The name of natural phenomena that can be observed in the summer. Unusual natural phenomena. Mystical Mirage desert

That's just a reception; But the subject is no longer a phenomenon, but an eternal object, in this case the infinite object "Nature" and against me the body that internally reflects the beauty of nature, evaluates and admires. Phenomena are simply given the soul without choosing, without approval and rejection. Here, however, we make a choice, judgment, we have a certain conviction of things, and we have a novel with her. Our individual personality is aesthetic harmony. This passage explains not only the assessment as it is provided by Karel Chapek, but also the aesthetic pleasure of nature with which he opposes.

Sound anomalies or abnormal sound phenomena in nature

In addition, we also obtain substantial information about the consumption of the subject in the process of aesthetic assessment. Unlike aesthetic pleasure and assessments, if aesthetic understanding is natural aesthetic excluded from the facts that must be solved, and therefore cannot circumvent the cause of such an output led Karl Kechka. The following paragraph summarizes the following reasons: the beauty of nature is not a problem; Perhaps no one bothered to ask that a special aesthetic reason, there is naturally one or configuration of colors, materials and structures, of which the parent stem intention of these characters, character, etc. All these questions are not possible due to the work of art.

Day and night, light and shadow are not aesthetic problems, while gray heads and light in painting yes. The shape of the cliff is an aesthetic date, and the form of the statue is aesthetic problem. Nature is not needed and does not allow aesthetic explanation. Art also does not need interpretation; go and eat them; But as soon as he was, as soon as you start asking questions, there will be a complete answer for you. This argument is based on the different nature of the object, that is. Artwork, on the one hand, and natural phenomena, on the other hand.

The key difference, according to Cape, is that art is human creation. For this reason, art at the same time becomes clear and problematic. Without the real or alleged existence of the Creator, it does not make sense to ask the motives and intentions, and at the same time, these intentions, we can understand precisely because we are also people. According to Cappe: a person and its actions are available to us in different ways, internally and closer to nature. This is deep knowledge, draws as if inside, this understanding. Aesthetics is an area of \u200b\u200bman, therefore, if we are talking about the aesthetics of nature, and not necessarily, according to the author, it humaniates.

Another argument, which against the background of the chapeca solution to eliminate the natural aesthetics of the area of \u200b\u200baesthetic understanding, is the subject of an objective method, that is. Method of aesthetic understanding, aesthetic object. Aesthetic subject varies depending on the subjective impressions of perceiving, which enriches the item, which he "enriches" with its own associations and values. In order for the meaning to have an objective meaning, the subject should not be changed by any subjective impressions, so it can exist as a separate aesthetic being.

This requirement is not able to fulfill nature. According to Kapka, natural phenomena would have to have something aesthetically independent. What is "aesthetically independent", which we study in connection with the image. The artwork is aesthetic subject, independent of the user, but by the artist. The artist created, made, executed because he liked it aesthetically beautiful; Therefore, its product is its aesthetic object; If its creation lasts, it lasts and the psychological association works with the artist, takes an aesthetic object of the artist, regardless of whether someone likes or not, is the work of the metro records, long lives only in the memory of witnesses. This passage assumes that the guarantor of aesthetically independent artist who created this work.

However, the inconsistency of another chapeca, which created it, because he loved the work as aesthetic beautiful, it seems somewhat dubious. You can imagine artworks that are not intended to create something aesthetically beautiful, but, for example, cause concern that perceived. Does this mean that Kapeeke understands beauty in a much broader sense than usual, or that such works are excluded from aesthetic meaning? Or an aesthetic understanding of such power, what can it change our initial opinion?

If we consider natural aesthetics, it must have no need for the Creator to understand that this can not be aesthetically understood? Aesthetic subject, as depends on Kapes, really eliminates the phenomena of nature from the area of \u200b\u200baesthetic understanding, but is it necessary this step? Aesthetic understanding in the sense of an objective method of setting an aesthetic subject concerns, as shown, exclusively in the field of art. Nature should be satisfied with the concept of kappa with simple pleasure or evaluation.

