Below you will find my Philosophy Masters final dissertation with which I passed my MA. I have posted it for information purposes only and all opinions and research is my own, sources and references are listed in the bibliography. Please do not copy or use any of this writing. Comments and questions are welcome, if you are currently studying for a degree or MA in Philosophy or are simply interested in this particular topic please feel free to get in touch.
Copyright: Kerri-Ann Betty
Aligning aesthetics and environmentalism:
A consideration of aesthetic care for natural landscapes.
by Kerri-Ann Betty (was Briggs)
Abstract
I’ve
always felt drawn to nature and natural landscapes. I love to take walks and
admire the formations of land, the flora and fauna created by nature. John
Burroughs wrote in ‘The art of seeing things’ “If I were to name the three most
precious resources of life, I should say books, friends, and nature; and the
greatest of these at least the most constant and always at hand, is nature” (Burroughs
2001) This view that nature is precious and should be valued has become of more
importance over the years. I often
wonder whether others, when looking at a natural environments, feel the same
sense of pleasure or whether the views evoke a different emotional response in
others. This is partly what drew me to this field of research and writing this
paper. Additionally, the idea that we humans are harming natural environments
is something that I’m concerned about, something I feel I needed to better
understand before making a judgement. In this paper I will bring together the two
previously mentioned topics of philosophical debate, aesthetics and
environmentalism.
I will begin this paper with a short introduction to the history of aesthetic
appreciation, I will then offer an explanation of what it is I mean by
aesthetic care. In the chapters that follow I will look to answer several key
questions that I feel will help to align aesthetics with environmentalism
whilst considering levels of aesthetic care of nature. When looking to consider
aesthetic care for natural landscapes a proportion of prior information is
required to enable a well constructed view to be established. I will begin by looking
at how we aesthetically appreciate natural environments whilst offering the
view that we aesthetically appreciate natural environments in a different way
to how we appreciate urban environments. I will introduce Allen Carlson’s
theory of scientific cognitivism and my view that it is useful when applied to
only some environments. In the following chapter I will discuss why a balance is needed between aesthetics and
environmentalism and assess whether it is possible to maintain one. I
will then, In the third chapter, discuss different levels of aesthetic care and
assess when these different types of human interventions should be undertaken. Finally,
I will be concluding my paper by attempting to align aesthetics and
environmentalism whilst offering the view that humans are ethically obligated
to not only administer aesthetic care but to carefully consider the correct
level of aesthetic care required for each environment on its own merits.
Contents
Introduction
Chapter 1
How do we aesthetically appreciate natural
environments?
Chapter 2
Is it possible to maintain a balance between aesthetics and
environmentalism?
Chapter 3
What is the correct level of aesthetic care
for natural environments?
Conclusion
Introduction
A brief history of the study of the aesthetics
of nature
In
the Weston world philosophical debate regarding the aesthetic appreciation of
nature first developed in the ‘early modern period’. Prior to this nature was
appreciated as a sort of mirror of art.[1]
To begin with philosophical investigation of the aesthetics of nature a was
seen as a pointless and ‘unworthy’ in the eyes of religion. Seeing “natures
workings as nothing but poor substitutes for the perfect harmony that had been
lost in humanity’s fall from grace” (Carlson and Lintott 2008 pg3) The rise of
science though and the increased use of natural landscapes within art lead the
way for aesthetic appreciation and for further philosophical debate. “It was not until
Englishmen became familiar with the landscapes of Claude Lorrain and Salvatore
Rosa, Ruysdael and Hobbema, that they were able to receive any aesthetic
pleasure from their natural surroundings” said Christopher Hussey (1927)
The study of the aesthetics of art was already a well-established and
regarded topic of philosophy by this point. It took time for nature
appreciation to be regarded as a topic of philosophy worth time and research.
In the late eighteenth century,
the appreciation of nature was highly influenced by the idea of the picturesque.
This followed through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries being the most
popular aesthetic experience of nature. This mode of aesthetic appreciation
which is commonly connected with tourism can be seen today in the use of
particular photographs of landscapes used to advertise them as places worth
visiting, prints of these images can also be purchased on postcards, mugs, tea
towels and other souvenirs.
Philosophical study of the aesthetics of nature began to decline in the
twentieth century; ideas such as the concept of the sublime and the notion of
disinterestedness appeared to be brought to a close. Kant’s ‘Critique of
Judgement’ is thought to have had some influence in this as many believe that
he achieved philosophical closure, this together with the views of GWF Hegal
being discussed throughout the UK, who viewed art as of higher importance to
that of nature, there appeared no need for further philosophical study and
therefore brought an end to the need of debate.
[2]
Whilst this was happening in the UK, in North America the popularity of ‘nature
writing’ was emerging, this combined with the alignment of aesthetics with
environmentalism began to pique the interest of philosophers around the world.
The idea that humanity was causing damage and destruction to nature, raised by
George Perkins Marsh[3], began
to create a renewed interest. This led to further debate and discussion, the
idea then of nature being truly aesthetically beautiful arose, a view that naturalists
like John Muir held; it was Muir who argued that nature was inherently
beautiful and the only point at which it could be considered unattractive is
when it was subjected to human intrusion.[4] At this point positive aesthetics was born,
something I will discuss further later.
A consideration of Aesthetic Care
If
we care about something aesthetically does this imply that there is some kind
of ethical relationship between us and that which we care for? Does it mean
then that if we care for something aesthetically that we should also consider a
level of care in terms of maintenance so that we may preserve the object of our
care?[5]
These are some of the questions that I will be addressing in the next few
chapters.
In an urban landscape, inhabited by humans, aesthetic care is often shown by a
lack of debris, neatness and organisation. How though in natural landscapes are
we able to express aesthetic care without disrupting the space and changing it
from an untouched area of natural beauty to an organised space that mimics
human formed manicured landscapes. Aesthetic care of natural spaces is
undertaken, most often, by humans with good intentions, sometimes though we can
unintentionally harm nature by destroying habitats for other organisms and
disrupting the naturally formed beauty of a space.[6] In recent years more attention has been paid
to the relationship between aesthetics and ecology within philosophical
literature.[7]
There are a number of reasons this may be though one of the key reasons I
believe is that aesthetics have a powerful impact on humans, the way someone or
something looks can evoke emotions and feelings of different sorts for example
affection or distaste. These feelings can lead to actions. An environment that
evokes pleasing emotions for a community is more likely to be cared for than
one that evokes annoyance and distaste. Shelia Lintott says “the power of
aesthetics can be a valuable tool for environmental ethicists, scientists and
activities” (2008 pg380) This relationship between natures aesthetic value and
environmentalism has a long, rich history, one of the key philosophers within
this area of debate Eugene Hargrove believes that aesthetic values play an
important role in landmark decisions concerning both preservation and
conservation, he also notes that both the arts and the sciences have been
instrumental in drawing the public’s attention to the ‘aesthetic dimensions of
natural environments’.[8]
Chapter 1
How do we aesthetically appreciate
natural environments?
When we talk of aesthetic value and appreciation it is worth considering that
there are a number of ways, we might aesthetically experience something; be
that art, architecture or in this case environments. To appreciate aesthetic
values doesn’t simply mean we have to ‘like’ or ‘love’ the way something looks.
