Sunday, March 10, 2013

Blog 8

Eaton agrees with Carlson on many things that still aren't totally convincing to me. Such as the nature-as-object model. Though the view point of seeing a rock as just a sculpture in our home or whatever can be a tad different than if we were to see it where it originally came from, I don't think that necessarily takes away from a reasonable appreciation to it. I have a thing for flowers. I always find myself hypnotized by the vibrant colors and the variations in size and types and everything that makes one flower different from the next, but I could not tell you the names of ANY flower, where certain ones may have come from or originated from, more-less any real facts about them. I don't feel like that causes me to appreciate them any less than the next person who knows all about them? Some people care to know all about everything, others like me don't at all. Part of the reason why I believe I don't care to do the research on the different flowers I collect could be that I don't plant them or try to keep them alive, but I press them. So that I can keep the colors forever.

Now, if I were to try to plant a flower garden or something it may be a good idea if I were to do at least a little reading on invasive species so I don't plant those too close and kill off everything else. But aside from that, if we just want to visually appreciate something I really don't believe it makes too great of a difference on your knowledge of the object. (Depending on the person of course.) Everyone is different.

No comments:

Post a Comment