Abstract
Güzellik teorisinde
en iyi bilinen temel husus, güzelliğin güzel şeylerin nesnel bir özelliği mi
yoksa seyreden kişiye bağlı yani öznel olup olmadığıdır. Bilim, doğal dünyanın
doğasını anlamamız için en iyi rehberdir. Dolayısıyla bilime dair bilgi bize
doğaya estetik bir cevap vermemizi sağlamalıdır. Bilim objektif olduğu için, bilim
tarafından yönlendirilen bir çevre estetiği de objektif olacaktır. Çalışmada
veri toplama yöntemlerinden belge tarama yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Bu
çalışmamızda Doğanın Estetiği ile ilgili örnekler vererek, Doğanın Estetiğine
yönelik yaklaşımları bu örnekler üzerinden tartıştık. "Bilimsel
tekçilik" ve "zoraki çoğulculuk" yoluyla nesnellikten öznelliğe
farklı yaklaşımları ve fikirleri göstermek istedik. Sonuç olarak diyebiliriz ki
doğaya yönelik bazı estetik yargılar, gerçekten doğru veya yanlış, uygun veya uygun
olmayan değil, fakat doğanın estetiğine yönelik bir çok değerlendirme çok
farklı gerekçelerle diğerlerine göre daha iyi veya daha kötüdür.
Keywords
References
- Brady, E. (2003) Aesthetics of the Natural Environment (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003), chap. 7.
- Budd, M. (2002) The Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature: Essays on the Aesthetics of Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)
- Carlson, A. (2000) Aesthetics and the Environment: The Appreciation of Nature, Art and Architecture (New York: Routledge, 2000)
- Eaton, M. (1998) The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 56, No. 2, Environmental Aesthetics (Spring, 1998), pp. 149-156
- Fisher, J. (1993) Reflecting on Art (Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield, 1993), pp. 338-39
- Fisher, J. (1998) The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 56, No. 2, Environmental Aesthetics (Spring, 1998), pp. 167-179
- Hettinger, N. (2008) Objectivity in Environmental Aesthetics and Protection of the Environment : Nature, Aesthetics, and Environmentalism (Columbia University Press, 2008), chap.24.
- Shelley, J. (1994). Hume's Double Standard of Taste. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 52(4), 437-445. doi:10.2307/432031
- Kant, I. (1790). Critique of Judgment.. Trans. Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987
- Parsons, G. (2006) Freedom and Objectivity in the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature, The British Journal of Aesthetics, Volume 46, Issue 1, 1 January 2006, Pages 17–37, https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayj002
- Logan, J. D., & Santayana, G. (1897). The Sense of Beauty, Being the Outlines of Aesthetic Theory. The Philosophical Review, 6(2), 210. doi:10.2307/2175375
- URL-1 B. (n.d.). Research Models. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-sociology/chapter/research-models/
- Walton, K. L. (1970). Categories of Art. The Philosophical Review, 79(3), 334. doi:10.2307/2183933
Abstract
In the theory of beauty, the most well-known basic
issue is whether the beauty is an objective feature of beautiful things or in
the eye of beholder - subjective. Science is our best guide for the nature of
the natural world. So knowledge of science should guide us to give an aesthetic
response to nature. Since science is objective, an environment aesthetic guided
by science will be objective as well. In this study, existing data collection method used to obtain data. We have said and discussed a little about approaches
and samples about Aesthetic of Nature. We wanted to show different approaches
and ideas from subjectivity to objectivity via "scientific monism"
and "constrained pluralism". As a result, some aesthetic judgments of
nature are indeed true or false, correct or incorrect, appropriate or not, but
many aesthetic responses to nature are better or worse than others on very
different causes.
References
- Brady, E. (2003) Aesthetics of the Natural Environment (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2003), chap. 7.
- Budd, M. (2002) The Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature: Essays on the Aesthetics of Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)
- Carlson, A. (2000) Aesthetics and the Environment: The Appreciation of Nature, Art and Architecture (New York: Routledge, 2000)
- Eaton, M. (1998) The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 56, No. 2, Environmental Aesthetics (Spring, 1998), pp. 149-156
- Fisher, J. (1993) Reflecting on Art (Mountain View, Calif.: Mayfield, 1993), pp. 338-39
- Fisher, J. (1998) The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 56, No. 2, Environmental Aesthetics (Spring, 1998), pp. 167-179
- Hettinger, N. (2008) Objectivity in Environmental Aesthetics and Protection of the Environment : Nature, Aesthetics, and Environmentalism (Columbia University Press, 2008), chap.24.
- Shelley, J. (1994). Hume's Double Standard of Taste. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 52(4), 437-445. doi:10.2307/432031
- Kant, I. (1790). Critique of Judgment.. Trans. Werner S. Pluhar. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1987
- Parsons, G. (2006) Freedom and Objectivity in the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature, The British Journal of Aesthetics, Volume 46, Issue 1, 1 January 2006, Pages 17–37, https://doi.org/10.1093/aesthj/ayj002
- Logan, J. D., & Santayana, G. (1897). The Sense of Beauty, Being the Outlines of Aesthetic Theory. The Philosophical Review, 6(2), 210. doi:10.2307/2175375
- URL-1 B. (n.d.). Research Models. Retrieved September 17, 2017, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-sociology/chapter/research-models/
- Walton, K. L. (1970). Categories of Art. The Philosophical Review, 79(3), 334. doi:10.2307/2183933
Details
| Journal Section | Research Articles |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | November 8, 2017 |
| Submission Date | September 17, 2017 |
| Acceptance Date | November 8, 2017 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2017 Volume: 2 Issue: 2 |
This journal is licensed with Creative Commons Atıf 4.0 International License.