Graduate studies at Western
Ethics, Place and Environment 9 (3):249 – 267 (2006)
|Abstract||The idea that nature is importantly frame-less is an entrenched dogma in much of environmental aesthetics. Although there are powerful arguments that support this position, there are also powerful arguments supporting the view that observers often - or even inevitably - frame, bound, or otherwise confine natural objects in the course of aesthetic regard. Facing these opposing arguments off against each other produces the 'framing paradox': On the one hand, frames seem to be an indispensable condition for the aesthetic experience of anything whatsoever, and on the other hand the aesthetic appreciation of natural environments seems to require the dissolving or penetrating of boundaries of all sorts. To resolve this paradox, we must abandon an overly narrow conception of 'frame' that has generally been assumed throughout the debate and pay closer attention to what various framing devices (in both natural and artifactual settings) do to focus, rather than confine, aesthetic attention. Doing this enables us to make better sense of the way intelligence and imagination cooperate in carrying attention beyond perceptual phenomena. From the perspective that results, rival claims about the framability of nature can be seen as variable markers on an endless scale of aesthetic selectivity.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
L. Duane Willard (1980). On Preserving Nature's Aesthetic Features. Environmental Ethics 2 (4):293-310.
Glenn Parsons (forthcoming). Science, Nature, and Moore's Syncretic Aesthetic. Ethics, Policy and Environment 12 (3):351-356.
Alex Mintz & Steven B. Redd (2003). Framing Effects in International Relations. Synthese 135 (2):193 - 213.
Ondřej Dadejík & Vlastimil Zuska (2010). More Than a Story: The Two-Dimensional Aesthetics of the Forest. Estetika 47 (1):27-20.
Malcolm Budd (2006). Objectivity and the Aesthetic Value of Nature: Reply to Parsons. British Journal of Aesthetics 46 (3):267-273.
Glenn Parsons (2004). Natural Functions and the Aesthetic Appreciation of Inorganic Nature. British Journal of Aesthetics 44 (1):44-56.
Malcom Budd (2000). The Aesthetics of Nature. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100 (2):137–157.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #213,597 of 738,053 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,269 of 738,053 )
How can I increase my downloads?