Other ways in which we might experience the aesthetic value and appreciate its
power include being thrilled, engrossed, humbled, transformed, educated,
horrified and disillusioned. These experiences are each valuable, yet none
would be considered pleasurable.[9]
It is therefore possible for us to appreciate things that we do not necessarily
find attractive and pleasing to the eye; we can appreciate them for their own
qualities. Traditionally though when we talk about aesthetic appreciation
within philosophical discussion, we are talking about finding things beautiful
and attractive, a positive pleasing experience; this notion is being challenge
recently in articles featured in the British Journal of Aesthetics with one
particular philosopher Antonia Peacocke directly challenging the idea
and suggesting that we embrace a more multidimensional account of aesthetic
value. Peacocke says that “Aesthetic value
empiricism claims that the aesthetic value of an object is grounded in the
value of a certain kind of experience of it. The most popular version of value
empiricism, and a dominant view in contemporary philosophical aesthetics more
generally, is aesthetic hedonism. Hedonism restricts the grounds of aesthetic
value to the pleasure enjoyed in the right kind of experience.” A restrictive
and conservative view but one I find interesting and will refer back to it in a
later chapter, initially though I will be focusing, in this paper, on
aesthetically appreciating environments in a traditional sense, that being,
finding an environment pleasing to the eye and being drawn to describe them as
‘beautiful’.
When considering the aesthetic appreciation of nature, in its traditional
sense, it would be hard not to mention one of the most highly respected
philosophers within the field, Allen Carlson, a scientific cognitivist, who
many argue advanced the discussion of aesthetic appreciation of nature and
presented a bold theory in which to support it. Carlson offered a framework and
set of constraints for which any respectable researcher within this area would
at least consider.[10]
Carlson’s view, in brief, is that the appreciation of virgin nature (nature
untouched by human hands) is a matter of scientific understanding. In many of
his early papers he discusses scientific cognitivism, the theory that nature
should be appreciated with reference to scientific information about it and its
parts. A theory some would argue is built off the back of Kendall Walton’s
theory of art appreciation, [11]
in fact Carlson himself is explicit about this. Carlson argues for the view that this
scientific cognitivism justifies ‘positive aesthetics’ the view that something
is aesthetically good or positive.[12]
Marcia Muelder Eaton, a philosophical aesthetician, has
views that align somewhat with Carlson in “The Beauty that requires health”
Eaton endorses Carlson’s views and suggests that aesthetic attention guided by
contextual features is what’s key to proper aesthetic experience of natural
environments, it helps to inform us of what is relevant and what isn’t in order
to fully appreciate it.[13]
Joan Nassauer too appears to agree with Carlson’s thirst for knowledge but for
a different reason they believe that “Because aesthetic satisfaction involves
us more deeply in the landscape, we continue to learn more and grow more
intelligent in how we tend the land” (1988) so then Nassauer finds a benefit in
us having some form of scientific knowledge about environments not so much to
aid our aesthetic appreciation but more so that we can make educated judgements
for when and how to aesthetically care for them, something I will discuss
further in chapter 3.
Glenn Parsons though
argues against Carlson’s views finding fault in many of his theories. Parsons
suggests that we rethink the relationship between appropriate aesthetic
appreciation and positive aesthetics when considering nature. He offers that
“The idea that nature is aesthetically good must be incorporated into such
theories explicitly, rather than derived from them post hoc” (2008) Parsons
goes on to insist that we must investigate further how the acquisition of scientific
knowledge really functions within the theory. Parsons holds the view that
Carlons has difficulty defending his view of Positive Aesthetics because he
excludes any kind of beauty making criteria from the normative element of his
theory.
Emily Brady too puts forward an objection to Carlson’s theory of aesthetic
appreciation, she offers the view that although scientific knowledge is a good
starting point for the appreciation of nature it isn’t necessary for perceiving
aesthetic qualities and values.[14]
In her view we do not need to know about why an environment looks the way it
does to aesthetically appreciate it; we don’t need to know that the flower
meadow growing in a field is ecologically helpful to bees and insects and that
it in turns supports a sustainable future for a multitude of organisms, we can
simply admire the beautiful colours and shapes of the flowers dancing in the
wind. Our initial thoughts when we observe natural environments rarely involve
any scientific considerations most often, we are struck first by appearance,
shape, colour, line and form. Lance Hosey gives a great example of this when he
talks about his thoughts whilst he observes the trees in late September “My
first thoughts are not about the chlorophyll draining from the leaves and their
ebbing ability to produce oxygen, absorb carbon, and photosynthesize. No, my
first reaction is simpler – the sheer splendour of the scene stops me in my
tracks. I’m awestruck” (Hosey 2012) Hosey here is admiring the beauty of the
environment, the beauty in the colourful leaves falling from the trees, he is
able to do this before he even considers the science behind what is happening
to the trees. It would be fair to argue that some may not even have this
knowledge of what is happening to the leaves on the trees and yet they too can
appreciate the aesthetic beauty.
Carlson’s theory though doesn’t suggest we need to know all of the scientific
knowledge there is to know, just that we have some understanding, or at least
should have. Initially I agreed with Brady’s view, I don’t feel we need any
scientific knowledge to appreciate most of nature’s environments. This lead me
though to consider some environments which at first, I did not consider
beautiful, at first, I considered them to be rather bland and boring, for
example the local wetlands. My initial view of the wetlands on a typical
overcast British day was that it lacked colour, was overgrown in places and
could be enhanced with the planting of colourful flora. After researching
though I found that the wetlands were home to a number of species of birds,
insects and water loving mammals and that the plants surrounding the area were
there because they grew well in that particular environment and because of that
supported the eco-system of the organisms within it. This newfound scientific
knowledge together with revisiting at different times of the year to see the
wetlands in different seasons and weather conditions gave me a renewed
appreciation and I began to see the beauty in the wetlands environment. This
then would support Carlson’s theory that some level of scientific knowledge is
useful to make aesthetic judgements, though it only supports it in specific
situations and for specific environments and I question whether it was
essential or whether over time through regular expose to the environment
whether my opinion would have changed not due to any scientific knowledge
gained but simply from viewing the same environment regularly and in different
stages of its development through the seasons.
In order to further investigate this question, it is useful then to consider
what would happen if this were not a natural environment but rather an urban
one. One that was created by humans. Carlson himself offers that his theory
only applies to “virgin nature” I question though whether it could apply too to
urban environments. If I consider how I would feel about a space created by
humans that similarly to the wetlands looked drab, lacking colour, shape and
interest would I a) return regularly b) Change my opinion of it through the
changing seasons and c) Change my opinion of it after gaining scientific
knowledge. My initial thoughts here are that I would probably not return
specifically to visit the space if my first visit did not spark some form of interest
for me but that if I was to come across it again in a different season my
opinion of it may change. An argument could be made about normative claims,
claims that we should or ‘ought’ to know when the best time is to visit in
order to experience the environment in its best light so that we can appreciate
it when it is looking its best. I would offer though that with regards to urban
environments especially simply knowing when is best to visit isn’t something we
could just know. We’d have to be told by those that created the space, we’d
have to also agree with them and their opinions on the space. We may not as I
previously mentioned experience the space in the same way in which the creator
does and so it would be difficult to state exactly when and how to experience
an urban space to experience it in its ‘best light’. Again, having some
scientific knowledge may aid in changing my views but I’m unsure if it would in
the same way it does for natural environments. There is something about the
power of nature changing without human intervention that I appreciate more than
I do when I consider changes made by human hands. This for me suggests we (well
I for certain) appreciate natural environments in a different way to urban
environments. So, Carlson then was probably right in applying his theory only
to nature, for natural environment for many if not most are experienced in a
different way to urban environments, we appear to innately respond to natural
environments in a different way to urban ones.
