Transcript Evaluating Positive Aesthetics

Evaluating Positive Aesthetics
Ned Hettinger
Presented by Shelby Rand
Positive Aesthetics
“The view that all of nature is beautiful, more
precisely, it is the idea that nature- to the extent
that it is not influenced by humans-is specially
and predominantly beautiful”
One of the main goals of positive aesthetics is
the conservation and preservation of nature
(keeping human interference to a minimum).
Hettinger’s Four Conditions for
an adequate Positive
Aesthetic Appreciation
1. It must accommodate the existence of negative
aesthetics in nature. Ex. A lion killing an impala.
2. It must not be applied to the rest of the world, including
artwork and human environments.
3. It should depend on the actual contingent
characteristics of nature (rather than being stipulated a
priori, conceptually, or theoretically)
4. It must be a doctrine useful for nature conservation.
“Beautiful” Nature vs. “Ugly”
Nature
Ugly-
Beautiful-
Just as there are rotten
violinists, so there must be
pathetic creeks; just as
there is pulp fiction, so there
must be junk species, just
as there are forgettable
meals, so there must be
inconsequential forests”
(Stan Godlovitch, 1989).
How Positive Aesthetics is
Helpful
“PA is useful in combating a prevalent and harmful
tendency in nature appreciation toward “easy beauty”
Easy beauty: Aspects of nature we automatically find
appealing. Ex.“Nature’s show pieces, cute cuddly
animals, etc.”
PA can help us “learn more about nature aspects, which
may lead to a more open view, and completely
transform our previous views. Something ugly could
become aesthetically valuable. Ex.realizing the lion
killed the impala to feed young cubs.
Knowledge and its Role in PA
Knowledge of natural history, along with
imagination and emotion, could turn
negative aesthetic view, into a positive
one.
knowledge
Ex. Hideous vampire bat ------->
wonderful, flying sonar machine
Will Knowledge solve all
negative aesthetic problems?
(Saito)
Saito: “believes one way it might, arguing that there are
always scientifically interesting accounts that can make
any natural phenomenon appealing”.
“I cannot think of any stories of nature that are uninteresting or trivial. . .
No matter how seemingly insignificant, uninteresting, or repulsive at
first sight, natural history and ecological sciences reveal the marvelous
works of every part of nature. . . every part of nature is aesthetically
positive for its storytelling power.”
Saito’s claim is only helpful when dealing with
accounts of “boring nature”.
Will Knowledge solve all negative
aesthetic problems? (Brady)
Does Saitos’s claim hold true when dealing with “ugly
nature”?
Brady believes it is “less clear”. Ex. Scab, knowing how
it was formed doesn’t make the scab beautiful.
3 possible outcomes in this situation:
1. Negative aesthetic quality turns into a
positive one
2. Negative aesthetic quality is weakened
3. Positives may outweigh negative, or vice
versa.
1st Problematic Version of PA : No
Negative Judgment Thesis
Negative judgments are not possible
Carlson: “The appropriate or correct aesthetic appreciation
of the natural world is basically positive and negative
aesthetic judgments have little or no place”
Budd: “Nature is immune to all the defects to which art is
liable in virtue to being the product of natural design”
In summary, nature is not designed, so aesthetic judgments
are not applicable.
Hettinger’s Reply: believes this argument makes positive
evaluations impossible and that shapes and colors can be
assessed without having a designer.
2nd Problematic Version of PA : Equal
Beauty Thesis
All of nature is equally aesthetically valuable.
The equal beauty thesis is not conceptually
tied to PA, but it is often associated with it.
Reasons given for this thesis: The scientific
information required for improved aesthetic
appreciation of nature will render all of nature
equally aesthetically valuable.
2nd Problematic Version of PA : Equal
Beauty Thesis
Carlson’s order appreciation led him the equal
beauty thesis, which he later rejected.
Rolston: no negative domain
Hargrove: those more beautiful should be given
priority over those that are less beautiful
Hettinger: some scientific stories are more
interesting than others.
What this thesis means for conservation: we must
choose one over the other.
Individualistic and Holistic PA
Individualistic: each natural property or
thing is aesthetically positive
-Hargrove rejects that there are any negative aesthetic
qualities in nature. (Hettinger rejects this)
-On balance individualism (Carlson & Parsons) : things
may have negative aes. qualities, but their positives ones
outweigh the negative ones.
Holistic: nature as a whole is aesthetically
positive, while some individual aspects may
not be.
- Rolston: if you look at the overall system, it may hide or
turn some ugly qualities into beautiful ones.
Parson’s Beauty Making
Argument
“I take positive aesthetics to be, roughly, the claim that any
natural object, appropriately aesthetically appreciated, is on
balance aesthetically good” (Glenn Parsons, 2002)
Parson suggests that “appropriate aesthetics appreciation of
natural objects maximizes their beauty.”
Main goal of the beauty making argument: to avoid the problem
of conflicting aesthetic qualities of natural objects. Ex. Venus fly
trap.
Objections to Parson’s Beauty
Making Argument
Hettinger’s objections:
- Movie Example: Great story line, poor acting
-Aesthetic Appreciation should be rational, while
employing correct categories, should not just be for
“aesthetic kicks” Ex. Wolf as a coyote killer
-Art work appreciation not applicable to nature
appreciation
-Undermines natural beauty’s role in conservation,
can lead to exploiting an area
Carlson’s On-Balance Individualism
and Science being the Aesthetic
Argument
On balance individualism:
Any natural thing has “substantial positive value, and little to no
negative value”. Hettinger believes Carlson’s to be better than
Parsons due to his idea of minimal positive value.
Aesthetic Argument (Science):
Carlson embraces scientific cognitivism. Scientific knowledge
requires one to reflect on aesthetic qualities which leads to a
positive aesthetic judgment.
Hettinger’s Objection to
Carlson’s Science Based
Aesthetic Argument
It is an A priori (or conceptual argument),
there will always be positive aesthetics no
matter what the empirical nature is.
Does not leave room for aesthetic
experiences of nature
If it is purely science based, a “lifeless,
colorless, geologically inert nature” could be
considered a positive aesthetic aspect.
Parson & Carlson on
Functional Beauty and PA
In their book Functional Beauty, “the argue that natural
beauty comes from appreciating a natural object’s fitness
for function”
Organic material is not fit and functional if it is
damaged, etc.
In organic material cannot appear dysfunctional
Hettinger’s objection: If Inorganic material
malfunctions, can give one a negative aesthetic
judgment. Ex. A rock failing to divert a river.
Rolston’s Natural Aesthetic
Holism
Nature as a whole is beautiful.
Some items in nature may be viewed as ugly
depending on perspective
“Itemized Ugliness in Nature”- some
individual aspects may be ugly, but not when
viewed as a whole.
Systemic beauty- nature can turn ugliness
into beauty.
Reply to Rolston’s Natural
Aesthetic Holism
Hettinger’s reply: nature does have a
tendency towards beauty
Nature goes against it’s own “ugly”
(damaged) qualities.
Budd’s reply: he criticizes Rolston for
claiming that nature may have some ugly
aspects
Saito’s reply: claims Rolston only
aesthetically values the ecosphere as a
whole
Summary
PA is more plausible when knowledge is involved, helps
avoid categorizing aspects of nature as ugly or boring.
PA comes in many forms
Implausible forms: the rejection of negative aesthetic
qualities of nature, equal beauty in nature, and the claim
that nature has no negative aesthetic qualities.
Carlson/Parson’s Beauty Making theory fail because
they ignore important aspects of nature needed for a
correct PA
Hettinger finds Rolston’s Holistic Approach the most
plausible in relation to PA