Ugliness and Nature - Guest post by Emily Brady

Posted in London Lectures on 03/11/2009 - 11:56

Is ugliness in nature real?

In my lecture, I object to a common approach which claims that ugliness is only apparent, and that what might seem to be ugly is in fact beautiful. This approach holds that ugliness is really just a variety of beauty, and there is no negative aesthetic value in the world. In relation to aesthetics of nature, my focus, this approach takes its form in the thesis of ‘positive aesthetics’, which has been developed by several philosophers, most notably, Allen Carlson. As he puts it: ‘the natural environment, insofar as it is untouched by man, has mainly positive aesthetic qualities; it is, for example, graceful, delicate, intense, unified, and orderly, rather than bland, dull, insipid, incoherent, and chaotic’ (Carlson, 2000, p. 5). Against this type of position, I argue that ugliness in nature is real and can’t be explained away by acquiring knowledge of some ugly thing or through some holistic understanding of how apparently ugly things/phenomena function within beautiful ecosystems. Although I ultimately argue that ugliness is a form of negative aesthetic value, I then develop a position to show why we might have other reasons to care about ugliness in nature, and therefore seek to protect it.

I’d be interested in finding out how these questions might be answered: Is everything in nature beautiful? Is ugliness in nature real? What examples might be found of real ugliness in nature?