In Response to Jacob's Question (Week 10)

Carlson’s theory on how to appreciate art in comparison to how to appreciate nature is distinctly different. Carlson discusses the variety of means to appreciate art which include behaviors exhibited such as contemplation, scanning, studying, observing, surveying, inspecting, and examining. He theorizes that humans instinctually know which aspects of works of art are significant and how to appreciate them because they are manmade creations. On the contrary, nature cannot be appreciated in the same way because it is not manmade, a central qualification to Carlson’s theory on art appreciation. From Carlson’s perspective, nature is appreciated by means of distinguishing specific features of the environment which deserve attention and appreciation. Often the focus of nature revolves around the colors or designs that nature provides for us. In his essay, Carlson also places emphasis on the ability to divide the existing environment into scenes so the scenes can be looked at from a particular perspective, instead of taking in all that the environment has to offer at once. Just as Carlson argues that we instinctually know how to appreciate manmade art, Carlson argues a similar perspective about how to appreciate nature by stating that we know a lot about nature via common sense and scientific knowledge. Through this common sense and scientific knowledge we can gauge what aspects of nature there are to appreciate and how to appreciate them. Although Carlson’s theories on art appreciation versus nature appreciation are similar, the two are distinctly different. Carlson places great emphasis on the idea that as humans we cannot appreciate everything because without limiting our appreciation we would only experience “a meld of physical sensations”. Do you agree with this idea? Why or why not?