Aesthetics

There being a dearth of student blogging this week, I will respond to Professor Johnson's blog post as to his thoughts on the aesthetic appreciation of nature. He posted, in summary, this:

Aesthetic means "involving the arts." Nature is not art. Therefore we cannot aesthetically appreciate nature. (This is just a summary, his actual argument is posted here.)

The only problem, I think, with this argument is the first premise upon which lies the entirety of the following conclusions. The definition of aesthetic, I think, is too narrow.

My thoughts on aesthetic appreciation of nature:

1. Aesthetics means "That which appertains to perception."
2. An aesthetic response is one's emotional response to the object of their perception.
3. Aesthetic appreciation is a type of aesthetic response.
4. We can perceive nature.
5. Therefore, we can aesthetically appreciate nature.


1. Aesthetics means "That which appertains to perception"
According to the online etymology dictionary, Aesthetic is derived, in 1798, from the German ästhetisch, or from the French esthétique, both from the Greek aisthetikos, meaning "sensitive," which was orignally derived from aisthanesthai meaning "to perceive, or to feel." Nowehere in the development I did not want to merely say 'that which pertains to perception' for that is far too inclusive, but by using appertains, it limits the definition to what ever is a part of perception, or that which is perceived.

2. An aesthetic response is one's emotional response to the object of their perception.
A twitching muscle, in response to a perceived object would not be an aesthetic response, so an aesthetic response must be emotional. You cannot have an emotional response to an object that you did not perceive, so it must be one's ... to the object of their perception.

3. Aesthetic appreciation is a type of aesthetic response.
Appreciation is an emotional response, so aesthetic appreciation is a type of aesthetic response.

4. We can perceive nature.
While an object of nature is not an art object, it is an object.

5. Therefore, we can aesthetically appreciate nature.
If we can perceive nature, than nature appertains to perception, and is therefore aesthetic. We can appreciate aesthetics.



Question: Telfer attributed food as a minor art, and Scruton thinks that photography is a lesser art form. Are there levels of art? Are some forms inherently better than others or is all art, or rather, all artforms equal?