When considering the natural environment as Carlson says “It is so rich
in diversity, suggestion and emotional stimulus that it allows great liberty in
selecting, emphasizing and grouping. Thus, the problem is what and how to
select, emphasize and group and what and how to compose for appropriate
appreciation” (Carlson 2008) Paul Ziff offered a way for us to group and
categorise art with his notion of ‘acts of aspection’ a term I will explain in more
detail shortly. Whether this is
something that could transfer over to natural environments is still a topic of
debate many years after it was introduced and something Carlson has debated in
a number of his papers.[15]
Differences in design and purpose of urban
environments mean that we attribute different acts of aspection to them; we may
be looking for different qualities in each. In some we may be looking for
colour, for flow and for open space whereas in others we may be looking for
vibrancy of colour and variety of flora.
This though is not the case for natural environments, we have not
designed them for a purpose; they have been created without human intervention
and so it is more difficult to characterize the aspection. This is one of the
things that makes finding a fully functioning model of appreciation (a term I
will refer to later) for natural environments so difficult.
The idea of ‘acts of aspection’, in brief, offers the suggestion that we
appreciate different things in different ways. Aspection according to Ziff’s
notion, is the suggestion that we in a sense judge different things
differently; for example we could contemplate, study, observe, survey, inspect,
scrutinize etc. It seems practical for us then to say that one might scrutinize
a piece of artwork submitted by a professional artist to an art competition and
yet for us to contemplate a Banksy that appears on a wall in a public space.
This notion appears practical when it comes to art and its many forms such as:
music, theatre and visual art. It is suggested by Ziff that we simply know the
correct ‘acts of aspection’ for art forms because they are our own human
creation[16]; so
then as urban environments are created by our hand, we should too know the
correct acts of aspection for them. We understand their construction, their
purpose and their parts. However, this notion doesn’t neatly apply to that of
natural environments; essentially because we played no part in their creation.
We according to Ziff find it easier to understand how to appreciate something
when we understand it; Carlson’s theory of a need for some scientific knowledge
then links very well with this notion. If we better understand the make-up and
scientific structure of an environment we should be in a better standing of understanding
exactly how to appreciate it for example whether to survey it, study it or
inspect it. Further to the debates that followed Ziff’s notion of aspection
there are now several ‘models of appreciation’ offered to us, models that will
supposedly further educate us in how exactly to aesthetically appreciate
things. There are many models which work well when we consider the aesthetic
appreciate of art; some models attempt to do this for natural environments
though many fail and those that don’t are not wholly successful.
Since the arrival of environmental ethics, the
question of whether there is a model of appreciation that can align with
environmentalism has been raised. One way we could begin to investigate this is
to look at what the requirements are of environmentalism for a good model of
the appropriate aesthetic appreciation of nature. Carlson and Lintott offer a
very clear and to the point answer to this question “What environmentalism
requires from the aesthetics of nature is an approach that first is acentric
rather than simply anthropocentric[17];
second, is environmentally focused rather than scenery obsessed; third is
serious and deep rather than superficial and trivial; fourth is objective
rather than subjective; and fifth is morally neutral or even morally vacuous”
(2008) There are a number of models of appreciation that have been discussed and
debated over the years, some of which were initially accepted as suitable for
not only aesthetically appreciating art but also natural environments. Over
time though, it has become apparent that most are problematic.
Initially one of the most commonly accepted models for nature appreciation was
the ‘object model’ a model which encourages us to consider an object’s features
separately to its surroundings. The problem though as Santayana points out is
that nature is indeterminate, there are no lines drawn around nature to tell us
where it begins and where it stops and though it contains many individual
objects if we direct our focus and appreciation to just one, we are not
appreciating the natural environment as a whole.[18]
This model would obviously fail to meet a number of the previously mentioned
requirements as it fails to have an environmental focus or any moral grounds.
A model that could be seen as slightly more successful is the Natural
Environmental Model, a model that does not focus attention on simply one object
or try to encapsulate a particular scene for our appreciation and it doesn’t
simply reject the idea of traditions aesthetic appreciation. It promotes the
idea that we should aesthetically appreciate natural environments for what they
are and not what they have.[19]
This model addresses the concerns of Santayana’s in the sense that it
understands environments to be diverse and without boundaries. It encourages us
to use both common sense and scientific knowledge when we consider our
judgements. It also meets a few of the mentioned requirements for example: it
isn’t ‘scenery obsessed’, there is a consideration of a level of environmental
focus as it leads us to do at least some research and study to help us
understand the biology of the environment and I would argue it is deep and not
trivial. So then this model is successful on some levels. It meets some of the
requirements and it appeases the concerns of Santayana. The problems arise
though when we consider how dependant this model is on the average person, their
acquisition of common sense, knowledge and the time they assign to appreciating
an environment. Carlson states that this model when applied to the aesthetic
appreciation of anything, be that objects or environments “is dependant on and
guided by knowledge, scientific or otherwise, that is relevant to the thing in
question” (2008) People are very different, they do not all have the same
up-bringing, education, cultural experiences, religions or beliefs. This
creates an issue then for the supposition that a person is able to use ‘common
sense’ and scientific knowledge. This heavy dependence on the ability of a
person to have certain knowledge and common sense creates an issue for this
model of aesthetic appreciation despite its many appealing aspects over other
models.
At this point it seems fair to agree that we aesthetically appreciate urban and
natural environments differently and that it is difficult, if not impossible to
find a model of aesthetic appreciation of natural environments that is a) fully
successful and b) where environmental and aesthetic values are in balance. In
the next chapter I will be addressing the question point b in much more detail
looking at whether it is at all possible to find an adequate balance between
aesthetics and environmentalism. Something that needs to be considered before I
can address then, in the final chapter, what the correct level of aesthetic care
is for a natural environment.
Chapter
2
Is it possible to maintain a balance between aesthetics and environmentalism?
Lance Hosey writes that “Aesthetics are
fundamental to both culture and nature, and if sustainability refers to the
graceful interaction between them, it must have a sensory dimension” (2012)
Hosey here talks of the importance of aesthetics and also suggests that sustainability
is where we may be able to find a balanced link between aesthetics and nature.
