Phenomenology Of Utilitarian-Aesthetic Dynamics Of Nature

Abstract

This paper gives an analysis to three philosophical-aesthetic levels, which illustrate dialectic interrelations and reciprocal transitions of utilitarian-applicative and notional artistic-creative impulses of natural landscape development in its correlation with various arts and with architecture in particular. This dialectics of functional levels allows us, according to our reckoning, educing gradation in elaboration of the concept of “landscape architecture” at the earliest stages of development, where material source of this category was identified, then its religious models were determined and thereafter it turned into a philosophical-artistic model of creation. The notion of architectural landscape as eden, as microcosm, and later on as masterpiece of art, evolutionally came up out of utilitarian practice of human being.

• Firstly, landscape architecture might be presented as part of aesthetically arranged landscape environment that surrounds a human being. Due to its functional nature this level may be called a utilitarian-applicative one, a fundamental mechanism, the development of which is in satisfaction of material-economic needs with “involvement” of certain elements of beauty, and there are also direct “hints” to formation of “Nature-Paradise” formula. The presence of aesthetic component in this case contemplates a “preponderance” of the usefulness over the beauty.

• Secondly, there is an intermediate form between aesthetic landscape environment and art, which is typical for fragmentary-imaginative level. In this case we observe an “intensification” of dynamics of decorative-beautification functions together with utilitarian meaningfulness, which means that perception of nature as paradise becomes more embossed and deep. In this connection, imaginative or emotional-notional beginnings accumulate artistic energy of separate fragments of architectural-landscape space, thus balancing the beauty and the usefulness.

• Thirdly, which is important to prove, there is an architectural-landscape composition as archetypal artistic phenomenon. This stage in development of landscape architecture is presented as an integral artistic-notional one, in which the nature is perceived not just as paradise, but as complicated philosophical microcosm with its laws and order, as completed artistic subject matter of the cumulative idea of Man-creator. In this case cognitive-estimative beginning of functional nature serves as cementing link, and the beauty dominates the usefulness

In this respect it is interesting to note classification of aesthetic principles of garden art, set forth by English enlightener and literator Henry Home. Home explicated fundamental provisions of aesthetic theory of garden art and architectonics in his three-volume work “Elements of Criticism”. The philosopher gives comparative characteristics to these two arts, distinguishing the principle of usefulness (relative beauty) and the principle of exquisiteness (absolute beauty). “… There is certain beauty in usefulness, and, when reasoning about the beauty, one should never disregard the beauty of useful. This allows us viewing the parks and buildings from different standpoints: either as dedicated exclusively for usefulness, or for the beauty, or for all of them”.¹ Home believed that the reason for tastes differences in garden art and architectonics is in multitude of designations of these arts.

… We may see in nature improvised concertos or landscapes or still lifes, etc. However, there seem to be three focal points with respect to which the specific features of the aesthetics of nature appear to us. In analogy to the aesthetics of the works of art, I propose to call them the Spectacle of Nature, the Symphony of Nature, and the Drama of Nature.

A.-T.TYMIENIECKA. “THE AESTHETICS OF NATURE

IN THE HUMAN CONDITION”, VOL. XIX