Imagination and the Science-Based Aesthetic Appreciation of Unscenic Nature

Abstract

The popularity of the Grand Canyon, the Cliffs of Dover, and the Matterhorn (and the correlative unpopularity of marshes, bogs, and prairies) reveals in us a strong liking for scenic naturewe aesthetically value those parts of nature that are visually striking and that we would most expect to find captured in photographs. While an appreciation of scenic nature is not in itself bad, an overemphasis on it can lead to our not aesthetically appreciating other, unscenic parts of nature. This, in turn, has ecological (and perhaps even moral) implications, as our lack of appreciation can lead to our mistreating the unscenic. To rid us of too strong a bias for the scenic, a number of twentieth-century philosophers have suggested ways to develop an aesthetic appreciation of unscenic nature.' While such an appreciation would presumably not focus exclusively (or even at all) on nature's visual properties, it is not obvious what else such an account would involve. One possibility is that our appreciation should be science-based; science can reveal to us heretofore overlooked properties of natural objects, providing new opportunities for aesthetic experience. Recently, however, Emily Brady has argued against this approach, claiming instead that our appreciation should arise out of imaginative activity. In what follows, I argue that these two approaches are not only not mutually exclusive, but that the imagination is most effective in helping us develop an aesthetic appreciation of unscenic nature, precisely when it employs, and is guided by, scientific knowledge.