User:351mug/sandbox

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Environmental Aesthetics

This Holma forest is an environment that can be said to have aesthetic qualities

Environmental Aesthetics is a branch of philosophy that is a new sub-field of philosophical aesthetics[1]. Environmental aesthetics gained notability in the later part of the twentieth century[2] as it branched off from old philosophical ideas. Prior to this sub-filed analytical research of aesthetics mainly revolved around the philosophy of art. The ongoing neglect of aesthetic appreciation of natural environments spurred this change. Upon being incepted environmental aesthetics has grown to include not only organic environments but also human and everyday life environments.[1] There has also been recent work into the analysis of objects that exist within these human environments[3].

Twentieth Century Developments

"Much more can be done with plastic trees and the like to give people the feeling that they are experiencing nature."[4]

— Martin Krieger

Early twentieth century deforestation in America causing desert formation

Martin Kreiger highlights an era in which environmental aesthetics was built off, one that distanced itself from appreciating natural environments and things contained within those environments. Twentieth Century Developments saw the phasing out of Aesthetics of Nature and the emergence of the new philosophical idea of Environmental aesthetics[5]. Allen Carlson explains that "Western philosophical study of the aesthetics of the natural world reached a low point in the middle of the twentieth century"[5]. In reaction to the distancing of society from the aesthetic appreciation of natural things, new research into the field eventually lead to the creation of environmental aesthetics.

The Emergence of Environmental Aesthetics

Allen Carlson explains that it was a combination of both public and academic concern that created the movement, the public concerned with the "degeneration of the environment" and academics understanding "the significance of the environmental movement—at the level of both theoretical discussion and practical action"[5]. Initial research about environmental aesthetics stemmed from societal concerns about the condition of the environment[6]. This research was criticized as it failed to create a substantial environmental management program, that often neglected expressive characteristics of environments[7]. Furthermore early research in the field was deemed to be obsessive on "scenic beauty" [8] and overall the area was deemed to be limited by theoretical problems[9]. This notion is highlighted by Jay Appelton, a critique of the field, who said that research in the area as being done in a “theoretical vacuum”[10].

In 1966 Ronald Hepburn published “Contemporary Aesthetics and the Neglect of Natural Beauty”[11] , in which he laid the foundations for environmental aesthetics. Hepburn argued that the extreme focus on aesthetics to the philosophy of art, drew from cogent based aesthetics appreciation of the natural world[5]. Allen Carlson explains that Hepburn aimed to highlight that "aesthetic appreciation of art frequently provides misleading models for the appreciation of nature", which in turn accentuated societal neglect of the the natural world[5]. Carlson also explains from Hepburn's essay that nature requires a more rigorous and unique approach to fully appreciate "nature’s indeterminate and varying character, but also both our multi-sensory experience and our diverse understanding of it"[5]. Hepburn overall wanted to highlight that there was more to the aesthetic experience than just art, and by doing so reinvigorated aesthetic appreciation of nature and provided the framework for environmental aesthetics. Hepburn's publication argued strongly against the idea of the simple reapplication of art centered approach to the aesthetic appreciation of nature[5].

In the later stages of the twentieth century analytical approaches surrounding the philosophy of aesthetic appreciation of art began to become scrutinized along and the idea that appreciating nature is derived from any aesthetic experience. Malcom Budd explains that people do not appreciation nature "as nature"[12]. As the influence and application of aesthetic appreciation in light of art weakened, it became increasingly obvious that much of the idea was counter intuitive. Allen Carlson argues that the appreciation we experienced in art was actually "instances of appreciation of nature, such as our delight in a sunset or in a bird in flight"[1]. It has been the case that throughout history, that of Western and Japanese tradition, have inherently opposed this "nonaesthetic conception of nature appreciation"[1], thus showing the constant appreciation of nature masked by aesthetic appreciation of art philosophies. The art derived models blurred the appreciation of nature by warping the essence of natural environments. An example of this is clearing forest to achieve sweeping hills as scenery. This way of thought clouds our experience of nature and therefore affects ones opinion and outlook on it[13][14].


Positions in Environmental Aesthetics

Upon settling as an important division of philosophical research, opinions within the field fell into two categories[1]. Research is said to either be cognitive or non-cognitive[15]. The cognitive thought process takes understanding and knowledge as key to understanding the aesthetics of an environment. The non-cognitive approach centers involvement, emotions, and thoughts. These variations in approach provide a means of categorising an array of view points on the topic. This division of thought is something that is also used in other fields of aesthetics in the appreciation of art, music, and literature[1].

Cognitive Views

The essence of the cognitive view as Yuriko Saito explains is appreciating nature "on its own terms"[16]. The cognitive approach tends to reject approaches of modeling aesthetics around what is picturesque, as although it is cognitive in nature, it does not satisfy the environmental aesthetics approach[17]. There is dispute as to how the cognitive approach should be conducted. One other approach endorses the collection of a variety of information including "local and regional narratives, folklore, and even mythological stories"[1][16][18][19]. This information is to be used in place or with scientific knowledge.