In Hosey’s book ‘The shape of green, aesthetics, ecology and design’ he talks
of the study of ecology and how is encompasses not just part of an environment
but the total environment and all it’s associations; a holistic approach. Hosey
believes that ecological design should “work not just to preserve the natural
environment of wildlife and watersheds; it should embrace the entire
environment as well” (2012) In Hosey’s view within culture and nature
aesthetics are important; and they are not just beneficial to humans but to
animals too. Hosey goes on to talk of the rich history of aesthetics and that
aesthetic expression is inherent in our species, that is to say that we are
in-built with the desire to create and seeks aesthetically pleasing
surroundings, in his view this inherent interest in aesthetics is not a vane
and selfish, it goes deeper, it relates in part to survival. If we consider historically,
many years ago before we had the knowledge we do now about animals and
environments, where was the starting point for learning? In most cases aesthetics,
the way something looked or the way it looked changing could in some cases be a
warning sign. Aesthetics are one of the first signs of change or warning; along
with other sensory experiences. The traditional study of ecology concerns
itself with the ‘flow of energy’ through ecosystems; an emerging trend within
the study of ecology though refers to sensory ecological study which put
emphasis on the flow of informational, believing that it is essential. Not just
for us as humans, but also for animals. Hosey believes that sensory experience
within ecology is not just relevant but vital; in his book he discusses how
animals still to this day communicate through the use of sensory information
such as sight, sound and scent. In his view aesthetics are fundamental within
nature and environments; he believes that aesthetics within the natural world is
not just important for us humans to enable us to understand environments but
also for other organisms and animals. The way a natural environment looks will
help an animal know whether it is a safe place for them to be, whether they
will find food there and be amongst other of their species. Aesthetics is not a
trivial concern for environmentalists and ecologists, not something to be
ignored. Hosey here I feel that this highlights an important aspect of the link
between aesthetics and environmentalism, it is essential for us to understand
that there is a link, a historical one, that concerns all life and organisms; it’s
also important that we continue to support this link and ensure that it is
balanced.
There are some that disagree, some that believe aesthetics are not important,
they that believe it is wrong for us as humans to care about aesthetics as much
as we do, that the way something looks should not be a matter of importance
when considering the value and worth of an organism, object or environment.
Though there may be occasions where aesthetics should not be our first concern,
I would argue that to simply disregard aesthetics as shallow would be irresponsible
of us, especially in the case of natural environments. Lance Hosey wrote “Aesthetic attraction is not a superficial
concern, it’s an environmental imperative. Beauty could save the planet” (Hosey
2012) A firm statement and one that struck accord with me leading me to
investigate his claim further, exactly what did Hosey mean when he said that
‘beauty could save the planet?’ this is something I will investigate further
later in this chapter. Aesthetics has been a subject of interest within
Philosophy for years so has a well documented history, Environmental
ethics on the other hand as a field within philosophy is relatively new with it
only really getting started in the 1970’s. There is a long-documented history
within philosophy of the theorizing about the place of humans within the
natural world yet only in recent years has this warranted a dedicated field of
philosophy.[20]
According to Katie McShane “The motivation for the earliest work in
environmental ethics, then, was a desire to formulate ethical theories that did
a better job of accounting for our moral obligations to the nonhuman natural
world.” It is considered by some, such as Holmes
Rolston, that aesthetic experience is an obvious starting point for
environmental ethics[21].
It’s hard to disagree with this when you consider that aesthetics, and the way
in which an environment looks, is one of the early indicators of the health of
an environment; when an environment for example a forest full of trees suddenly
drastically changes it is an indicator for us to investigate why this has
happened and to attempt to understand whether this is a sign of poor health,
naturally occurring change or damage caused by humans or other organisms. Perhaps
this then is what Hosey means when he says that “Beauty could save the planet”.
Aesthetics and how an environment looks is an early indicator or change which
can instruct us to investigate and research. Another reason Rolston’s
suggestion makes sense is when you look into the reason behind why certain
environments are protected and conserved, in many cases the answer is simply
because humans believe them to be beautiful. Eugene Hargrove agreed and went
further, suggesting that the core foundations of environmental ethics lie in
aesthetics “The ultimate historical foundations of nature preservation are
aesthetic” (1989). Another view that supports Hoseys claim, if we are
protecting what is beautiful then the aesthetics of an environment matter, the
way they look encourages us to act, to protect. The views within
environmentalism of course over the years have changed and there are now some
who question the views of Hargrove and Rolston as to whether it is possible for
there to be a harmonic balance between aesthetics and environmentalism.
There is some concern
that rather than aligning, aesthetic values have overtaken that of environmental
values “In conservation and resource management arena, natural aesthetics has,
indeed, been much more important historically than environmental ethics. Many
more of our conservation and management decisions have been motivated by
aesthetic rather than ethical values, by beauty instead of duty.” Said J.Baird
Callicott ( 2008) This then raises
the question of whether we can and whether we need to look to re-balance
environmentalism and aesthetics. Rolston goes on to raise a further point with
his statement of “If not beauty, then no duty?” (2008 pg325) the question of
whether, in many cases, we only care about environments that are seen as
beautiful to us as humans, are we too often putting aesthetic values, like
Callicott suggested, ahead of environmental ones rather than ensuring there is
a balance and using the aesthetics to help guide us on when and how to act to
best care and protect for them.
There are areas of course where a balance between aesthetics and
environmentalism is unable to be met. Aesthetic preservation is one area that I
feel leans too far and is unable to offer a balance. Glenn Parsons highlights
an important consideration when it comes to that of aesthetic preservation
(over say conservation) of environments “Aesthetic preservation requires that
there be a gain in aesthetic value in saving nature, rather than developing it”
(2008) so then that is to say that we are making the assumption that untouched
nature is more aesthetically valuable than any form of nature that has been
developed by human interference. Parsons finds fault in this assumption and
argues that it is false, he offers examples of human developments that are in
his opinion ‘aesthetically outstanding’. It is hard to disagree with him on
this point as I’m sure most if not all of us could name at least one human
built development that they find aesthetically appealing. So then, as Parsons
highlights, how can we define which is more valuable if both the original
natural environment was ‘aesthetically outstanding’ and the planned development
is also considered to be ‘aesthetically outstanding’ how to we choose which has
more aesthetic value. This is a valid concern raised by Parsons but one I’m
sure many would argue is trivial with the opinion that very few human built
developments are in fact as aesthetically ‘good’ as, or better than the nature
they would be replacing.[22]
Parsons though continues to defend his viewpoint and offers a strong defence
against aesthetic preservation, one that raises valid questions of the
practice. It is true that in attempting to argue in favour of aesthetic
preservation we may be tempted to go off track and quote ecological importance,
offering the view that one natural environment is of more value than an urban
human developed environment because of some ecological benefit but as Parson
reminds us “the difference in value must rest on purely aesthetic grounds”
(2008) We are in danger then of the aesthetic assessments of the
preservationist becoming ‘morally charged’ as Hettinger would put it[23]
rather that solely focusing on aesthetic values. This then too raises a
question around the morals and ethics involved when we look at creating and
maintaining a balance between aesthetics and environmentalism.
Rolston states “Perhaps ethics is not always tied to duty either, but logically
and psychologically closer to caring” (2008) It
is unclear whether we have yet been able to really unscramble aesthetic
appreciation enough to determine whether the choices we make related to
aesthetic changes are ethical. The concern of ethics when it comes to
aesthetics and environmentalism is something that Simon P. Jones discusses in
‘Environmental Philosophy an introduction’ Jones reminds us that often those
who are environmentally minded feel that aesthetics are trivial; that they
refer to the taste of humans rather than being a matter of importance. This
though cannot be proven; we don’t know for sure if we are the only organism
that experience aesthetic appreciation. It may be that we are but we cannot
know for sure and so it would be negligent of us to make any decisions using
this view as reasoning. Going back to Rolston’s statement, it raises the
question of whether our supposed duty is tied more to our caring nature as
humans (as a species we on the whole, are inherently caring though obviously
there are exceptions) or whether it is tied to our thoughts around morality and
ethics. Carroll’s idea here becomes valuable again, that the idea there is a
link between our emotions and the aesthetics of nature and that there is no
good reason to dismiss emotional responses when we reflect on our level of
aesthetic care of environments.[24]
This idea that our thoughts around caring for environments links not just to
ethical duty but to our inherent caring nature could suggest we are closer to
environmentalism and aesthetics aligning than many are concerned about.
