Evaluating Positive Aesthetics Ned Hettinger Presented by Shelby

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 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.

1 st 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.

2 nd 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.

2 nd 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 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