What need is there for an environmental aesthetics?

Abstract

The answer to the question posed in the title is by no means obvious. That we need to protect our environment has indeed become evident. But what, if anything, does aesthetics have to contribute towards meeting that need? Looking at aesthetics, as it has evolved ever since Baumgarten, the answer would seem to be: very little. Environmental concerns, important as they are, would seem to have no place in aesthetics, so understood. Is there then any reason for those concerned with the future of the environment to look to aesthetics for help? It would seem that what is needed is not the consolation offered by edifying experience or beautiful illusion that willingly turns its back on ugly reality; rather, we need active intervention, based on solid information, which will change the world for the better. Can aesthetics, can art, make an effective contribution towards meeting that need? In this connection we should consider the following: why, if the problems that face us are indeed so evident, do our responses remain so half-hearted? The main problem would not seem to be a lack of information. To change the way we relate to the environment we need more than just cold reason: we need to experience what transcends the reach of such reason. What is required is a change of heart. But how do hearts change? Here an environmental aesthetics can make a contribution, but an aesthetics so fundamentally transformed that we may well wonder whether aesthetics remains an appropriate name. Schiller's Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man provides some significant pointers. We are also in need of a changed understanding of art and its relationship to nature.