A Response to Emily Brady's ‘Aesthetic Regard for Nature in Environmental and Land Art’

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

Notes

¹ For a discussion of the practical and pedagogical value of environmental artworks, see Rosenthal (2003).

² Donald Crawford notes that critics of environmental art assert that works like Christo's constitute aesthetic affronts, but Crawford himself does not (Crawford, 1983).

³ Stan Godlovitch uses the term ‘primordial innocence’ (Godlovitch 1998b, p. 144).

⁴ See Pickett et al. (1992); Botkin (1990); Pickett & White (1985); and Simus (in press).

⁵ Scientific cognitivism is the view (defended by Carlson) that appropriate aesthetic appreciation of nature must be informed by scientific knowledge (i.e., biology, ecology, natural history, etc.) just as appropriate aesthetic appreciation of art must be informed by knowledge of art history and theory in his ‘Appreciation and the natural environment’ (Carlson, 1979). For more on scientific cognitivism as discussed by other authors, see Callicott (1987); Fudge (2001); Matthews (2002); Parsons (2002, 2006); and Rolston III (1995).

⁶ Carlson's view is that ‘the general way in which environmental artists alter nature's aesthetic qualities by turning nature into art does seem to support its being an affront to nature’ (Carlson, 1986a, p. 155).

⁷ See Walton (1970).

⁸ For more on positive aesthetics, see Carlson (1984, 2002); Rolston III (1998, ch. 6); Hargrove (1989, ch. 6; 2002); Thompson (1995); Godlovitch (1998a, 1998b); Saito (1998); and Budd (2000).

⁹ See John Stuart Mill's ‘harm principle’ in his On Liberty (Mill, 1985).