aesthetic footprint - aalto · us adopt more sustainable behavior through "green...

Aesth etic Pathways, Vol. 2, No . 1, 2011, pp. 89-111

Aesthetic Footprint

Ossi Naukkarinen

Head of Research

Aalt o Univers ity, Finland

ossi.naukkarinen@aaltofi

Abstract

This article maps possibilities for integrating a strong aesthetic point of view

with contemporary, problem oriented environmental discourse. Special emphasis is

placed on the concept of the Aesthetic Footprint , which is introduced as a tool for

accentuating the aesthetic viewpoint without seeing it as completely detached from other important perspectives . The concept was originally developed to be used in

multidisciplinaryenvironrnental discussions within my own university, and I will return to

this practical aspect at the end of the article.

Keywords: Aesthetic Footprint , Ecological Footprint , environmental aesthetics ,

environmentalism , everyday aesthetics, Nelson Goodman, Yuriko Saito, Frank

Sibley

90 Ossi Naukkarinen

I

Introduction

It is no news to anyone that we live in the midst of global environmental challenges.

Although scientists and politicians haven't reached an agreement on every aspect of the

situation, the big picture is clear. The human population is so large, and a part of that

population consumes the planet's resources so intensively, that it worsens the living

conditions of all living creatures. Even if no-one knows what exactly will happen with

phenomena like global warming and to what extent humans are responsible for it, no-one

can deny that we have already polluted and consumed large parts of the planet.

But how is aesthetics - both as a philosophical discipline and as a more general

point of view - related to the crisis? Many environmental issues have been being

incorporated into scholarly aesthetics through environmental aesthetics for a long time.

The early forerunners of the field such as Henry David Thoreau and Aldo Leopold, and

especially their present heirs such as Arnold Berleant, Allen Carlson, Ronald Moore, J .

Douglas Porteous, Yrjo Sepanmaa 1 and many others reveal a common attitude in the field:

one aspect of a good environment is its aesthetic value, which is not independent of its

ecological and other values, and as we try to preserve the environment we must also pay

attention to its aesthetic aspects. Environments, natural and otherwise, need protection and

care that call for deep and many-sided understanding of these environments. Understanding

strengthens the motivation for preservation but understanding is incomplete if it lacks the

aesthetic strand.

There are major differences between different writers as to how they comprehend

the relation between scientific knowledge and freer imagination or between beauty and

other aesthetic values in this discussion. What is the best way to· approach environments

aesthetically? And is environmental aesthetics totally different from art-related aesthetics ,

or do these fields overlap? In any case, present writers that can be called environmental

aestheticians in a broad sense of the word are well aware of the actual and potential global

environmental problems humans cause. Despite this, few of them have dealt with these

See, e.g., Arnold Berleant, Aesthetics and Environment: Variations on a Theme (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate,

2005), Allen Carlson , Aesthetics and the Environment: The Appreciation of Nature, Art and Architectur e

(London: Routledge, 2000), Ronald Moore, Natural Beauty: A Theory of Aesthetics beyond the Arts

(Peterborough, Canada: Broadview Press, 2008), J. Douglas Porteous, Environmental Aesthetics: ideas ,

Politics and Planning (London: Routledge, 1996), Yrjo Sepanrnaa, The Beauty of Environment: A General Model for Environmental Aesthetics (Denton, TX: Environmental Ethics Books, 1993).

Aesthetic Footprint 91

problems as their main theme or tried to find solutions to them, but instead have been more

interested in philosophical issues such as what is the environment or what is natural beauty .

Such questions are quite essential and must be dealt with, but often when one focuses

on them discussions of ecological and other environmental problems tend to remain on

the level of rather general ponderings about relations between ethics and aesthetics. At

the same time, aesthetic issues are often only mentioned in passing and are not carefully

developed by natural scientists or politicians. Such issues may seem to be too disconnected

from projects that focus on concrete solutions of tangible, material problems.

