Lazy Aesthetics: Examining Nature at Rest

For Dr. Cynthia Freeland.

In January, I had a short assignment for my Aesthetics’ class where I had to talk about a photo I took that I considered beautiful in Nature. I posted the essay on my blog because I loved the picture that much and wanted to share what I wrote with my readers. For my mid-term assignment, I had the opportunity to revise as well as expand on my essay. Again, I enjoyed what I wrote so much that I decided to re-publish what I wrote as well as giving my essay a proper title. I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it and most of all, I hope my professor likes it.

Ordinarily when one thinks of squirrels, they often picture a little furry animal that runs up and down trees or away from people that get too close. Or perhaps more morbidly, dead furry little animals lying on the highway. Strangely, I was leaving the University of Houston campus early on October of 2016 and stumbled across this one squirrel that, literally, stopped me in my tracks. Seeing squirrels on campus is not unusual; students must encounter at least two or three as they walk to their classes. One of the fascinating traits about this squirrel for me however, was that it was just lying down, not doing anything. Unlike most of the squirrels we see on campus or even off campus, it was not eating anything, running, nor was it dead (despite its appearance). Disregarding this, readers may still find fault with my picture or my attraction to this lounging squirrel. As a result, I will attempt to make the argument, throughout this paper, that such an image of this squirrel fits the criteria of what philosophers consider aesthetic in nature. Moreover, by drawing upon the works of certain philosophers and aestheticians, I will be able to confirm my assertions and simultaneously, make the reader more cognizant of the true beauty of the photo.

            Prior to taking my photo, I gazed at this squirrel for longer than I’d like to admit and did my best to make sure I did nothing to disturb it at the risk of any sudden movement that would cause the squirrel to be startled and leave the scene. Graciously though, I managed to get a photo of the little guy and when I went home, the photo resonated with me for a while but only humorously. That evening, thoughts were running through my head of pure satire, “what is this squirrel tired from? It’s not as if he has midterms or has little to no money in his checking account.”  I then sardonically pondered as to what he may be thinking about: “He looks so depressed, he probably found his squirrel girlfriend taking acorns from someone else and is gradually contemplating suicide.” After the laughter died down, I began to wonder if I had made a wise decision by photographing the event and simultaneously, questioned the very nature of my initial appreciation i.e., was the image I selected and emphasized on what I considered “aesthetic in nature”, actually so or had I gotten carried away with something that amused me?[1]

            In order to properly answer that question, one would have to look deeper into what is aesthetic, i.e., what makes something aesthetic. Eugene Hargrove argues that there are three categories (Beautiful, Picturesque and the Sublime)[2] that are served to define something as Aesthetic and thereby, measure their levels of attractiveness and differentiate that which is awe-inspiring and uninspiring. Among those three, we could argue that my photo would be considered “picturesque” because clearly, it was not something I could ignore. Although, because what makes the image of this squirrel picturesque is that to me, it was interesting and in Hargrove’s view, just because something is interesting, traditionally has never considered an object beautiful.[3]

            From Hargrove’s view, I am able to understand how things considered “interesting” may not merit the same qualities as something considered beautiful or even picturesque for that matter. I choose to reject that notion, however, because I believe there can be a way to appreciate something so simple as a squirrel lying down, in how it can be approached. Such a view is taken by Allen Carlson who contends in approaching aesthetics from a perspective that appreciates nature in a positive manner.[4] Carlson goes on to explain that the most appropriate way to appreciate nature is scientific knowledge; a good point indeed, however arguably in this case, scientific knowledge seems to be irrelevant in examining this photo since there does not seem to be anything of scientific value of a motionless squirrel. If anything, I argue that it must be appreciated by its simplicity in nature. This appeal is introduced to by Ralph Waldo Emerson who defines Nature as divinely created (not altered by human contact) and therefore, unconditionally beautiful.[5]

            Nevertheless, when I examine the photo it of course, still makes me laugh. But moreover, it makes me ponder at the fact that for this one brief moment, nature was at rest. This is not to say that people are not fully aware that animals are capable of sleeping; simply stated, one just never usually sees an animal at rest. This is excluding animals at the zoo, of course, because animals there are trapped and miserable. But here, out in the open fields and fake green grass on the University of Houston campus, nature needs a break.  Often times, when we watch nature documentaries or the like, it’s rare that we see an animal that is not doing anything at all. We are accustomed to seeing our pets asleep but the idea of any other animal just resting is arguably eerie. One could even make the criticism of my photo that, because it defies the tradition of ordinary squirrels in motion, it is not aesthetically good.[6]  Although Yuriko Saito will bring up the example of a rotting carcass and state that such an act is nature in balance, but because its appearance is shuddering, some would not regard it as aesthetic.[7] Saito goes on to echo such a feeling when we discuss cockroaches, fleas, and mosquitoes that present a challenge to us to find attractive.[8] My problem with that however, is that it is not difficult to contest the appearance of a squirrel and compare it to how one views a cockroach; they are too different and only the latter could cause the most masculine individual to stand up on a chair to avoid contact.

