Carlson, A. (2008). "Environmental Aesthetics." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Retrieved April 28, 2010, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/environmental-aesthetics/.
What is more effective -to portray an engagement with nature (a connection), or a disconnection?
- How can an engagement with nature be portrayed? -Representation through photography, video and/or drawing in installation? What kind of representation am I dealing with, mimesis, or a social constructivist approach? Is representation necessary?
- How can a disconnection to nature be portrayed? -Allegory through the use of multiple symbols (utilising a range of diverse objects) in installation?
What am I dealing with:
- The positive (natures benefits), or negative (what is lost and what is becoming)?
- Nostalgia or shock, or references to past and present portraying a contrast between both?
- What is nature, or what is not?
If "The meaning of a life is not to be found in anything other than that life itself" (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 145), what is more effective:
- Portraying my subjective experience of nature, or a more general/universal experience of nature (what is the universal view or experience of nature and what means can I find this out?)?
- Or is it to simply evoke an experience through installation?
- Which of these will evoke the participant to go outside and engage in nature in reality?
No comments:
Post a Comment