Over the past few years, as global environmental problems have become better known

and understood as graver than before, some philosophers interested in aesthetics have

faced these problems in a more straightforward way and started to build a stronger bridge

between environmental aesthetics and other environmental discourses. In such cases one

of the core questions is: how can the aesthetic point of view help the environment? Eugene

C. Hargrove's book Foundations of Environmental Ethics 2 already dealt with this issue in

1989, and more recently philosophers such as Emily Brady, Sheila Lintott, David W. Orr

and Yuriko Saito have pondered how aesthetic values should be understood in the current

situation. 3 Roughly put, they see two alternatives: either aesthetic values and actions speed

up the crisis through something one can call an "aesthetics of consuming" - or they help

us adopt more sustainable behavior through "green aesthetics" or "eco-friendly aesthetics."

In both options aesthetic values are conceived of as important motivating factors for our

behavior; they direct our actions and thus have an effect on the environment. The general

idea is that aesthetics has its role to play whatever path we take, and the alternative that

aesthetics is a completely insignificant factor in the future of the environment does not

seem plausible. I will analyze Saito's ideas in more detail in sections III and IV However,

if not stated clearly enough, there is a risk that one may interpret the aesthetic in a way that

confuses it with other cultural spheres and thus dilutes its own unique character.

2 Eugene C. Hargrove, Foundations of Environmental Ethics (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989).

3 Emily Brady, Aesthetics of the Natural Environment (Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2003) ,

225-60; Sheila Lintott, 'Toward Eco-friendly Aesthetics ," Environmental Ethics 28 (2006): 57-76; David

W. Orr, The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); Yuriko Saito, Everyday Aesthetics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Other recent publications

combining problem-oriented environmental discourse and environmental aesthetics (through arts) include

Timothy Morton , Ecology Without Nature: Rethinking Environmental Aesthetics (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007); Ossi Naukkarinen, Art of the Environment (Helsinki, Finland: OKKA - Foundation for Teaching, Education and Personal Development , 2007); Jason Simus, "Environmental Art and Ecological Citizenship," Environmental Ethics 30 (2008), 21-36; and Sue Spaid, Ecovention: Current Art to Transform Ecologies (Cincinnati , OH: The Contemporary Arts Center, 2002).

92 Ossi Naukkarinen

In environmental discussions the sphere of aesthetics really cannot be seen as

autonomous, but it is intertwined with other cultural-conceptual spheres such as ecology,

economics and politics. Yet aesthetics may have its own role in this larger discussion, and

the role can be clarified by relating it to the starting point elaborated by Frank Sibley, that

an aesthetic approach to the things around us is typically particular, related to personal

sense perception and not rule-governed. I will develop this set of ideas with the help of

certain points adopted from Nelson Goodman in the section IV. If conceived of in this

way, it is challenging to take note of aesthetics in, say, political and economic discourses

that often operate with generalizations and quantifying measurements. Yet, because of its

importance, it should be considered, and one goal of this article is to offer an interpretation

of the relationship between aesthetic and other approaches in environmental discussions.

II

Aesthetic Footprint

Aesthetic Footprint can be defined as the aesthetic impact of any object or action on

the environment, here and everywhere, now and at other times. It is activity's total aesthetic

effect. 4 For example, ifl buy a T-shirt in New York how does it make the environment look

and feel like in the cotton fields of India or Pakistan? How will it affect any environment

aesthetically anytime and anywhere? How have the producing and marketing processes of

the T-shirt already affected the world as we can aesthetically sense it?

One must note that the concept really refers to aesthetic impacts at large and not to

ethical, economic, ecological or other types of impacts - although these issues are far

from insignificant and not totally independent from aesthetics. It is clear, of course, that

any action has several different impacts at the same time or perhaps a somewhat fuzzy

net of impacts. If I buy and use a car it means using money, time and material resources

such as steel and oil taken from several locations, and it not only affects my personal life

and vicinity but several other locations and organisms. There are tools for estimating such

ecological and material impacts, such as the Ecological Footprint and MIPS (Material Input

Per Unit of Service). The concept of the Ecological Footprint was made known by Mathis

Wackemagel and defined by the Global Footprint Network lead by him as follows:

4 To my knowledge the concept has not been dealt with before in any comparable manner in scholarly contexts

related to environmental issues even if the word pair is sometimes used in non-scholarly journalism. See, for

example, http://www.dailyscoff.com/?p= 198.


