With the rise of environmental protection movement, natural aesthetics has become a new aesthetic fashion for people today. Environmental aesthetics has become a hot topic in aesthetics today. Environmental aesthetics is aesthetics that takes environmental aesthetics as the research object. It includes two aspects: first, the aesthetic objects include natural landscape and artificial landscape, which are in a marginal position in the traditional art-centered aesthetic system; A means to appreciate these objects as environment instead of as isolated objects like works of art, environmental aesthetics not only expands the scope of aesthetic objects, but also corrects the way of aesthetic experience. Although the research objects of environmental aesthetics include artificial landscapes such as gardens and buildings, its core is still the issue of natural aesthetics. The view of environmental aesthetics on man-made landscape is influenced by its view of natural landscape. Some environmental aestheticians argue that the natural aesthetic appreciation mode should be transplanted not only into the appreciation of artificial landscapes, but also into the appreciation of artistic works, which is a challenge to the traditional art-centered aesthetics. Traditional art-centered aesthetics rarely takes natural objects as aesthetic objects; Natural objects are considered inferior to works of art, and environmental aesthetics not only lists the natural environment as an aesthetic object, but also advocates that the natural environment should be regarded as an environment from the existence of isolated individuals, as an interconnected whole, and even as a whole with the appreciator himself. Behrendt said: "Environmental aesthetics studies the aesthetic experience and value in the environment."

Researchers of environmental aesthetics can be divided into two categories: one is composed of experts engaged in actual environmental planning and landscape design; The first is a lineup of philosophical aesthetes who are engaged in philosophical thinking and criticism. The main work of the former lineup is to estimate the aesthetic value of the environment scientifically and quantitatively, hoping to provide scientific basis for aesthetic value in various decisions on environmental issues; The latter is critical of the quantitative evaluation of the former, emphasizing the realization of the ideal relationship between man and the environment through the adjustment of world outlook and values. It is extremely difficult to quantitatively estimate the aesthetic value of the environment, because there are too many factors that affect the aesthetic value of the environment. There are a large number of experts and specific operators in the institutions that determine the aesthetic value of the environment, such as urban planners, landscape designers, economists, psychologists, computer scientists, biologists, ecologists and foresters. They try to make an objective and quantitative evaluation of the aesthetic value of the environment. However, the econometric estimates of these experts have been doubted and criticized by philosophical aesthetes. They fundamentally doubt the estimation method of this measurement. Eaton suggested that experts learn some basic knowledge from philosophical aesthetes' thinking about natural beauty and accept their suggestions, which is very important and helpful for experts to make a successful decision.

Philosophical aestheticians attach importance to the confusion brought by natural aesthetics to aesthetic theory. Because our aesthetic system is an art-centered system, this system is handy when dealing with artistic problems, but it seems to be stretched when dealing with natural beauty. As Duffner said, "thinking about aesthetic objects has always been focused on art ... this kind of thinking can only be fully exerted in art, because art gives full play to interest and causes the purest aesthetic feeling." Natural beauty is superior to artistic beauty in that:

First, from the perspective of aesthetic objects, there are important differences between natural objects and works of art. As an aesthetic object, natural objects are immutable, which is obviously different from relatively fixed works of art. Works of art are things that can be isolated from the surrounding things and remain relatively stable when we appreciate them. A work of art is always framed in a tangible or intangible form, which can maintain its identity relatively. In this respect, natural objects as the environment are completely different. First of all, all natural objects are stuck together, and it is difficult for us to determine the obvious boundaries between them. The whole nature is like an organism. When we try to appreciate a natural object in isolation from it, we will always find that it is related to other natural objects to varying degrees. Secondly, natural objects themselves are fickle. Organic natural objects have life changes, and inorganic natural objects will also reflect the historical vicissitudes of nature. If we don't feel these changes in our short life, or these changes can be ignored in our short aesthetic experience, then the changes of light, temperature, wind direction, wind force, smell and so on will always come, and we can't escape from nature in any case. These changes will undoubtedly have an important impact on our aesthetic experience. Third, our own activities will also cause natural changes. Every time you change your perspective, it will naturally take on a new look. Nature is changing because we are changing. Finally, it is difficult for us to separate ourselves from nature. We are the objects of our appreciation. If we look around, we will find that nature is everywhere and it completely surrounds us. If we are active, we are only active in the objects we appreciate, which will inevitably change our relationship with the objects and ultimately change the objects themselves. This is one of the most important reasons why natural objects are in infinite change as aesthetic objects.

Second, from the perspective of aesthetic experience. The aesthetic experience of art mainly consists of visual experience and auditory experience, with little sense of smell, taste and touch. In the process of artistic aesthetics, even if there are rich feelings, it is centered on perception and ultimately subject to the overall understanding of artistic works, because art can ultimately be attributed to a language form. We often talk about painting language, music language and so on. Although these arts are not real language arts, they are similar to real languages because the symbols they use are meaningful, understandable and unified symbol systems. As a language or language-like form of appreciation, this kind of art is always cognitive-centered, although it also integrates various psychological factors such as perception, imagination, cognition and emotion, that is to say, appreciation of works always wants to know what the works "say". The aesthetic experience of works of art always makes us transcend reality and enter an unrealistic world composed of imagination, that is, the art world. Aesthetic transcendence refers to this special function of artistic aesthetic experience. The charm of art lies in that it provides us with an unrealistic world and a broad imagination space. This transcendence is considered as an index to judge aesthetic experience.

