Wednesday, March 14, 2012

The Aesthetic Of Unscenic Nature


Yuriko Saito advocated for the scenically challenged parts of nature.  She philosophized that as a result of of the scenically interesting and beautiful parts of nature, there are so many more environments that are not appreciated because they may not be deemed "scenic" enough.  John Muir encountered two artists that were only satisfied with a few scenic spots in the High Sierras, but not the meadows, the turning leaves, or the bogs.  The artists found those parts to be "sadly disappointing" and not "effective pictures."  There is a great gift in seeing the beauty in modest things.  The beauty of those scenes are in the more subtle and simple parts that one has to look for, not the grandiose splender that can be in one's face so abruptly.  
Take the small creek by me house.  The rocks, the trickling water, and the fallen trees may not seem like"effective pictures" to some, but to me, they are simple and beautiful because they are subtle.  The way the tree fell to make a natural bridge, or the way the rocks are placed so that one could cross the creek quietly screams simple, elegant, beauty to me.













1 comment:

  1. For me, these rocks (and I have a similar creek in my front yard) are quite beautiful.

    Many years ago, I wanted to become a paleontologist. Behind my old house, there was a huge rock pile filled with fossils from ancient marine animals of the Ordovician Period. I really enjoyed studying them and classifying them using a book on the geologic history of the Cincinnati area.

    When I see these limestone-based sedimentary rocks, I am thinking of all the fossilized creatures, their and our own evolution, and how our earth has changed since the distant past - almost a kind of temporal sublimity. For me, this passion made me appreciate the rocks a lot more. In contrast, I know almost nothing about wild flowers or tree species (though my grandpa does), and I'm sure he sees them differently than I do.

    ReplyDelete