A measure of how much biologically productive land and water an individual,

population or activity requires to produce all the resources it consumes and to

absorb the waste it generates using prevailing technology and resource management

practices. The Ecol<;>gical Footprint is usually measured in global hectares. Because

trade is global, an individual or country's Footprint includes land or sea from all over

the world. Ecological Footprint is often referred to in short form as Footprint (not

footprint). 5

The more one consumes the bigger one's Ecological Footprint is, and the big Footprint

common in the developed countries is more harmful to the environment than a small one.

MIPS-analysis, developed by Friedrich Schmidt-Bleek and his colleagues, clarifies the

material consumption of products, including their production, use and termination, per one

service produced. 6 For example, the so-called eco-efficiency of two cars can be compared

by analyzing their MIPS-figures, and here the service unit can be one mile: how much

materials such as oil, steel and plastics does each need for a mile's ride when the whole

life cycles of the cars are taken into account? A bigger car can be more efficient if it lasts

longer and its parts are recyclable even if it consumes more gas. Such tools are very useful,

but they do not take into account aesthetic impact.

Aesthetic impact refers to how various environments here and elsewhere are affected

by our actions, with regard to how people sensually experience ( or could experience) them

in an aesthetic way. This impact can, first of all, be positive or negative: the T-shirt may

help me look better here and now but what happens with the environment in the context

of cotton-growing or in the manufacturing industry? A new car could be nice, but is it

really worth of all the aesthetic trouble that the oil, plastic and mining industry cause to

the landscape somewhere? Yes, I would like to see Niagara Falls, but flying there means

supporting the massive structures air traffic depends on. Of course, one T-shirt, car or flight

doesn't mean much in the global sense, but they should be thought about as parts of larger

materials and energy streams. What is the impact of the production and consumption of not

one, but thousands and millions of T-shirts?

One should estimate whether positive impacts override the negative ones. The goal

could perhaps be formulated in David W. Orr's words: action "that causes no ugliness,

5 http://www.footprintnetwork.org /en/index.php /GFN/page/glossary/ .

6 http://www.factorl0-institute.org/terms.html.

94 Ossi Naukkarinen

human or ecological, somewhere else or at some later time." 7 Here, however, I think that

"beauty" and "ugliness" should be understood very broadly as "aesthetically positive /

rewarding" and "aesthetically negative/unrewarding" without trying to define their criteria

universally. This is because aesthetically positive does not always and for everyone mean

"beautiful" but things may be, for instance, sublime or even ugly in an interesting and

rewarding way and thus aesthetically positive.

If I have a reason to think that some activity causes more negative than positive

aesthetic impacts somewhere and at some time, then I should find alternative things to

do. Why? We tend to protect and take care of environments that we deem aesthetically

rewarding and neglect the less rewarding ones. The founding process of Yellowstone

national park is a classic example of this pattern of action, and most of us follow it at our

homes on a smaller scale. But in light of this, we should actually try to act so that as many

environments as possible would become as aesthetically positive as possible, and we

should avoid actions that deface any environment anywhere. For example, it may not be

reasonable to protect one particular area by turning it into a park if it means creating more

traffic and the building of support areas, because these secondary developments, through

consuming the environment in different ways, might actually diminish the overall value

of a larger area even if one part of it would be saved. In addition, we can simply assume

that more "aesthetic goodness" is better than less; it is a value in itself and not only a

motivational factor in environmental protection. It follows from this that if some locally

marring action has larger positive affects elsewhere, we should choose that alternative

rather than something that is good locally but insignificant or bad elsewhere , even if our

personal experience would be negative here and now.

One should also estimate whether an activity's or a product's Aesthetic Footprint is

geographically and temporally big or small. Ifl do (or don't do) something here and now,

will it affect the environment's aesthetic aspects in many places and for a long time or only

very locally and for a short time? In the case of Ecological Footprint it is easy to state that

a big footprint is worse than a small one. As regards Aesthetic Footprint it is not as simple.

If the Aesthetic Footprint is positive it can be big, while if negative then preferably small.

