Search

In what is in retrospect easily recognized as one of the three or four truly groundbreaking essays in environmental aesthetics, Francis Sparshott distinguishes a number of different ways of conceptualizing our relationships to our environments. Such different conceptualizations, he argues, deeply influence the ways in which we aesthetically experience both environments and the things that occupy them. It follows that understanding of, and thus education about, our environmental conceptualizations are of the utmost importance to our aesthetic appreciation. In this article I follow up some of Sparshott's insights by considering the ways in which a number of rather common conceptualizations of environments relate to what is an increasingly important feature of our built environments--what is commonly referred to as "environmental architecture." In doing so, I hope to make clear how aesthetic education concerning these common conceptualizations is vital for the appreciation of not only environmental architecture but the whole of our built environment. (Contains 24 notes.)

In this essay, the author addresses the question of environmental aesthetics as an issue in aesthetic education. The question is that of exactly "how" to appreciate a landscape appropriately and of exactly "what" is relevant to such appreciation. If aesthetic education is the business of teaching appropriate aesthetic appreciation, then, concerning the landscape, the key question is that of what to teach to instill such an appreciation. What skills, talents, information, and knowledge must be given to children, peers, and even to the artists themselves, in order to engender a rich, appropriate appreciation of landscapes? To put it in another way: What is the correct "curriculum" for teaching the appropriate aesthetic appreciation of landscapes? The writer approaches the question by working through a number of topics, each of which might be considered a candidate for such a curriculum. Eight different items (form, common knowledge, science, history, contemporary use, myth, symbol, and art) are considered. Each is queried regarding what role, if any, it should play in the curriculum. (Contains 19 notes.)

If we are fully to appreciate our natural environment and evaluate its aesthetic dimension (environmental aesthetics) wisely, then those carrying on research must not focus on formal qualities in the natural environment to the near exclusion of other aesthetic qualities, as appears to be the focus of such research now. (Author/KC)