Callicott and Rolston are not the only ones
writing of their concern that we are out of balance, Joan Nassauer writes “Freezing
nature to look scenic and making nature neat and tidy could create the
antithese of ecological health” in her paper aligning aesthetics and ecology.
She goes on to mention like I previously highlighted, that environments humans
admire and give attention too are more likely to be cared for and protected by
humans; they are more likely to survive long term with the support of humans,
she offers a name for this she calls it ‘cultural sustainability’ Nassauer goes
on to state that “Landscapes that are ecologically sound, and that also evoke
enjoyment and approval, are more likely to be sustained by appropriate human
care over the long term.” In essence humans are less likely to try and change
or enhance environments that they already view as being attractive, they
instead will look to care for them in a way that supports the natural
development on the space, caring for it to keep it healthy rather than changing
it to make it more appealing to the eye. This then introduced the question of
what level of aesthetic care is the right level for natural environments? Nassauer
says ‘appropriate human care’ but how can we know what level of care this is?
Nassauer does offer a possible solution for us, one that could show us the way
towards aligning aesthetics and environmentalism; she suggests that we can do
this through design. “Bringing aesthetic expectations into play in a way that
benefits landscapes ecology requires designing strategies, landscapes, and
policy with an awareness of what people enjoy and value in the appearance of
the landscape now” (2008) My initial concern here is that Nassauer is talking
about creating new landscapes for ecological health, creating new environments
that are both aesthetically pleasing to humans and include some form of
ecological health. Though an innovative and interesting idea it for me ignores
the core issue of the natural environments we already have and should be
looking to preserve. Nassauer is suggesting that rather than dominating the
landscape with well-kept ordered and neat spaces we look to find a balance
between appealing design and ecological health using the skills of artists and
designer. She admits that of course it would be difficult to know exactly what
designs we should use as people see landscapes differently, they evoke
different responses in different people; yet she perseveres and supports her
theory using examples of already established areas where there is connectivity
between built up urban environments and biodiverse corridors which lead to open
spaces built to encourage ecological health. She offers that this idea of
nature that works with urban environments and requires a for of educated care
makes it vivid, a term I mentioned briefly earlier. Nassauer goes on to say
that this type of harmonious design, this force alignment between aesthetics
and environmentalism is the only way to secure and ecologically balanced future
she says that “/waste places, where remnants of indigenous ecosystems survive
unnoticed, will not be able to escape anthropocentric land management under the
pressures of population growth.” Essentially what she is saying is that there
is no other option, no other way forward and this is the fault of humans, that
we as a population are putting our wants and needs ahead of that of nature. Our
population growth is creating the demand for space which is what puts pressure
on the powers that be to make decisions that affect how to can care for and
preserve natural environments. If this is true, if we are through necessity
going to be in essence destroying natural environments in order to create new
environments which offer a combination of urban aesthetic appeal and ecological
health this this surely puts additional pressure on the need for us to educate
ourselves, to understand exactly what is required for ongoing ecological health
and to know how to correctly aesthetically care for both the remaining natural
environments and the newly created hybrid environments; we need more than ever
to create a balance and to do this we need to understand what the correct level
of care is. This is something I will look into further in the next chapter.
Another philosopher who
believes that it is possible to create and maintain a balance between
aesthetics and environmentalism is Ned Hettinger. Hettinger offers the view
that aesthetic considerations can help justify environmental protection.[25]
He offers a name for the term, “aesthetic protectionism”. Hettinger writes in
‘Objectivity in environmental aesthetics and protection of the environment’
about how environmental degradation is a problem, one which is substantial and
risks the loss of much aesthetic value. He accepts that some disagree and
consider natural beauty as a weak and trivia compared with other values such as
health. This he says may be due to the fact that we do not take beauty into
account when we determine the worth or and how we treat humans. There are some who feel that aesthetic value
is anthropocentric, that is that the only value is reducible to pleasurable
experiences for humans, something which I spoke about in chapter one, people
who lean towards this view, Hettinger says, they feel that the best defences of
nature should be intrinsic. Throughout his paper Hettinger discusses the views
of a variety of philosophers that he feels would object to his idea of
“aesthetic protectionism” before he goes on to discuss the ideas of Carroll,
who sees emotional responses as important; and Brady, who sees imagination
rather than knowledge as important when we consider the appreciation of nature.
Hettinger says that Brady’s imagination-based theory is especially useful in
supporting the idea of aesthetic protectionism he goes on to say that “Perhaps
what is most useful for aesthetic protectionism is Brady’s insistence that
aesthetic appreciation be disinterested, for it provides a mechanism for
discounting positive aesthetic responses to environmental degradation.” (2008)
Hettinger supports the view that positive responses to environmental
degradation are often self-interested and thus not properly aesthetic, he also
holds the view that in some situations having scientific knowledge may not
actually be positive for aesthetic
protectionism, that actually ecological ignorance and myth can in some cases be
best for environmental protection; suggesting that if we simply just believe
that nature has a delicate balance and that we could cause harm by intruding that
this would be a way to protect the environment. Though I can see why Hettinger
holds these views I am concerned that he disregards the fact that being
uneducated about the environments and simply just leaving them be may actually
result in causing harm too, we, I feel are responsible for some level of care,
and in order to carry out this care we do need to have scientific knowledge and
be educated in the way in which each unique environment needs support or in
some cases to be left. However, Hettinger concludes his paper with a view that
I do support “we need to develop and justify accounts of better and worse
aesthetic responses to the environment that avoid both anything goes relativism
and the idea that only one type of environmental aesthetic response is
acceptable.” (2008) here he acknowledges that ideally, to create a balance we
need to be aware that different environments will require not only a response
but a different response depending on the different environments. He is
explicit in his final words though that having this knowledge-based response
does not guarantee beneficial environmental results, and I can agree with this
as I’m sure most will. There really is no guarantee either way, whether we act,
do not act, act with or without knowledge. I feel though that with knowledge we
can provide the best response possible at the given time.
Chapter
3
What is the correct level of
aesthetic care for natural environments?
The relationship between aesthetics and
environmentalism is one that requires a delicate balance in order to keep each
side of the debate appeased, as I highlighted in chapter 2 this is not easily
maintained. There is a view held by a many that we as a
human society are putting aesthetic satisfaction ahead of ecological health.[26],
it is this concern that created a rise in the level of philosophical interest in
the relationship between humans and the natural environment. This as I
previously mentioned paved the way for a dedicated area of philosophical debate
known now as environmental philosophy; examining our relation, as human beings, to nature and our natural
environment whilst raising
questions about aesthetic values being considered ahead of ethic ones as well
as if/how we should be caring for them. When we consider aesthetic care there
are two main areas of discussion that come to mind: conservation and
preservation.
A brief explanation of each of
these terms would be: 1) Conservation is the term used to describe the
care and protection of natural resources so that they can persist for future
generations. 2) Preservation is the act of maintaining, protecting or keeping
something in existence. Each term is widely discussed within environmental philosophical debate,
and I will discuss each in more detail in this chapter. The idea of preserving
and/or conserving an environment because of its aesthetics is not a new
phenomenon, in fact it is something that we’ve done for years. Attractive (or
those which a majority of humans believe to be) plants, landscapes and even ‘pretty’
and ‘cute’ animals have been saved thanks to the way in which they look. Why
this is so is one of the questions I intend to examine.