Furthermore, we should consider whether the Footprint is deep or shallow, i.e. ,

whether an action results in very strong effects or only weak ones, and how? The Aesthetic

Footprint of a house building project is big and deep, and it probably has both positive and

negative sides to it. It not only changes the construction site and its vicinity but also the

7 Orr, The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention, 4.


areas from where the materials have been taken . The house may look gorgeous, but if it is

located in a place that can only be reached by private car it will increase air pollution for

years to come and thus harm the environment , probably also in aesthetic terms. Also, its

residents may be of the type that, through their consumption habits, constantly increase the

size of the local landfill even if it is out of sight like such places typically are.

Aiming at "overall aesthetic quality" in a way that would produce positive Aesthetic

Footprints, big or small, deep or shallow, may prevent short-sighted solutions that might

give temporary aesthetic pl~asure somewhere but soon diminish it somewhere else. One

can assume, too, that if we choose actions that don't deface environments aesthetically

anywhere we not only necessarily increase aesthetic well-being but also probably often

choose actions that are ecologically sound, or at least better than in cases when we don't

care about negative aesthetic impacts somewhere else at all. For example , such decision

making may prevent the over-use of material resources.

However, it is easy to see that when unfolded in this way the Aesthetic Footprint

concept evokes certain interesting problems.

First, how is it possible to aesthetically assess something that is not personally

perceived or sensed but is located somewhere else? Something you actually have to

imagine? Is not aesthetic evaluation something that has to do with the personal sense

contact of the evaluated things, as the Greek root of the word aesthetic (aisthetikos , of

sense perception, from aisthanomai, perceive) emphasizes - while Aesthetic Footprint

means that one should estimate how something affects the environment everywhere? It is

true that it is not possible to go everywhere and sense how the environment might have

been affected by one's deeds. However, this is actually very close to something what we

do all the time: we plan and imagine single aesthetic objects and whole environments. We

design gardens in our minds, plan how to dress for a dinner, try to understand what kind

of home characters in a novel - created out of sheer words - live in. Sometimes a plan

and the actual realization of it are far away from each other, but it is quite common that we

manage to create a good imaginary picture of something that comes into physical existence

only later, or of something we won't ever actually see and feel.

To imagine does not have to mean inventing something completely fictional and

unreal; it may often involve simply thinking about how things may actually be in reality

even if one cannot go and check the situation on site . Accentuating this does not mean

promoting the so called "imagination mode" of environmental aesthetics versus the

96 Ossi Naukkarinen

"(scientific) cognitive" one 8 because both points of departure may have their place in

approaching the environment aesthetically and in both perspectives some versions of

imagination can be used. It is a perfectly normal to have a capacity to imagine, and that is

what we have to use in thinking about Aesthetic Footprints. The important point is that very

often when we think of aesthetic considerations we have something quite local in mind,

something that deals with what we can perceive here and now ( e.g., a work of art in front

ofus, a landscape), but that is not enough for environmental discussions. Just as the rest of

environmental discussion takes note that actions, objects and organisms exist in large, even

global networks, so should aesthetics. This does not mean that our personal experiences

would not take place in particular, local contexts, but just underlines that whatever we do

may affect how we ourselves and other people may experience the environment on some

other occasion and in some other locale.

The second interesting question evoked by the concept of Aesthetic Footprint is

who is to say what kind of a Footprint is aesthetically positive and to whom? There is no

universally valid answer to this question. There are persons who genuinely aesthetically

like industrial environments and even landfills that are both ecologically harmful and

aesthetically disturbing for most ofus. As said above, also ugly things can be aesthetically

positive in some cases. It belongs to the nature of aesthetic discussions that we cannot

actually prove that an aesthetic opinion is absolutely wrong or right, as I will try to show

in more detail in the sections IV and V of this article. For now, it is enough to tentatively

point out that we can give good reasons for our solution but that is a different thing than

a proof. We cannot measure an Aesthetic Footprint in the same way we can measure an

Ecological Footprint; we can only estimate or assess it and discuss it.

But if an Aesthetic Footprint can be both positive and negative and its quality cannot

be proved in any strict sense, what use can the concept have - and is it in any way

comparable to the better known concept of Ecological Footprint?

