Philosophical / Metaphysical Question - What Attracts Us To Beauty In The Landscape?

I am about to begin writing a series of articles for a local club

concentrating on the aesthetics of landscape photography. The

introductory article will look at the fundumental nature of beauty in

the landscape and why it touches something deep inside us.

 

I am interested to hear your opinions on this. I have some theories

myself, primarily to do with the common gene pool we share and the

way in which all life is connected through this. Also, I subscribe to

Gaia Theory (not the Gaia Movement) and I believe that what appears

as beauty to us is simply (though not merely) the 'movements of the

engine' so to speak.

 

If you have any interesting links that you think may be of interest

please post them. I apologise if this is going over material that's

already been covered on here, but I did do a search prior to opening

this and couldn't find a thread that matched what I was looking for.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Mike

 

PS I'm not asking anyone to do my work for me. This isn't a

commercial venture, however if anyone still wants me to credit them

for ideas or the like I'm more than happy to do so.

<i>"I believe that what appears as beauty to us is simply (though not merely) the 'movements of the engine' so to speak."</i>

 

<p>Could you please elaborate ? It's not as clear to me as I would like.

 

<p>Which of these questions are you asking:

<br>(1) Why do we prefer experiences that are enjoyable ?

<br>(2) Why is beauty enjoyable ?

<br>(3) What makes a beautiful landscape ?

Fair point Ken. The dictionary definition I'm using is...

 

Beauty:

 

The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality.

 

I guess what I'm really asking is: what is beauty (in Nature); what is it about it (or us) that makes us identify it as such and respond to it in the manner we do?

 

I hope this is clear. My head was a little fuzzy this morning (I was experiencing the beauty of Malt Scotch last night).

 

Mike

The beauty we see is not in the world... it is in us... beauty is an interpretation of a moment in the grand natural flow, imbued with connotations that arise from our particular place within this flow.

Mike,

 

You are right when you say that landscape can touch something deep within us. I think it is deeper than aesthetics though and often to do with how we see ourselves relating to nature. Two thought worlds spring to mind - the first being the ideas of the Romantic movement of the 18th - 19th centuries where Rousseau etc put forward the idea of 'the sublime'. Here humankind is dwarfed by the natural world and made to feel insignificant within it. However humans are themselves part of nature and so we are part of something unimaginably larger than ourselves. Another thought world is that of Judaeo-Christian teachng. Here humankind is in a relationship with the rest of nature which has changed from being completely part of it at the creation to being conscious of it and being able to control it for good or bad. The story in the Bible which illustrates this is Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden of Eden as a result of the fall. Milton wrote about paradise lost (and regained). There other ways of relating to nature for example that of science.

 

Don't know if that helps!

 

Colin

Mike, <P>You might want to read: <U><B>Beauty and Photography</U></B> and

<U><B>Why People Photograph</U></B> by photographer Robert Adams. Freeman

Patterson is also very good on this subject.

You might also want to read <i>Perception and Imaging</i> by Richard Zakia.

Another, more specific, question that's popped into my head as I've been reading these replies is: are we invested with a collective consciousness through our shared genetic heritage that produces, within us all, similar feelings in response to certain natural phenomena: sunrises and sunsets, the sound of the waves on the shore, misty autumn mornings and so on.

 

I am cognisant of the fact that this thread could become purely philosophic and, in the interests of maintaining a balance, I'd love to hear about your experiences while photographing subjects of great natural beauty.

 

Mike

Since you are taking a science-oriented approach, you might find it interesting to explore some theories about underlying mathematics of beauty, such as the <a href="http://goldennumber.net/" target="_blank">Golden Section</a>. This is nothing new, but over time, people continue to discover new ocurrences of the same basic arithmetic at work.

<I>are we invested with a collective consciousness through our shared genetic

heritage that produces, within us all, similar feelings in response to certain natural

phenomena: sunrises and sunsets, the sound of the waves on the shore, misty

autumn mornings and so on.</I> <P>I think it is a cultural matter not a genetic

matter. Western European culture, which dominates the way we think, began looking

at Nature in a benign or positive way wit hthe Ruskin and the Romantics,

approximately 200 years ago. Romantic thought in literature springs out of the

Enlightenment, which springs out of the Renaissance, etc. Culture & thought evolves

along self-regulating lines the same way that other living organisms do. Gaia theory

at least as far as my limited understanding extends, is an attempt to reconcile

Romantic philosophy and Scientific methodology.