When we think of the definition of care we think about it meaning the provision of
what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of
someone or something.[27]
When we talk of
aesthetic care for environments we are thinking along very similar lines in
that we understand some natural environments may need human assistance to keep
healthy and functioning and we are using aesthetics, along with scientific
knowledge, to guide us in understanding how and when we administer this care. Care
for an environment, should be seen as a sustained form of attention that in
turn invites others attention and interest which often results in multiple
persons willing then to assist in the care given.[28]
Essentially, no one person would be able to care for all natural environments.
We as a species need to take responsibility, we need to work together and
ensure care is given not just in the present but in the long term. We also need
to ensure that we are administering the correct type and level of care to each
unique natural environment. When considering the level of care, we give to
particular environments those that are aesthetically pleasing to humans in most
cases, as I previously mentioned, get more respect and care. This is somewhat
of a problem as it can result in imbalanced levels of care. Many philosophers have written about ways in
which we could and should look to change this. The core problem is as Nassauer
states “a
scenic landscape aesthetic does not necessarily protect nature” (2008) As
humans we tend to want to tidy and organise spaces so that they are
aesthetically pleasing to us, when it comes to nature and natural environments
though human intervention, tidying up a space to make it more aesthetically
pleasing might actually harm the natural flora, fauna and organisms living
within it.
It is
important here to be clear about what it is to ‘harm’ an environment; Landscapes
themselves don't have a physiology or exhibit homeostasis though the non-human
organisms living within them may well.[29]
When we talk of an organism being harmed it usually refers to it being
physically damaged resulting in it unable to maintain vital functions; in
recent years though we also consider mental harm (emotional distress for
example) as something just as important as physical harm; an organism can be
harmed both physically and mentally. When we consider an environment though,
what exactly is it we mean by harm. One consideration of what it is to harm an
environment could well be the physical harm and mental harm of the non-human
organisms living within the environment, when we change, or in some cases
refuse to intervene and change, the natural habitat of the organisms we could
well destroy their food sources, we could be causing them distress, we could without
intent simply by changing a landscape kill off a species. The damage though
might not stop there, if we unintentionally kill one species, we may well be
taking the food source of another which would create a chain of events
effecting many other species. Further to this that species may well consume other
organisms or a certain flora and fauna, without them consuming a portion of
which could result in it multiplying to levels which could then become
unmanageable or even harmful (in the same sense). Another angel we could take
when looking at harm is the aesthetic harm, if we change a landscape
aesthetically is that space then no longer natural and as such no longer
objectively beautiful? Human intervention of a natural environment could then aesthetically
harm in a sense that the harm is the change from natural and untouched
objective beauty to changed and modified human development which is then
subject to human aesthetic judgement. Each of these definitions of harm is I
would argue relevant, and each should be considered when we look to assess
aesthetic care as each have consequences linked to the aesthetic changes humans
may make or in some case refuse to make. In order for us to make an ethical
decision as to whether or not we should undertake aesthetic care of an
environment we should be considering the levels of harm connected to each of
the above and look to balance our response to cause as little ‘harm’ as
possible on all levels.
So, what then could we do to ensure that we are not causing harm to
environments when we are considering aesthetic care? As previously mentioned,
there are situations where environments not seen as aesthetically pleasing are
left uncared for, this complete lack of intervention could lead to harm. One
suggestion could be to change the way in which we view the environments. Rather
than allowing spaces viewed as ‘ugly’ to be left uncared for we could work on
re-educating, encouraging people to see beauty in environments that they may
not have before. As Marcia Muelder says, “What we must aim for is generating
aesthetic responses that will lead to sustainable care” (2008 pg382) This would
require a level of work and time. Though tastes do change naturally overtime if
we want to act fast enough to save certain environments from damage and
destruction intervention may well be needed, we may need to create new tastes
“creating wide-spread ecofriendly aesthetic tastes is clearly an admirable
goal” (2008) Sheila Lintott says, though not an easy one, I think all would
agree. Often the use of celebrities in marketing campaigns aids companies and
charities, if a celebrity endorses a particular effort to save for example a
rainforest it is more likely to reach its fund-raising goals. The use of
celebrities to create trends that will change a societies views and aesthetic
tastes is just one possible way in which we could look to change modern society’s
opinion of what environments are worth preserving or conserving. This isn’t a
new idea; in fact it is something that some companies are already using to
raise awareness and encourage support.
Societal views are slowly changing, this is evident in projects that have taken
hold within urban communities in recent years whereby councils are stopping the
cutting of certain areas within their constituencies allowing them to grow
freely and ‘wild’. Initially this was met with criticism, many objecting due to
the ‘ugly’ ‘unkept’ aesthetic however with good project management communities
have been educated to the benefits of leaving areas to grow wild. In many cases
those that inhabit urban overly built up areas treasure the presence of trees,
wildlife and birds within their environment, being in their presence gives them
a moment of relief from the imposing infrastructure that surrounds them.[30]
Over time some community’s views changed, not just because they were able to
understand the ecological benefits but because they began to see beauty appear
in the long tall grasses, in the wildflowers and the new insects and wildlife
visiting the spaces; the aesthetic taste in this situation changed overtime.
These valuable spaces are one example of where aesthetics and environmentalism
have aligned, and a balance has been struck. Though initially one might argue
it was a form of aesthetic ‘harm’ to an urban environment, harm only to humans
and their aesthetic pleasure, creating an ugly space where previously a tidy
attractive space was situated, over a period of time a new naturally beautiful
space had emerged that balanced beauty and ecology.
Looking then at natural environments to consider a correct level of aesthetic
care it is important to understand exactly what sort of care would be
beneficial to the environment and what might harm it, this requires time and
research. A correct level of care is attentive to change[31],
it requires us to watch over the environment as it changes and to make educated
decisions as to whether the changes in the long term will or will not damage
the health of the environment and its inhabitants. Nassauer says that “In this
way, landscapes are more like children than works of art” (2008) what is meant
here is that the landscapes don’t require making in the way that a work of art
does but rather they require tending. They will not thrive under complete
control and structure; they need us to give them time and space to flourish and
inevitably change. Allen Carlsons idea of scientific knowledge comes in useful
here too, it can be used to guide us into making better decisions on how to
care for environments. Nassauer too comments on the importance of educated care
when they again use the child comparison “regardless of good intentions
ignorant care can make a spoiled child, overindulged with too much of a good
thing” In landscape care Nassauer is referring to how we can often with good
(of Nassauer would say superficial) intentions tend to our front gardens and
urban landscapes. Making them as tidy and neat as possible because this is what
we feel is most pleasing aesthetically. These superficial appearances of the
urban landscapes belie ecological flaws, although we may find the neatness
aesthetically appealing, we may come to learn that we have in fact spoiled the landscape,
resulting in little biodiversity and poor ecological structure. Care that is
driven by intelligence and knowledge of each unique environments ecological
health requirements is sometimes referred to as intelligent care. Vivid care is
a term given to signify the existence of ecological health with unmistakable
beauty and attractiveness.
When is the correct time for humans to intervene in natural environments?
