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.