What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of ‘humility.’ This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.
—Albert Einstein
All forms of language are by nature ambiguous. This is because languages consist of symbols—representations—of things. These symbols may be words, images, glyphs, gestures, or other perceptible signs. Ambiguity arises because the connection between a symbol and the thing it symbolizes (in linguistic terms, the connection between a “signifier” and the thing “signified”) is never absolute and may depend on context. For example, the word “cat” on its own is likely to be perceived as relating to a furry animal. However, to the road worker grading the dirt track in front of my house, “cat” may be a reference to a piece of heavy machinery derived from the machine manufacturer’s brand: Caterpillar. To a user of a Unix operating system, “cat” is a command used to concatenate files. In other contexts, “cat” may be shorthand for “catalog” or “category.”
Ambiguities in language may not be problematic in most situations, when people involved in an exchange interpret the symbols of language in the same context and according to the same rules to arrive at correct shared meanings. However, ambiguity may also give rise to undesirable consequences when it goes unacknowledged, and may lead to false or incomplete understanding of important concepts and distinctions.
The words listed in the title of this essay: nature, beauty, and art, referring to broad and diverse concepts, are among the most ambiguous in the English language. For artists working with natural elements, as well as for naturalists who wish to express themselves artistically, failing to consider the inherent ambiguity and possible relations among these terms may lead to confusion and to misunderstanding. Moreover, by acknowledging the breadth of meanings and implications of these terms and how they may relate to each other, we may be more deliberate and precise in characterizing what we do. We may also deepen and broaden the variety of ways that nature, beauty, and art may enrich and elevate our experiences, independently or in combination with one another.
~~~
Of the three terms in the title of this essay, nature is perhaps the most ambiguous as is may be taken to mean nothing short of all things in existence—all things ensuing from quantum fields and particles and the laws that govern them. For the sake of clarity, I’ll refer to nature here as the sum of phenomena occurring spontaneously in the world without direct, intentional human intervention.
With that in mind, let’s first consider the distinction between nature and art. Open an English language dictionary and look up formal definitions of the word “art.” You will find that most definitions have this in common: they characterize art as referring to various forms of human-made creations. Artworks, by most formal definitions, are conceptions of human minds fashioned intentionally by human skill. By these definitions, natural phenomena and art are distinctly separate and incompatible things. Anything resulting spontaneously from natural processes without human intent and manipulation, cannot be considered as art (except perhaps metaphorically). Thus, phrases such as “nature is an artist,” or “the art of nature,” while perhaps useful in some metaphorical contexts, are factually incorrect. By formal definition of art, only human beings can be artists and only things created intentionally by human beings can be art.
In what sense, then, can a depiction of natural phenomena (such as, say, an artistic photograph depicting a natural landscape or other natural subjects) be considered as art? The answer: they may be considered artistic to the degree that human intent and skill have played into their conception and production. Naturally occurring aesthetics may be enjoyable to view, but in themselves they are (by definition) not art. They may serve as components of artworks when employed and/or manipulated by human artists. Thus, the artistic merit of such works lies not in the aesthetic appeal of the things they depict but in the contributions of the artist—contributions such as choice of composition, processing, or expressive intent.
Put another way, the degree of artistry involved in depictions of real scenes or objects (as opposed to imagined or abstract creations) comes down to what Edward Weston termed, “departure from factual recording.” I chose to quote Weston to make an important point, which is this: an artist’s contribution to departure from factual recording doesn’t necessarily imply eschewing “straight” realistic depiction. Weston was famously a realist and a self-described documentary photographer whose primary means of artistic expression was creative composition. Later, Weston’s friend Ansel Adams also adopted the term “departure from reality” to distinguish creative/artistic photography from other uses for the photographic medium.
~~~
Let us now consider the relationship between nature and beauty. Statements such as “nature is beautiful,” while undoubtedly true in some cases and for some people, are factually false as generalizations. I doubt many people will consider all natural phenomena—all forms of life, all naturally occurring phenomena and environments—as beautiful. Beauty is not a quality of things, natural or other; it is a perception that human minds associate with some things. Human perception of beauty is shaped in part by evolutionary history and thus is generally common to all people. However, perception of beauty may also be affected for certain groups and individuals by social and cultural conventions, individual life experiences, education, and personal preferences.