Gaia Theory is a scientific argument which postulates that the Earth (the biota, biosphere and other components) is a self-regulating living organism. Since we are a part of this, our genetic heritage stretches back as far as life itself (estimated to be around 3.8 aeons old). From this perspective, our connection to Nature (as experienced through our emotions and senses) is both very deep and very old.

 

Mike

Mike,

 

I think that your preparation should include a careful study of aesthetics. I am not sure what books to recommend.

 

I am in the middle of an enormous book by Mikel Dufrenne, entitled The Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience. On page lix of the introduction Dufrenne notes: "The beautiful as a symbol of perfection has been confused with the beautiful as a special characteristic. Because of this confusion, a particular aesthetic theory and practice has been absolutized." The statements in your inquiry seem involved in the problem that Defrenne mentions. I know you are thinking of proportion, harmony, gracefulness, etc. These are qualities of a particular body of European art. Your "common gene pool" idea needs to be reconsidered.

 

There is also the confusion between looking for beauty in nature and looking for beauty in art. The two are not the same.

 

I hope these ideas help.

Fascinating stuff Michael, thanks for posting. The points you make are quite insightful. The reaction I am speaking of is the instinctive, base reaction one has to a magnificent vista - it takes our breath away, and causes us to gasp in awe.

 

Mike

We are part of nature and the landscape. When we look at beauty in nature it touches us deeply because the Earth is ancient and so is our existence. The Earth is our home, we live here. We are connected to nature. We are made of the same things that we see in the landscape. As Carl Sagan said "We are the stuff of stars."

 

 

BTW. Not all of us hold landscapes in reverance. Many people skim through life merely bouncing along the surface like a well skipped stone. There are people that feel deeply and there are those that don't.

Gene (and Ann M), your statements are poignant and fill me with hope and realisation. I hope that this thread strikes a similar chord with others reading it.

 

Mike

Seems like you have touched a nerve for many of us Todd. Years ago a friend shared an observation from her 10 year old daughter, "Mom, I used to think that we were all the same person but that we just had different bodies." This is the end of innocence. I believe that our conscious efforts are directed at recapturing that awareness of union we had in the beginning. For me, Beauty is the, usually temporary, experience of that reunion.

 

In the presence of beauty - an internal experience - I am sad and want to cry because it reminds me of my separation, and simultaneously want to celebrate because I have come home. Those photos that evoke beauty in me help me in my journey.

Don, that's a cracking observation. Your post also made me smile for the fact that I'm aware that Todd can be a first name in America, but rarely so here (in Scotland). For future reference, please call me Mike :)))

Hi Mike. I hope you'll tolerate a wee theology lesson that will expand on what Collin mentions very briefly. A very valid point of view whether anyone wants to hear it or not. Get your Bible out. In Genesis 1:31 we see God on the end of the 6th day of creation enjoying all that He did because it was <i>"very good."</i> Paradise in the real sense. But something happened (sin, rebellion) and that perfect creation that God had goven to man to own and subdue was turned over to Satan. In Luke 4:6 during the temptation of Jesus, Satan states he would give all of the Kingdoms to Jesus and they were his to give because they had been <i>"handed over"</i> to him. St. John affirms this in 1John 5:19. He says <i>"the whole world lies in the power of the evil one"</i> and the apostle Paul also agrees in Romans 8:19-23 he sees the creation as <i>"anxious" "longing" "groaning"</i> to be done with the corruption that has overcome it as a result of mans rebellion. And that day will come. The remainder though is this, we have in us that same longing for the perfection that God marveled at on that 6th day. And when we find a little corner of the world that is relatively uncorrupted our spirits that God created in us soar!<center><img src=http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Lodge%2060th%20Anniversary/Lodge60_10.jpg></center>

Mike,

 

What you are describing in your response is the Sublime. It is not the same as Beauty. Kant and other German philosophers wrote about this quality, which became the basis for much nineteenth-century landscape painting. Today many people think of the Sublime as a fiction whose time has come and gone. Ansel Adams was interested in the Sublime in a way that opened his work up to much criticism. Edward Weston's work was more involved in formal beauty--harmony of composition, etc.-- without the intensity of the feeling of awe that characterizes the Sublime. In any case, you are describing a felt quality (a kind of emotion in the viewer), not a quality that is primarily in the work, if you see what I mean.

Jim and Michael, thanks both very much. You've given me a lot to think about (I fear my head will pop soon though).

