期刊名称：Proceedings of the European Society for Aesthetics
电子版ISSN：1664-5278
出版年度：2010
卷号：2
页码：491-515
出版社：European Society for Aesthetics
摘要：The question I ask in this paper is whether some works ofart could teach us to aesthetically appreciate nature. The first partof the text presents the current debate in analytical aesthetics onappreciation of nature, and examines Allen Carlson thesis that onlynatural sciences, and not art, teach us to appreciate natural beauty.Carlson argues that natural sciences as biology or ecology show us na-ture as it is, making possible an objective aesthetics of nature, whileart only projects subjective ideas on it. The text examines the argu-ments raised against this thesis by di.erent authors, some of themdefending a cognitivist position and some a non-cognitivist one.The second part analyzes Carlson's rejection of art, and focuses onhis reasons for rejecting landscape painting. Carlson argues that land-scape painting distorts the true character of natural environmentsbecause it frames and .attens environments into scenery. He claimsthat aesthetic appreciation of nature is not a matter of looking atviews from a distance, as we contemplate pictures in a gallery, butit is being involved in the environment, moving through it, and notonly looking, but hearing, touching, smelling.The third part proposes the work of Richard Long as an art that can-not be rejected by Carlson arguments. Land art was born at the sametime as philosophical aesthetics of nature was renewed by RonaldHepburn after a long time of oblivion, and we can find some a.ni-ties between Carlson's critiques to landscape painting and some landart works, like the art of Richard Long. Long explores natural envi-ronments in a new way, and it is argued that his art can teach us toaesthetically appreciate nature