Non-cognitive Views

The non-cognitive approach is not to be confused with that of the old philosophical way of thought, defined as being "emotive"[1]. It ignores scientific data and/or cultural practices but generally uses aesthetics of engagements. This draws on phenomenology and analytic aesthetics. There are different non-cognitive approaches. The arousal model according to Allen Carlson, suggests "we may appreciate nature simply by opening ourselves to it and being emotionally aroused by it"[1]. Noël Carroll explains this is an acceptable means of appreciating nature that is void of any cognitive processes[20]..

Recent Developments in Environmental Aesthetics

Environmental aesthetics since its emergence in the late twentieth century, has adopted new streams of thought, most notably the consideration of human and human-influenced environments[5]. These new derivations of the philosophy have come to concern also the things that fall in these streams[21]. These streams specifically explore both items and activities that occur in these sub-fields.

The Aesthetics of Human Environments

Environmental aesthetics initially focused on organic environments but have come to through, cognitive and non-cognitive perspectives take into consideration "aesthetic investigation of human and human-influenced environments"[5].

Human experiences, that non-cognitive in nature, have come to formulate a model for aesthetic appreciation for human experiences[5]. Initial publications, such as that of Arnold Berleant's "Aesthetic Paradigms for an Urban Ecology", on environmental aesthetics solely focused on natural environments, but came to also include human, specifically urban, environments[22]. Emily Brady suggests that these non-cognitive accounts illustrate societal determination of aesthetic levels of a range of human environments but also highlighting the uses the environment can provide us like that of resources and agriculture[23][24].

The cognitive thought processes also allows for appreciation of human environments. The cognitive approach however needs first "knowledge of what something is, what it is like, and why it is as it is."[5]. This cognitive process is also supported not only by knowledge of the human environment to gain an aesthetic appreciation, but that also social sciences like history can be used[25]. Glenn Parsons suggests in "Functional Beauty in the Aesthetic Tradition" that historical knowledge is used to understand how a particular environment has changed through history, changed in their function and their interconnectedness in our lives[26]. Human environments can also be aesthetically appreciated in light of cultural traditions, that Allen Carlson refers to as "cultural landscapes—environments that constitute important places in the cultures and histories of particular groups of people"[5]. It is these cultural landscapes that often shape ones level of aesthetic feeling towards environments close to their homeland.

The appreciation of human environments have recently been successfully acknowledge through both cognitive and non-cognitive approaches[1]. In past, these two schools of thought have attempted to be applied in unison in the application of understanding the aesthetics of human environments[27][28][29][30]. Void of this application approach there are still many publications that address our understanding of levels of acknowledgment of a variety of environments and also highlight issues that exist[31]. Under the category of human environments these publications delve for example into rural landscapes[32], in Yrjö Sepänmaa's "The Aesthetics of the Road, Road Art, and Road Traffic" and urban citys[33], in Henry Day's "Formal Beauty". There has also been recently more focused human environments looked at such as industrial sites and as Yuriko Saito described, that of wind farms[1][34].

The Aesthetics of Everyday Life

Kew Gardens Palm House can be appreciated for its everyday environmental aesthetics

Aesthetics of everyday life is a subset of environmental aesthetics that concerns relatively smaller environments and things found within that environment. It can also concern activities that occur in that environment[1]. Kevin Melchionne's "Living in Glass Houses: Domesticity, Interior Decoration, and Environmental Aesthetics"[3] suggests that this can also peoples gardens and interiors. It can also include the aesthetic side of daily human experiences[35]. These thoughts have been challenged as many argue that they do not reflect "genuine" aesthetic experiences[36]. The aesthetics of every day life can also include sports and food that are found in human environments[1].



Environmental Aesthetics: Environmentalism and Future Directions

With the new subsets of environmental aesthetics , aesthetics of human environments and aesthetics of everyday life, new paths are being created. In out current century has sparked research into the ways that environmental aesthetics can be used in environmentalism. This new research has further highlighted the inconstancies of aesthetics of nature as well as renewing interest in the field[1].

Environmental Aesthetics and Environmentalism

The link between environmental aesthetics and environmentalism stem from the ideas of aesthetic appreciation of nature in the 18th century. People in the school of thought like John Muir[37] , in his 1979 publication "The Historical Foundations of American Environmental Attitudes" , developed ideas of protecting the environment on the basis of the aesthetic appreciation of nature in North America at the time. In recent times, according to Robert J Loftus, people have found that using aesthetics of nature has proven to lack the ability to formulate arguments to push an environmental agenda[38]. According to Holmes Rolston this same problem arises when using aesthetic appreciation of nature for certain types of environments such as wetlands, that do not fit convectional perceptions of beauty [39]. Aesthetic appreciation of nature has been criticized as anthropocentric[40], obsessed with picturesque environments[41], trivial[42], subjective[43], morally vacuous[44].

