荒野表征与日常绿化之间的公园美学

IF 0.7 1区 艺术学 0 ART BRITISH JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS Pub Date : 2023-05-20 DOI:10.1093/aesthj/ayac063
Tea Lobo
{"title":"荒野表征与日常绿化之间的公园美学","authors":"Tea Lobo","doi":"10.1093/aesthj/ayac063","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Scholars criticize privileging aesthetics over social and ecological considerations in park design. I argue that the real culprit is not aesthetics, but aestheticism. Aestheticism treats aesthetic objects as if they were ontologically distinct from everyday objects. Aestheticism in park design—treating parks like artworks to be admired like paintings—dovetails into treating parks like representations of a romanticized wilderness: of pristine, untouched landscapes. I argue that aestheticism is a means of constructing an ontological distinction between the beholder and the beheld, for landscapes are not truly pristine if they are sullied by human presence. As an alternative, and while drawing on the works of John Dewey and Yuriko Saito, I argue for a continuity between everyday objects and aesthetic objects. I also draw attention to the question of whose every day is privileged and propose to introduce Wittgenstein’s concept of multi-aspectivity in the analysis of everyday affordances.","PeriodicalId":46609,"journal":{"name":"BRITISH JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Park Aesthetics Between Wilderness Representations and Everyday Affordances\",\"authors\":\"Tea Lobo\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/aesthj/ayac063\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Scholars criticize privileging aesthetics over social and ecological considerations in park design. I argue that the real culprit is not aesthetics, but aestheticism. Aestheticism treats aesthetic objects as if they were ontologically distinct from everyday objects. Aestheticism in park design—treating parks like artworks to be admired like paintings—dovetails into treating parks like representations of a romanticized wilderness: of pristine, untouched landscapes. I argue that aestheticism is a means of constructing an ontological distinction between the beholder and the beheld, for landscapes are not truly pristine if they are sullied by human presence. As an alternative, and while drawing on the works of John Dewey and Yuriko Saito, I argue for a continuity between everyday objects and aesthetic objects. I also draw attention to the question of whose every day is privileged and propose to introduce Wittgenstein’s concept of multi-aspectivity in the analysis of everyday affordances.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46609,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BRITISH JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BRITISH JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayac063\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"艺术学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ART\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BRITISH JOURNAL OF AESTHETICS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayac063","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"艺术学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ART","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学者们批评在公园设计中将美学置于社会和生态考虑之上。我认为真正的罪魁祸首不是美学,而是唯美主义。审美主义对待审美对象,就好像它们在本体论上与日常对象不同。公园设计中的唯美主义——将公园视为艺术品,将其视为绘画——与将公园视作为浪漫化荒野的代表相吻合:原始、未被破坏的景观。我认为,唯美主义是在观察者和被观察者之间建立本体论区别的一种手段,因为如果景观被人类的存在所玷污,它们就不是真正的原始景观。作为一种选择,在借鉴约翰·杜威和斋藤由里子的作品时,我主张日常物品和美学物品之间的连续性。我还提请注意谁的每一天都是特权的问题,并建议在日常可供性分析中引入维特根斯坦的多方面活动概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Park Aesthetics Between Wilderness Representations and Everyday Affordances
Scholars criticize privileging aesthetics over social and ecological considerations in park design. I argue that the real culprit is not aesthetics, but aestheticism. Aestheticism treats aesthetic objects as if they were ontologically distinct from everyday objects. Aestheticism in park design—treating parks like artworks to be admired like paintings—dovetails into treating parks like representations of a romanticized wilderness: of pristine, untouched landscapes. I argue that aestheticism is a means of constructing an ontological distinction between the beholder and the beheld, for landscapes are not truly pristine if they are sullied by human presence. As an alternative, and while drawing on the works of John Dewey and Yuriko Saito, I argue for a continuity between everyday objects and aesthetic objects. I also draw attention to the question of whose every day is privileged and propose to introduce Wittgenstein’s concept of multi-aspectivity in the analysis of everyday affordances.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
37.50%
发文量
45
期刊介绍: Founded in 1960, the British Journal of Aesthetics is highly regarded as an international forum for debate in philosophical aesthetics and the philosophy of art. The Journal is published to promote the study and discussion of philosophical questions about aesthetic experience and the arts. Appearing quarterly - in January, April, July, and October - it publishes lively and thoughtful articles on a broad range of topics from the nature of aesthetic judgement and the principles of art criticism to foundational issues concerning the visual arts, literature, music, dance, film, and architecture.
期刊最新文献
Aesthetic Non-Naturalism The Geography of Taste An Analytic of Eeriness Why delight in screamed vocals? Emotional hardcore and the case against beautifying pain The chief business of the true judges in Hume’s Standard of Taste
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1