We must therefore be cautious not to equate nature with beauty. To do so is to reduce the immensity of ways to consider and experience nature to just a small subset of aesthetic snippets deemed pleasing to some human beings. It is no coincidence that one of the world’s most venerated scientific publications is titled, Nature. Should you pick up a copy of this publication, you will find very little in it that focuses strictly on the surface aesthetics of natural places and phenomena. Rather, you may discover profound inquiries into myriad aspects of nature, some immensely complex and esoteric, some that may not even be perceptible to the human senses, and some that may even be theoretical and yet-unknown, but that may nonetheless inspire a deep sense of beauty in people who possess the capacity to understand them. The opposite is also true, of course: many things we consider as beautiful may be partly or entirely manufactured by human beings and would never occur naturally.
It follows, that nature and beauty may yield immense rewards independently of each other, and also in some cases when they overlap. Why limit our rewards to celebrating and pursuing just that narrow range where nature presents us with pleasing surface-level aesthetics? Why not revel in all forms of reward—including knowledge, insight, sensory delights, and emotional affect—that nature may impart beyond beauty and art? And conversely, why not extend our range joyous experiences made possible by beauty and art that do not necessarily depict nature?
~~~
Next, let us consider briefly the relationship between beauty and art. We now live in a time when most people understand and accept that beauty and art are not mutually dependent: Not all beautiful things are art, and not all art is beautiful. Despite this acceptance, it’s fair to say that most people outside the so-called “art world” favor beautiful art to other kinds of art. I have no qualms about admitting that this is true for me, as well.
Certainly, I may delight in art intended as social statements, as embodiment of certain philosophical ideas, as experience in itself, as invitation to fill in my own meaning, and so on. But if I had to choose just a limited number of artworks to share my life with to the exclusion of all others, there is no doubt in my mind that I would pick works I consider as the most aesthetically beautiful. This is because my mind is quite capable of finding beauty outside art: in nature, in abstract concepts, in bits of knowledge, in sensations, in a broad range of experiences. But I cannot manufacture for myself some of the most sublime forms of aesthetic beauty that I experience only in some great artworks.
Still, this hypothetical scenario being entirely implausible, I make it a point to seek enjoyment and meaning in as many forms of art as I can—including those that are not ostensibly beautiful. The reason is simple: why wouldn’t I? I don’t have to give up my interest and joy in beautiful art to gain yet more—and different—kinds of pleasure and meaning from art in a broader sense. The point I wish to make is this: I never pass on a chance to at least try to experience, understand, and find value in a work of art, regardless of whether it is beautiful or what its subject matter (if any) is, or even when my instinctive reaction is to dismiss it as meaningless or even offensive on first encounter. My life is richer for it.
~~~
To summarize, nature, beauty, and art refer to concepts that may—each in itself and in different combinations—produce useful and powerful creations that may elicit or enhance some desirable states of mind in human observers. Conceiving and producing such combinations, is the job of artists. Put simply: No artist, no art. Nature alone does not produce art. Beauty alone does not constitute art. Certainly, important and satisfying art may come in forms that have no relation to nature or to beauty.
In my own work, I strive to employ natural aesthetics to produce beautiful art. Still, you would be wrong to conclude that this is the only kind of art I consider interesting or worthwhile. Certainly, you would be wrong to conclude that nature to me is just a source of beautiful elements to compose art from.
What may not be obvious is this: I could live (and have lived) a satisfying life without art. Also, I can satisfy my need for beauty in ways other than engaging with art. But I cannot imagine a life I would consider worth living without my experiences in nature.
I believe that this is a statement worth considering seriously in an age when beautiful creations may be generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). There is no doubt that these creations may be beautiful. There is some doubt about them qualifying as art (given definitions of art specifically referring to human conceptions and skills). But an AI-generated work can never substitute for the experiences made possible by nature.
Likes are good but comments are better: