Question: On many nature trails/hikes, there are signs that give small descriptions about the surrounding plants, trees, etc. Similarly, on safari tours, tour guides give short descriptions of the various animals that can be spotted. According to Carlson, would these descriptions be sufficient enough for one to adequately aesthetically appreciate the surrounding nature?
After our discussions in class, I have concluded that these descriptions would not be sufficient enough, according to Carlson, for one to fully aesthetically appreciate the surrounding nature. He might say that by reading the information cards one could somewhat appreciate nature, but not fully appreciate it. He would probably claim that the descriptions given are far too simple and short to really educate the reader on the nature of the object. I do believe, however, that Carlson would at least appreciate the fact that the information cards are there, rather than there being no information available to the observer at all. Carlson would probably encourage the observer(s) to do some research on their own about the object and continue learning about it, in order to aesthetically appreciate it more fully.
No comments:
Post a Comment