The Nature of Natural Appreciation

Carlson begins with the supposition that the appreciation from nature is or ought to be different from the appreciation of art. He concludes that the appreciation of nature must be the acknowledgment of the natural environment as an obtrusive foreground. He is slightly unclear as to what this exactly means, but does maintain that it involves knowledge of the environment and the ability to distinguish between aspects thereof. We do not merely experience it as an amalgamation of experience, but use knowledge to make some of the data deliberate and meaningful.

Is this is, any substantive way, distinct from appreciation of art? In responding to this question consider carefully Carlson's descriptions of our appreciation of art.

Question 9: Music

I apologize. Last week I did not post a question. We originally planned to spend but a single day on Dickie and when the decision was made to extend the unit, I failed to realize the consequent of needing a question. I am sorry for that. Here, however, are the questions for this week.

Kivy articulates a contour theory for the expressivism of music, claiming that the expression is due to the similarity between the emotion expressed and the behavior of a person operating under that particular emotion. However, even he raises some objections to his own theory and admits there may not be answers to them.

1) Does the Contour Theory have merit? What of his objections? Is his notion of "there is no better explanation" a legitimate reason for believing it?

Hanslick maintains that music is exclusively nonrepresentational. Unlike poetry and literature and painting, music lacks the ability to represent anything beyond itself.

2) Is this true? Because music lacks any visual, lacks any actual verbal component, does it follow that it cannot represent?