Transendence. The sense of wonder. Fulfilled dreams are not fulfilled hopes. Attainments that are the envy of our world, possessions, careers, postions, etc. has deluded many into thinking these are the answers to fulfillment. Deep down there is a stronger longing..not mitigated by ones worldly success. GK Chesterton said that weariness does not come from being weary of pain, but from being weary of pleasure. We are eternal beings, travelers passing through. We are made for something else beyond the here and now. Landscape gives us a glimpse of that sense of wonder (who can look into the grand canyon and not be awestruck?), the realization that we were indeed made for something else. It's also very interesting that photographing a landscape is not just held in the beauty of the landscape itself, but also in our need to create, because we were formed in the image of the Creator. We fill two basic needs while photographing the landscape, the need to create while recapturing wonder.

a few people have answered with deeply felt conviction, and are to be applauded for

it. whether you are in agreement with them is another matter entirely.

 

some find answers in their chosen religion, some don't....

 

but it's good to see people discussing things other than characteristic curves and the

like.

 

no answer, just the lyrics of a particular song that keeps me going out for more. i

think the opening line to the second block of text may provide a starting point for

some.

 

******************************************************************************

 

 

Black then white are all I see in my infancy.

red and yellow then came to be, reaching out to me.

lets me see.

As below, so above and beyond, I imagine

drawn beyond the lines of reason.

Push the envelope. Watch it bend.

 

 

 

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

Withering my intuition, missing opportunities and I must

Feed my will to feel my moment drawing way outside the lines.

 

 

 

 

Black then white are all I see in my infancy.

red and yellow then came to be, reaching out to me.

lets me see there is so much more

and beckons me to look through to these infinite possibilities.

As below, so above and beyond, I imagine

drawn outside the lines of reason.

Push the envelope. Watch it bend.

 

 

 

Over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind.

Withering my intuition leaving all these opportunities behind.

 

 

 

Feed my will to feel this moment urging me to cross the line.

Reaching out to embrace the random.

Reaching out to embrace whatever may come.

 

 

 

I embrace my desire to

feel the rhythm, to feel connected

enough to step aside and weep like a widow

to feel inspired, to fathom the power,

to witness the beauty, to bathe in the fountain,

to swing on the spiral

of our divinity and still be a human.

 

 

 

With my feet upon the ground I lose myself

between the sounds and open wide to suck it in,

I feel it move across my skin.

I'm reaching up and reaching out,

I'm reaching for the random or what ever will bewilder me.

And following our will and wind we may just go where no one's been.

We'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been.

 

 

 

Spiral out. Keep going, going...

I'm not bashing your beliefs, but you need a very narrow, highly

ahistorical focus to sustain the idea that gasps of awe are part of

every human's genetic inheritance. Children don't do it- they're

much more likely to be fascinated by what's at their feet. I don't

do it- I love grand landscapes, but I like to think my reaction is

more nuanced than simply clutching my brow and swooning in

my petticoats.

 

It is a commonplace amongst those that do love wilderness that

their emotional commitment to its hard reality is not widely

shared. Most people are perfectly happy with the

super-saturated cliche on the cover of their Christmas soft centre

assortment.

 

The Tate in London had what by all accounts was an excellent

exhibition of American Landscape painting last year called "The

American Sublime". The catalogue of the exhiibition is still

available at Amazon and other booksellers, but if you just want a

peek without paying, there is a useful teacher's pack you can

download at the bottom of this page:

 

http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/exhibitions/americansublime/

 

There are also some interesting (and some kooky) online

reviews if you do a google search.

 

If you want some excellent general background, "The Invention

of Tradition" (ISBN 0521437733) is a classic.

)

After reading through this thread I now feel like a simple man. Most of the theories and such probably have merit but for me the answer is much simpler and quite obvious.

 

I spent my youth growing up in the outdoors and rambling around in the hills. There is not any magical or deep inspirational reason about why I enjoy so much being there and away from day to day life with all the people around. I enjoy the fresh cool air, the lack of industrial noise, and the serenity of the open mountains. As for why do I enjoy photographing the outdoors is simply because I enjoy photography? I take pleasure in learning and practicing my camera /darkroom skills nearly as much as I enjoy being outdoors so it is a good marriage shooting outdoor photography.

 

I have just changed from hunting and 4x4 cruising in my earlier years to shooting photographs in my later years. Once again a simple answer to what I consider a simple question. I enjoy being outdoors. Taking photographs and trying to make the best fine prints that I can just provides me with an activity that permits me to interact with my surroundings. Otherwise I might get bored and do something stupid like take up local politics to fill in the vacant moments.

 

As you can see, I am a simple man hopefully making the correct choices.

 

Kind Regards,

"...but it's good to see people discussing things other than characteristic curves and the like."

 

Why?