When a forest is on fire when is it right for us to put it out? When a coastal
cliff is eroding when is the right time to put in place sea defences? When a
greenspace is becoming overgrown with one particular flora or fauna when is it
right to look at management solutions? Each of these questions require us to
make a decision that in turn requires us to think both practically and
ethically. Aldo Leopold offers a view on when it is right for us to take action,
he states that “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, the stability,
and the beauty of biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise” (1968)
So then the right time for us to act is when the delicate balance of beauty and
sustainability is disrupted according to Leopold. Nassuare agrees “Attention to
landscapes and sustained action to maintain their ecological function is what
we need” It is agreed then that we do need to care aesthetically for the
environments but that we need to do so not solely for our pleasure (though this
is a welcome benefit) but rather so that we can support nature to continue to
survive and strive.
This positive view which appears to create a nice alignment for aesthetics and
environmentalism, on the surface, makes sense and is one I think many would
agree with though it leaves us still with the questions of how we access the
natural environments to determine their integrity, stability (we could use
scientific tests here that will give definitive answers so long as we have
enough research to determine these are correct) and beauty (where unless we
agree that natural beauty is objective we have to agree an appreciation model
one that can give us solid definitions of what is and is not beautiful). This
stumbling block that some may find could though be answered with conservation.
If we are unsure on what is for sure the best way to aesthetically care, then
rather than make drastic changes should we focus instead on conserving what is
already there? Nassaure finds this idea appealing “As we confront the
limitations of our ecological knowledge , we need to work conservatively in the
landscapes , saving every possible remnant of remaining indigenous ecosystems
even if we cannot fully anticipate all of their potential values” (2008) Glenn
Parsons raises some concerns when it comes to conservation, he claims in his
book “Aesthetics and Nature” that many nature conservationists are concerned
solely with conserving natural environments for human benefit, be that
aesthetic or practical. That they care for these environments because they feel
that their existence is essential to organisms that will offer some benefit for
humans in the present or future. He offers an example of this when referring to
how a particular conservation organization in Canada maintains a wetland, keeping
it ecologically healthy and encouraging the local waterfowl population within
it yet also allows hunting of the waterfowl it is supposedly caring for.
Parsons feels like this is essentially a form of exploitation. That humans are motivated
by the wrong things when acting in this way.[32]
So then, in Parson’s view conservation is not a desirable option when
considering the correct type of care for natural environment. That its not
considering the environments value beyond that of human benefit. Parson’s
instead appears to feel that preservation is a better option for care, one that
offers a more ethical approach not guided by the selfish needs of humans, he
states that “Preservation, unlike conservation, thus does not rest upon any
practical benefit that nature has for humanity” (2008)
Emily Brady in her paper ‘Aesthetic character and aesthetic integrity in
environmental conservation’ offers an attractive solution in the form of a concept
called Aesthetic Integrity; a term used to describe an ecosystem undisturbed by
humans; stable, balanced and unimpaired.[33]
It forms too as an ecological concept guided by moral principles whilst also
being an aesthetic concept that implies a form of unity, harmony and holistic
approach. Brady goes on to say that “Aesthetic integrity as a principle of
conservation does not provide a set of criteria, and it will not be a matter of
measuring anything. Rather than those approaches, I suggest application of the
principle on a case by case basis.’ This is an approach that I’ve mentioned
before, and one that I feel makes the most sense. I don’t feel that there is
any other way forward when it comes to the care of natural environments, each
are unique and require such different levels of involvements and care and so
there is no one size fits all response. As Brady says, some may find this idea
too loose and without form, so she offers some possible guidelines to the
concept that will give it more structure:
1) We must consider the history of the environment in question when deciding
how to conserve the predominant aesthetic character of it.
2) We must avoid ‘sharp breaks’ from the narrative, no grand scales changes
made that could create incongruity.[34]
So then Brady’s guidance gives us some line of thought to guide us when we
consider the use of Aesthetic Integrity as a concept for aesthetic care of
natural environments. Using Brady’s guidance, a good level of aesthetic care
should firstly take into account the narrative of the environment, the history
of it. This then requires us to study it over time, to log information and to
consider that information alongside the scientific knowledge we have. Secondly
to avoid any big snap changes, ones which do not fit with the natural course
the environment appears to be taking. This feels like a morally safe approach,
it also feels like one environmentalists would find appealing. It does not seem
to place too much emphasis on human benefit, rather it seeks to study the
environments carefully to try and assess best its own needs. Though I’m
attracted to this concept I can see some potential flaws with it, and I can
understand that many may still argue that it is not evolved and structured
enough to withstand criticisms. I do feel it is a good starting point and that
it together with elements of other approaches and concepts I’ve discussed in
this chapter could come together to form a holistic and well composed approach
to the aesthetic care of natural environments.
Conclusion
In this paper I’ve discussed several questions, highlighted as chapter titles,
that I feel can help in the quest to align aesthetics and environmentalism.
I’ve discussed the views of a number of philosophers who have written essays,
journal articles and books on the topics and I’ve given my thoughts and
opinions throughout. When I set out to write this paper, I naively thought that
there must be a relatively simple and bullet proof way to align aesthetics and
environmentalism whilst considering aesthetic care; I have since found that I
was wrong. Many it seems have attempt this and to date none have been wholly
successful. I do feel though that there are some new discussions that are
bringing forward new thoughts and theories combining them with old which could
potentially offer us an answer, not fully constructed yet, but possibly soon.
Essential to this potential future problem-solving concept lays, I believe, in
the recent approach offered by Peacocke. That we should, moving forward,
embrace a more multidimensional view of aesthetic values. We should look beyond
the simple terms of the beautiful and ugly and see the worth in the many other
aesthetic experiences of environments. If we look beyond the idea that
environments need to please us, need to make us happy and evoke positive
emotions and instead accept that it is OK for them to spark other responses
such as awe, intrigue and question, then this I argue, would help us to make
better decisions when it comes to what level of aesthetic care is required. This approach combined with the concept of
Brady’s ‘Aesthetic Integrity’ could, I feel, go on to form an interesting bond
between morality and practicality. In order to function though we will need to
use scientific knowledge, a theory Allen Carlson offered in the very early
stages of philosophical discussion in this area. Though this may seem at first
irrelevant if we are going to be using Peacocke’s approach, if we also combine
elements of each theory then we could be on the way to forming a new holistic
concept.
We should use aesthetics to guide us; if a natural environment looks different
to how it previously did this should lead us not to immediately want to change
it, improve it or cover it up but rather to investigate the change, to try and
understand what brought the change on and why it happened. To identify if the
change is one to be concerned about, if it requires human intervention or
whether it is a harmless natural change that will not damage the long-term
health of the environment. Thus, a combination of scientific knowledge,
aesthetic integrity and multidimensional values. This is just the bare bones of
the concept I have in mind, one which takes on board all of what I’ve discussed
in this paper. Though here I’m only able to offer the bare bones of a potential
new concept I certainly feel that it is one worth pursuing and intend to spend
more time researching and developing it in order to in the future present a
more detailed theory that will stand up to critique.