Environmental Aesthetics: New interests and future directions

Traditional aesthetics of nature have recently proven to be unsatisfactory with providing resources for individuals to carry out an "environmentalist agenda"[45]. Persons interested in environmentalism have not found proficient resources in the old school of thought of aesthetics of nature, especially agendas that concern "conservation and protection of both natural and human heritage environments"[5]. There therefore has been renewed interest in environmental aesthetics, some of which has come from the East[5]. The forefront topic of research coming from the East, by Chinese aestheticians, concerns ecological aesthetics[5], how through their publications built a strong case for ecoaesthetics within environmental aesthetics[46][47]. Ecoaesthetics has proven to be a bridge between the relationship between environmental aesthetics and environmental ethics[48], and shows promise as being a future direction of the concept. Environmental aesthetics has prior to this been attempted to be used to provide a link between aesthetic appreciation of the natural and anthropogenic world, in an attempt to provide moral guidelines on how we may ensure the upkeep of environmental and ecological health[5][49][50]. But this attempt by "Western aestheticians"[5] according to Allen Carlson has not been done as well as attempts by Chinese aestheticians.

Environmental aesthetics continues, and is supported by both the West and East, to globalise[51]. Environmental aesthetics has had global reach since its creation, with it no uncommonly drawing on continental philosophy[52]. It is also the case that the constant translation of articles and books on environmental aesthetics are being translated into other languages from English, these include "European languages as well as Korean and especially Chinese, into which several of the basic Western texts in environmental aesthetics have been translated"[1]. This is further supported by large amounts of research that are also being released by these same regions and countries[53].


References

  1. ^
    ISBN 9780415250696
    , retrieved 2019-04-08
  2. ^ "Environmental aesthetics - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy". www.rep.routledge.com. Retrieved 2019-04-29.
  3. ^
    ISSN 0021-8529
    .
  4. ISSN 0036-8075
    .
  5. ^
    ISBN 9780415250696
    , retrieved 2019-04-08
  6. ^ "ScienceDirect". www.sciencedirect.com. Retrieved 2019-05-07.
  7. ISSN 0044-0094
    .
  8. ISSN 0304-3924
    .
  9. ISSN 0021-8510
    .
  10. ISSN 0020-2754
    .
  11. ^ Hepburn, Ronald (1966). Contemporary Aesthetics and the Neglect of Natural Beauty. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  12. ISBN 9780199259656
    , retrieved 2019-05-20
  13. ISSN 0031-8191
    .
  14. ISBN 9780511554605
    , retrieved 2019-05-20
  15. ISSN 0264-3758
    .
  16. ^
    ISSN 0163-4275
    .
  17. doi:10.4324/9780203981405. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help
    )
  18. ^ Sepänmaa, Yrjö (1993). The Beauty of Environment: A General Model for Environmental Aesthetics. Denton, Texas.: Denton: Environmental Ethics Books.
  19. ISSN 0007-0904
    .
  20. ISBN 9780511554605
    , retrieved 2019-05-30
  21. ^ "Environmental aesthetics - Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy". www.rep.routledge.com. Retrieved 2019-05-06.
  22. ISSN 0392-1921
    .
  23. OCLC 51315717
    .
  24. ISSN 1366-879X
    .
  25. ISSN 2014-881X
    .
  26. ISBN 9780199205240
    , retrieved 2019-05-12
  27. ISSN 0021-8529
    .
  28. ISSN 0021-8510
    .
  29. OCLC 144602093
    .
  30. ISSN 0021-8529
    .
  31. ISSN 1718-0198
    .
  32. OCLC 671643178
    .
  33. ^ Day, Henry N., "Formal beauty.", The science of aesthetics, or the nature, kinds, laws, and uses of beauty (2nd ed.)., G P Putnam's Sons, pp. 103–125, retrieved 2019-05-27
  34. doi:10.1093/oso/9780199672103.003.0004
    .
  35. ^ Leddy, Tom (2005). The Nature of Everyday Aesthetics. New York: New York: Columbia University Press.
  36. ISSN 0007-0904
    .
  37. ISSN 0163-4275
    .
  38. ISSN 1077-1999
    .
  39. ISSN 1529-8795
    .
  40. ISSN 0264-3758. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help
    )
  41. ISSN 0021-8529
    .
  42. ISSN 0360-9669
    .
  43. ISSN 0163-4275
    .
  44. ISSN 1937-5239
    .
  45. ISSN 1077-1999
    .
  46. ISBN 9781137345363
    , retrieved 2019-05-12
  47. ISBN 9780823252305
    , retrieved 2019-05-12
  48. ISSN 0021-8529
    .
  49. ISSN 0007-0904
    .
  50. ISSN 0277-2426
    .
  51. ISSN 0963-2719
    .
  52. ^ Berleant, Arnold (1985). Toward a Phenomenological Aesthetics of Environment. Albany: SUNY Press.
  53. ISSN 0963-2719
    .
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:351mug/sandbox&oldid=900754472"