There are significant differences in aesthetic experience of nature. First of all, all our senses are activated under the impact of nature. In nature, we can not only see and hear, but also use touch, smell and even taste. It is important that all these feelings exist as a whole. They are interrelated and constitute our overall feeling of nature. Therefore, unlike the art aesthetics centered on perception, there is no central factor among the various sensory factors of natural aesthetics. Whether it is perception, cognition or emotion, which is the main or central component, all sensory factors play the same role, because nature is not a language, not a set of symbols or symbol systems. Secondly, we can't escape from reality by appreciating nature. We are always surrounded by nature and have nowhere to run. The changing nature always reminds us that it is real. At the same time, the materiality of nature has greatly reduced the space of our imagination. Completely enriched and independent nature, fundamentally does not obey our imagination. Borrowing Ingarden's terminology, we can use imagination to fill the "indefinite point" in artistic works, so that the aesthetic object can be generated as a pure intentional object. But we can't use imagination to supplement nature, because there is no so-called "unfixed point" in nature, and nature is not an intentional world at all, but a real world that constantly collides with us and reflects the inevitability of disobedience to imagination. Aesthetic appreciation of nature can not only make us escape from the real world, but also make us closer to the real world and enter a more real world than the real world composed of real things. As Delovic pointed out, even if the aesthetic experience of nature gives us a pleasant escape or at least a pleasant comfort, we are freed from the "real world composed of practical things"

20 10/6/ 16

w

Page number, 2/2 (width)

However, it still doesn't let us completely leave the real world like art appreciation. On the contrary, aesthetic interest in nature must be interested in the real world. Moreover, the world made up of natural things is more real than the world made up of our real things.

Third, from the origin of works, works of art are created by artists. Artists put their own understanding of art, the whole universe, life and their own artistic skills into their works. The origin of artistic products not only makes works exist, but also determines the existence of works as works of art and determines the artistic value of works of art, which is naturally not artificially created. Even though we know that a natural thing has obvious origin, it is also the product of natural process. Usually, we have no clear understanding of the origin of nature. There is no obvious intention in essence. This not only brings difficulties to our understanding of nature, but also makes our aesthetic evaluation of nature almost a difficult problem.

Fourth, from the perspective of appreciation or evaluation, natural beauty cannot be valued. Any appreciation means value judgment, but we have encountered unprecedented difficulties in judging the value of natural beauty. Because the source of natural beauty is always a boundary of understanding. In the art-centered aesthetic system, art is regarded as a concentrated expression of aesthetic concepts and interests. The reason why art is beautiful is that when artists create works of art, they design them equally beautiful, and natural things are not created by human beings. We don't know how natural things come into being or who created them. We can neither judge the beauty and ugliness of natural objects according to the level of ideas nor the quality of skills. If there is the idea of God in our ideology and culture, it is easy to attribute the natural beauty to the reflection of the emperor's aesthetic ideas and skills when he created things. But even if we accept this idea, we still can't successfully judge the aesthetic value of natural objects, because since all natural objects are created by God, they should have the same aesthetic value, because the craftsmanship of Almighty God should be consistent. This makes the existing aesthetic theory unacceptable. Many aestheticians realize that when people appreciate natural objects and works of art, they will have two completely different reactions. When you appreciate art, you often like to judge its quality. However, when people face natural things, they often only praise with one voice, without distinguishing between high and low. Even if there are differences in the aesthetic value of natural objects, it is because of the influence of the habit of appreciating works of art that the appellation suitable for the cultural field is imposed on nature. The confusion caused by natural beauty leads to the trend of anti-value in British and American aesthetics, and the representative of this trend is the "positive aesthetics" which is very popular in British and American aesthetics recently. Jadrovich expressed the main idea of "positive aesthetics" as two interrelated propositions: (1) Everything in nature has comprehensive positive aesthetic value; (2) The comprehensive and positive aesthetic value of natural objects is incomparable and unclassifiable. Carlson thinks: "Nature has definite aesthetic value in essence". Hagorov said: "Nature is beautiful and does not have any negative aesthetic value"; Even asserted that "the ugliness of nature is impossible." This positive aesthetics with nature as the object is essentially different from the traditional aesthetics with art as the object. Because art especially tends to obey grading and comparative evaluation; The aesthetic value of art is always conceived in a hierarchical way. However, when people only regard nature as nature, the situation is very different. There is no final and decisive emotional or intellectual reaction, no definite happiness or cognitive result, and no authoritative regulations issued by authoritative classes such as natural critics and connoisseurs. Moreover, there is no correct compiling object and nature, no privileged category, no norm, no "system" to adjust people's aesthetic response to nature, and no natural world born in aesthetic theory. The comprehensive and positive aesthetic value of all natural objects cannot be compared and classified. Affirmative aesthetics requires us to transcend all value judgments, approach nature with pure aesthetic vision, and regard nature purely as a symbol of value in nature rather than in cultural circles. "If you want to get rid of the shackles of value judgment and face nature itself, you should not only understand the essence of economization, but also understand the essence of moralization, scientificity and aestheticism-in a word, the essence of humanity. Understanding the essence of aesthetics is to distinguish our experience from the inevitable evaluation model that we correctly apply to art. This kind of turning back from the evaluation focus can almost be equated with aesthetic response. Only by removing the evaluative aesthetic response to works of art can there be a real aesthetic response to nature.

Philosophical aestheticians try to advocate a brand-new aesthetic view and even outlook on life. As an aesthetic object, the environment is no longer a static and isolated object, but an interdependent and borderless whole. Not only is there no clear boundary between objects, but the boundary between objects and subjects is also unclear. The subject is not only an appreciator, but also an integral part of the landscape. Aesthetic experience is no longer limited to cognition and thinking, but includes the feeling of the whole body. Aesthetics is no longer an objective evaluation of the aesthetic value of the object, but a comprehensive discussion of different styles of natural scenery by breaking the prejudice of the subject. For pure natural objects, there are only differences in style in aesthetics, and there is no distinction between beauty and ugliness.

Print this article and close the window.