According to the author, natural phenomena after their assessment cease to be of interest and do not constitute a problem for us. It is strange that the art that we have through some similarity anthropological approach to Chapure seems clear, as well as problematized and nature, which arises independently of any human intention is fragile. In my opinion, it would be more intuitive that nature is so complicated that we cannot understand it. Another possibility to interpret this stress is that the proximity of the intentions of the artist and perception creates a desire to ask.

But isn't it necessary to ask questions to your person, regardless of whether it is possible to understand this phenomenon? If we focus on developing an understanding that we remove from our internal and "We connect", this is a work of art, aesthetic object. The artist may be natural phenomena in the area of \u200b\u200bexcluded simply because they do not satisfy the condition "to be a man creating." But if you take into account another chapek to determine aesthetic understanding, that is.

What is the reason for the involvement of the viewer, nature is actually excluded? This means that the perceptor cannot understand nature, and if not, for what reason, especially when nature is easy. Regardless of the options that Chapek in this regard are open, aesthetic natural to him to stay out of purpose, in subjective judgments. Allen Carlson and the possibility of objective aesthetics of nature.

In modern aesthetics, issues relating to our natural and other medium are among the most discussed. Their goal is not only to describe and explain how the aesthetic natural phenomena can be estimated, but also to determine which consequences of ignoring the natural beauty of one part and considering the other side of the aesthetic theory. The study of the ecological aesthetics of Allen Carlson is one of the most important in this regard. The decision to compare its relationship with the capeke ratio is also motivated by other reasons.

Carlson is not convinced that natural aesthetics can be viewed aesthetic, but also that our courts are objective of this, and, therefore, he may decide on their value of truth. In the introduction to the article "Assessment and Natural Environment", Carlson is not focused on the natural environment, but on artistic work. If we get a work of art, we know what to appreciate. In particular, we can distinguish its components from what is not part of it, and we decide which aspects of work are aesthetically important, and which are not.

In other words, we know how to handle artwork. In this sense, the situation with natural aesthetics is more difficult. The main goal of natural objects is not aesthetically appreciated by them, and, above all, natural object Not our creation. From this obvious fact, it can be concluded that the aesthetic assessment of natural aesthetics, which can be understood by analogy with an art assessment, is prohibited. However, this conclusion would contradict the conviction of Carlson when he directly declares: the fact that nature is natural, and not our creation does not mean that we cannot know about it.

Natural objects are such that we can learn about things that do not depend on participation in their creation. Although we did not create a nature, we know a lot about it. To be able to aesthetically appreciate this, in accordance with the text of Carlson, this environment should be allocated as a prominent foreground. At the same time, it is necessary to focus only on some aspects so that we can talk about an estimate in the aesthetic sense.

Attention should be paid to those aspects that matter, and that allows us to know the types of animals and plants, ecology and other natural sciences. The ability to use natural sciences as tools similar to the history of art and criticism cannot prove that the aesthetic judgments about our environment are objective in their nature. However, at least we are approaching their objectivity. In the above article "Nature, aesthetic judgment and objectivity", Karlson is determined in the opinion of those aesthetics that occupy an objectivist position in relation to art, but relative to the nature of the relativist or subjectivist.

Supporters of this approach are considering aesthetic judgments about art as objective, that is, those who can determine the truth. Conversely, the aesthetic judgments about the phenomena of nature can only be subjective, and therefore it makes sense to think about their truthfulness.

Carlson in his arguments relies on the concept of Kendalla Walton and his text "Art Category". The central idea of \u200b\u200bWalton article can be summarized as follows: works of art can only be assessed if we see them in the correct category. What its property is in this category, which are perceived as standard, the meter is standard and variables. Property of work with respect to the standard category only if this property belongs to those properties, thanks to which the work refers to this category, that is.