Carlson's theory of appreciation seems to be one that does, more relatively, relate to our appreciation of nature, not art, although it could be loosely translated and applied to art as well. In any situation, it's difficult to truly define the aesthetic appreciation of nature, because the aesthetic appreciation must be applied only to artistically intriguing things, and much of nature does not qualify as "Art." Much like Tolstoy, Carlson spends a great deal of his work denying other commonplace theories and then denying the extent to which even his theory is credible. However, I argue that his theory is distinct from the definition of art because it describes in careful detailed ways on how we must view the nature and how we must objectify in order to truly appreciate it's art-like qualities. The truth of this may not be determinable, but the organization is certainly intact.
What should an aesthetic theory truly define?
No comments:
Post a Comment