment, the more we can appreciate it. It goes from being protective to being caring. Although, I'm not sure if this act of care is what Carlson has in mind.
- Like appreciating art, you need to know art theory and history. For nature, the equivalent is natural science and history.
Bibliography
CARLSON, Allen, 1979. Appreciation and the Natural Environment. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Vol. 37, no. 3, p. 267. DOI 10.2307/430781.
FISHER, John Andrew and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ENVIRNMENTAL PHILOSOPHY, 2007. Performing Nature. Environmental Philosophy. Vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 15–28. DOI 10.5840/envirophil200741/23.
PARSONS, Glenn and CARLSON, Allen, 2024. Environmental Aesthetics. In : ZALTA, Edward N. and NODELMAN, Uri (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [online]. Fall 2024. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved from : https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/environmental-aesthetics/ [accessed 15 June 2025].
TAFALLA, Marta, 2010. From Allen Carlson to Richard Long: The Art-Based Appreciation of Nature. . Vol. 2.
To Read Possibly
https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/digital-vision-and-the-ecological-aesthetic-1968--2018-9781350051836/
← Back to garden