            That being said, I argue that finding an appeal in this photo serves as part of the “revolution” in traditional aesthetics.[9] We could find this assertion in close examination of Sheila Linnot’s view in how aesthetic tastes may differ overtime.[10] While her claims are more focused in terms of approaching an aesthetic appeal in an ecologically friendly manner, we can still relate this claim to the motionless squirrel. Specifically, in how easily avoidable it is for most people to walk past a squirrel, unfazed, regardless of its movement or lack thereof. A reason for this could be because squirrels run rampant at the University campus or encounter them so much in our daily lives that they have lost their luster. At the same time however, I would dismiss that by mentioning how anytime one witnesses a dog (either poking their head out of a car window or walking around a neighborhood) a great deal of attention is placed by people who may even have one waiting for them at home.

            It is for reasons such as that and more, that I emphasize why my photo should be regarded as aesthetic in nature and respectfully dismiss any notions to state otherwise. Granted, my photo is unable to rival against other picturesque photos that some would perhaps view with a more artful eye. Nevertheless, it seems incomprehensible if one were to regard something as ugly in nature. Taking a lesson from Aldo Leopold, human judgement of nature is purely based on how it makes us feel; “it does not flow naturally from nature itself; it is not directly oriented to nature on nature’s own terms; nor is it well informed by the ecological and evolutionary revolutions in natural history.”[11] Therefore, any judgement or in this case, criticism of an image in nature is deemed trivial as nature’s purpose, is not to serve us in any way.

A similar connection can be made in concluding my defense of this squirrel photo.  Prior to my arrival and taking this photo of the squirrel, its existence and objectives in life carried out were not given by me. My curiosity peaked at the sight because of my love for nature (in the words of Emerson) “I am the lover of uncontained and immortal beauty…I find something more dear and connate than in streets or villages.”[12] The ultimate intention of my photo is to be Avant-garde i.e., beautiful in an idiosyncratic function. A squirrel at rest is meant to bare the same manifestation like that of a sad clown. Of course we are aware that just because the person dressed as a clown, who is meant to symbolize fun and excitement, is a human being underneath all the makeup and puffy clothing; capable of emotions such as sadness, anger, confusion. Because such a sight is seldom seen, it is therefore, inconsiderable. And when one does encounter something that is perceived as original or unusual, it is understandably charming and in a very outlandish sort of way, aesthetic.  

-Ahmed H. Sharma  

Originally  Written on the 17th of March, 2017 at  5:38 P.M. 

 

Works Cited:

Carlson, Allen, Sheila Lintott, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Aldo Leopold, Yuriko Saito, and Eugene Hargrove. Nature, Aesthetics, and Environmentalism: From Beauty to Duty. New York: Columbia UP, 2008. Print.

 

[1] “The problem [in Aesthetics’ of nature] is what and how to select, emphasize and group and what and how to compose for appropriate appreciation.” Allen Carlson, Nature, Aesthetics and Environmentalism, P.119

[2] Carlson (Eugene Hargrove), P. 33

[3] “Traditionally, it has been held that interest is subservient to beauty, an element which has to be present in a beautiful object, but which is never considered an aesthetic category in its own right.” Ibid, P.35

[4] “Appropriate aesthetic appreciation is that appreciation of an object that reveals what aesthetic qualities and value it has.” (Carlson) P.225

[5] Carlson (Ralph Waldo Emerson) P.49-53

[6] Carlson, P.229-231

[7] Carlson (Yuriko Saito) P.242-243

[8] Ibid P.245

[9] “Revolution in the aesthetics of nature often takes place when people start appreciating the parts of nature formerly regarded as aesthetically negative.” Ibid P.238

[10] Carlson (Sheila Linott) P.386-389

[11] Carlson (Aldo Leopold), P. 109

[12] Carlson (Emerson) P.50

Man’s Best Friend

Again, sorry for the wait on a new blog. A lot of stuff has happened (all good) but here is a blog I’ve been meaning to post for the longest time:

I’ve never had a dog of my own and the ones who have seen me post pictures of a Great Dane and calling it “my dog” will call me a liar. The reason why I don’t count that is because the dog belongs to my big sister who has 2 other Great Danes and pays for their food as well as medical bills, whereas I have bought them food a few times, fed them at times and play with them (thus, I don’t technically have the right to say they’re fully my dogs). But because I’d rather not keep calling this one particular dog of the three, “My sister’s dog” (for the sake of the blog) I’m going to refer to him as my own.

