Carlson juxtaposes his preferred account of full and proper aesthetic appreciation of nature (the "natural environmental model") with several others, all of which, he claims, fail in a number of ways. Most centrally, the landscape and object models (not to mention the "human chauvinistic" model) strike Carlson as errantly anthropocentric (overly concerned with humans to the neglect of nature). Do you agree?
Auer touches on yet another concern with Carlson: what are the boundaries, if any, between humans and nature, our technologies and those of nature (beaver damns, bird nests, etc.)? His natural environmental model advises us to ignore the sounds of human industry when appreciating a "natural" scene. Is he implying that humans and their attendant noises are not natural?
Auer touches on yet another concern with Carlson: what are the boundaries, if any, between humans and nature, our technologies and those of nature (beaver damns, bird nests, etc.)? His natural environmental model advises us to ignore the sounds of human industry when appreciating a "natural" scene. Is he implying that humans and their attendant noises are not natural?
No comments:
Post a Comment