Further, the time spent researching for and writing this paper has lead
me to feel that we should be ethically bound, as humans, to aesthetically care
for natural environments because it is up as inhabitants of the natural world
to care for it both aesthetically and otherwise; to ensure its long term
sustainability for us as we are today, for any possible future posthuman life[35]
and for the many other organisms we share our environments with. I reiterate
that there is no one size fits all response to the question of a correct level
of care when we consider natural environments. To ensure that we give the
correct type of aesthetic care to natural environments we need to not only look
beyond human benefit and consider all organisms that inhabit the space, we also
need to assess each environment individually. Allen Carlson’s views that
scientific knowledge and understanding help us judge things aesthetically comes
in useful here, though as I mentioned previously, I don’t feel it is essential
for us to have a scientific understanding to enable us to aesthetically
appreciate environments I do feel that scientific knowledge and understanding
can help us make educated judgements on how to correctly aesthetically care for
natural environments. In this sense my views align with Eaton’s, Eaton offers
the view that we need be continuously listening and looking at the natural
environments in order to track scales and give aesthetic attention relative to
the specific environment, if we use scientific knowledge and we scale each
response to each unique natural environment we can give an appropriate scale of
care which offers the best alignment between aesthetics and environmentalism
available to us today.[36]
We need to take time to research and study each environment individually and
make educated judgement calls for each unique environment given its present
situation; with the scientific knowledge and understanding as encouraged by
Carlson we can assess whether we need to intervene, to make changes for future
sustainability of the said natural environment itself and its non-human
inhabitants or whether our involvement would disrupt a natural process that
could not only in the future provide a different type, or even enhanced natural
aesthetic beauty for us to aesthetically appreciate but also a new naturally
created environment for evolved organisms to inhabit.
Bibliography
Brady, Emily, Prior, Jonathan and Hoyle, Helen
(2020) ‘Environmental aesthetics: A synthetic review’, People and nature
(Hoboken, N.J.), 2(2), pp. 254–266. doi: 10.1002/pan3.10089.
Cameron, Ross W. F et al. (2020) ‘Where the wild things are! Do urban green
spaces with greater avian biodiversity promote more positive emotions in
humans?’, Urban ecosystems, 23(2), pp. 301–317. doi:
10.1007/s11252-020-00929-z.
Carlson, A. (2011). Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature and
Environmentalism. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 69,
137-155. doi:10.1017/S1358246111000257
Carlson, A and Lintott, S (2008) Nature, Aesthetics and Environmentalism. New
York, Columbia University Press
Christelle, Andrew (2018) Doing philosophy in nature. Ted Talk. Accessed here: https://youtu.be/ea6WD9ulxFw
[26.06.21]
Firth, Dan (2008) ‘The Role of Aesthetic Considerations in a Narrative Based
Approach to Nature Conservation’, Ethics and the environment, 13(2), pp.
77–100. doi: 10.2979/ETE.2008.13.2.77.
Hargrove, Eugene, (1989) Foundations of
environmental ethics.
Houlden, Victoria et al. (2018) ‘The relationship between greenspace
and the mental wellbeing of adults: A systematic review’, PloS one, 13(9),
pp. e0203000–e0203000. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203000.
Houlden, Victoria et al. (2019) ‘A spatial analysis of proximate
greenspace and mental wellbeing in London’, Applied geography (Sevenoaks),
109, p. 102036. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2019.102036.
Hosey, Lance. (2012) The Shape of Green :
Aesthetics, Ecology, and Design, Island Press.
Leopold, Aldo. (1968) A sand county almanac. New York. Oxford university press.
McShane, K. (2009), Environmental Ethics: An Overview. Philosophy Compass, 4:
407-420. https://doi-org.libezproxy.open.ac.uk/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2009.00206.x
Nassauer, Joan Iverson. (1988) The aesthetics of horticulture: neatness as a
form of care.
Parsons, Glenn (2015) ‘Why Should We Save Nature's Hidden Gems?’, Journal of
applied philosophy, 32(1), pp. 98–110. doi: 10.1111/japp.12069.
Parsons, G. (2008) Aesthetics and nature. London ; New
York: Continuum International Pub.
Peacocke, Antonia. Let’s be Liberal: An Alternative to Aesthetic
Hedonism, The British Journal of Aesthetics, Volume 61, Issue 2, April
2021, Pages 163–183, https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayaa033
Stevens, Christopher (2011) Nature, Aesthetics, and
Environmentalism, Ethics, Policy &
Environment, 14:2, 251-257, DOI: 10.1080/21550085.2011.578389
Weber, Ella and Schneider, Ingrid E (2021) ‘Blooming alleys for better health:
Exploring impacts of small-scale greenspaces on neighbourhood
wellbeing’, Urban forestry & urban greening, 57, p. 126950. doi:
10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126950.
[1] Allen Carlson and Sheila
Lintott. Natural Aesthetic Value and Environmentalism.
[2] Allen Carlson and Sheila
Lintott. Natural Aesthetic Value and Environmentalism. P5
[3] George Perkins Marsh. Man and
Nature. (1864)
[4] John Muir. ‘A view of the high
sierra’ in the mountains of california’
[5] David Roden. TMA5 feedback.
[6] Joan Iverson Nassauer. Cultural
Sustainability. Aligning Aesthetics and Ecology.
[7] Sheila Lintott. Toward
Ecofriendly Aesthetics
[8] Eugene C. Hargrove “The
historical foundations of American Environmental Attitudes” Environmental
Ethics 1 (1979): 209-40
[9] Antonia Peacocke. Let’s be
Liberal: An alternative to aesthetic hedonism.
[10] Noel Carroll. On being moved by
nature.
[11] Glenn Parsons. Nature
Appreciation, Science and positive aesthetics.
[12] Allen Carlson. Nature and
Positive Aesthetics. 1984
[13] Marcia
Muelder Eaton. “The beauty that requires health”
[14] Emily Brady. Imagination and
the aesthetic appreciation of nature. (1998)
[15] Allen Carlson. Aesthetic
Appreciation of the natural environment.
[16] Paul Ziff “Reasons in art
criticism” in Philosophy Turnings 1966
[17] An assumption that humans and/or their interests matter
morally in their own right while everything else matters morally only insofar
as it affects humans and/or their interests.
[18] Santayana. The sense of beauty.
[19] Allen Carlson. Aesthetic appreciation of the natural environment.
[20] Katie McShane. Environmental
Ethics: An overview (2009)
[21] Holmes Rolston. From beauty to
duty.
[22] Glenn Parsons. Aesthetics &
Nature. 2008.
[23] Ned Hettinger. 2005.
[24] Noel Carroll. On being moved by
nature.
[25] Ned Hettinger. Objectivity in
environmental aesthetics and protection of the environment.
[26] Sheila Lintott. Toward Ecofriendly Aesthetics.
[27] Oxford English
dictionary.
[28] Joan Iverson Nassauer.
Alighning Aesthetics and Ecology. Cultural Sustainability. pg371
[29] David Roden. TMA5 Feedback
notes.
[30] C.H. Nilon. Urban wildlife management
in 2020.
[31] Joan Iverson Nassauer. Alighning
Aesthetics and Ecology. Cultural Sustainability. P372
[32] Glenn Parsons. Aesthetics and the
preservation of nature. Aesthetics and Nature.
[33] J. Karr & E.Chu. Ecological Integrity.
[34] Emily Brady. Aesthetic
character and aesthetic integrity in environmental conservation’
[35] David Roden. Posthuman Life: Philosophy at the Edge of the Human
[36] Marcia
Muelder Eaton. “The beauty that requires health”