This dog is a black and white (bearing similar features to that of a Dalmation) with loving blue eyes and stands at a good 2-3-feet tall on his 4 legs. His name is Moose and is about 10 years old making him about 70 in human years. When my sister first got him, he was very small but the reputations for Great Danes is that they grow massive in size, which he did in the weeks/months to come, since then he’s remained the same size; Ironically, he still thinks of himself as a puppy cause the poor guy doesn’t realize how strong he is.
image

I didn’t realize how important Moose was to me or really, how important I was to him until after I came back from University and I woke up to him sleeping beneath me in my bed. I had almost forgotten before I moved away how much time he’d spend with me like when I’d do homework in my room, I’d turn around to see him sleeping on the floor just waiting for me to get done so I could pet him and show him some attention.

A year or two later, after my sister got married and went to Paris for a week and I house-sat for her and hadn’t seen the dogs in a while but during that time, I was in my own little world but I was still spending time with the dogs here and of course, giving Moose the special attention. When my sister came back, she said that Moose kept going in my room and scratching at the door and just looked sad whenever he realized I wasn’t in there. When I finally came back home and moved back in with my sister, of course Moose and I were much closer and I wouldn’t stop taking pictures of him to show to the world. I considered this dog as if he were my own child (much to the jealousy of the other dogs, whom I tried to show love to as well but, somehow I think they knew that Moose was my favorite).

Unfortunately, his back legs don’t work as well as they used to due to some nerve damage but he still walks cause he’s a trooper, plus I talk to him as if I am a stern, but loving, parent so he walks as if to show me, “Look Papa, I can do it!” But I understand he’s getting old, which is why I’m trying to spend as much time with him as possible before his time comes cause I know he won’t live forever but the fact that he’s still going now, is an opportunity that I’m going to take advantage of.

My whole reason for talking about Moose is to pretty much bring to the attention of Animal’s rights because a lot of people tend to think of Animals as simply just objects for us to kill for sport and/or eat. I eat meat as well so I’m not going to say how we should all be vegetarians or whatever cause I am mainly talking about Cat’s and Dog’s and other domestic pets. When one says that Animal’s have rights, there’s always one joker at the other end of the spectrum that says, “OH! So, Animals should be able to vote?” And to that you should always say, “Yes, dumbass. Why not?” Of course, Animals can’t speak and can’t know what’s best for us so that would be ridiculous. When one says “Animals have rights” they mean that they shouldn’t be disregarded. An animal may not be able to speak but it has some way of communicating with another animal or at least even has a personality. There’s a philosophical thought that if a fish could talk to us, would we still be able to eat it? Luckily, I don’t eat it to begin with so I’m scot-free, but if I did, I couldn’t look at a fish the same way.

An animal can feel pain, just like us so in a way they are like us. We can’t deny that our characteristics make us like them either. Like when we sit in traffic, sometimes our primal instincts of frustration start to arise and we say shit we don’t mean. We are all creatures that dwell within this planet and struggle to survive (we just so happen to not be a part of the food chain)  regardless, an animal’s life should matter, that’s why I don’t get people who hunt (unless you know, for food or whatever but not sport).

Going back to pets however, if a dog has personality and is considered, “Man’s Best Friend”, certainly they should be treated with respect. And there are those who argue that a dog’s love is not always loyal to it’s owner and can love someone else just as easily. The argument for that can also be applied to humans and anyone whose ever been to a bar and made friends with people who offer to buy you a round of shots or a drink, will know what I’m talking about. Thus our loyalty can also be questioned and again, brings me back to my point that we are animals in a way ourselves.

The point I’m trying to make is that animals should definitely have certain rights (not the same as Humans) but at least give the animal or pet the dignity it deserves.

I just read the last sentence and it sounds like I’m preaching. I’m not trying to preach (haha). I’m going to stop now before I get carried away. I believe I’ve made my point clear enough.  Thank you for reading and I hope you guys continue to read. 🙂

image

-Mr. Writer

Originally written on the 4th of August, 2015 at 10:08 P.M.