It is unavoidable that whatever we do our actions also have aesthetic impacts. If we

agree that the aesthetic features of the environment affect our well-being and also motivate

environmental protection, then we need to explicitly note these features. It does not mean

that we have to agree upon them, but the concept of Aesthetic Footprint is apt to remind us

that we necessarily leave such Footprints and we should try to understand what kinds of

marks they actually are. If it is possible that some action aesthetically ruins some remote

environment somewhere - even if it does not pollute it or over-consume its resources -

8 See Brady, Aesthetics of the Natural Environment, 86-119 , 146-190.


we should try to understand this and develop ways to discuss it. We should not continue on

course without facing the question of what is aesthetically good and what is bad, positive

and negative, rewarding and undesirable, because in that case we ignore an important

aspect of the environment and our own well-being. This is exactly what I mean by evoking

a strong aesthetic point of view: evoking discussion and deliberation on issues that are

typical for aesthetic considerations such as beauty, ugliness, and emotional experiences.

However, that which is specifically aesthetic in Aesthetic Footprint can only be further

clarified by comparing it with related conceptual constructions, and to do so I start with

Yuriko Saito's Green Aesthetics. 9

III

Green Aesthetics

When dealing with what she calls "green aesthetics" Yuriko Saito's starting point is to

show "the power of the aesthetic to influence, and sometimes determine, our attitudes and

actions," '0 positively and negatively. She does not claim that "the aesthetic" is the only or

even the most important factor influencing our actions, but it is easy to agree that it is one,

often very important factor. We all buy clothes, travel, furnish our homes and do countless

other things, at least partly, for aesthetic reasons.

The problem that was noted above and that she emphasizes as well is that often our

aesthetically motivated choices are harmful to the environment. This is because they may

require lots of energy and materials that must be produced somehow, often at the expense

of the well-being of an ecosystem. Furthermore, the materials used can in some cases be

toxic or harmful in other ways. In everyday life negative environmental influences of our

aesthetically motivated actions emerge when we want to have lawns like golf courses,

furniture made out of rare wood, or prefer pristine white paper over off-white recycled

paper - these are Saito's examples but there are others like using big, showy cars or

consuming clothes or food carelessly.

9 Another fruitful point of comparison could have been Jonathan Maskit's interesting interpretation of the

concept of "The Aesthetics of Elsewhere: An Environmentalist Everyday Aesthetics" published in the

preceding number of this journal, Aesthetic Pathways I , no. 2 (20 I I). It seems that very many of the ideas

Maskit presents could be combined with the ones developed in this article but as his article was published only

after this essay ways already completed, a further analysis must be left for another occasion.

IO Saito, Everyday Aesthetics, 55.

98 Ossi Naukkarinen

This is one thing "green aesthetics" can do: make people realize how our aesthetic

values might influence our attitudes and actions in ways that harm the environment through

the waste of rare materials, pollution , undermining the living conditions of other species,

and in many other ways. If we manage to make people see this, their aesthetic attitudes

might start to change. In Saito's words, green aesthetics can "render initially attractive

objects not so aesthetically positive if they are environmentally harmful." 11 For example,

as one understands how much a golf course type lawn needs hydrating, chemicals, and

mechanical care one may start to see it as garish, monotonous or posh and discover the

beauty of a more versatile, less energy intensive yard.

It is a good start to point out problems and their causes. But it is not enough. We need

solutions, too, and unlike many others Saito tries to find them. She analyzes three ways

how aesthetic values may be related to more sustainable behavior.

One solution Saito takes up is to "maintain our popular taste as is and work on

rendering eco-friendly design so that it conforms to prevalent taste." 12 In other words, we

would still want to have things that look, taste, smell, etc. the same that we are used to,

still think that they are aesthetically rewarding, and try to find technical and other solutions

that would make them more "eco-friendly." This would not change our aesthetic attitudes

but only the ways in which we serve them. It is clear, however, that this is not always

possible. For example, as Saito points out, many colors we are used to in our clothes and

other goods are very difficult to produce in sustainable ways. Moreover, in the worst case

this attitude could even increase material consumption - that is the main cause for many

environmental problems - if it makes us think that we can follow whatever aesthetic fads

we wish and that engineers will always find sustainable production processes and life

cycles for whatever we want.

Another way to go could be to settle for the traditional but rather unpopular "eco

style" and try to educate more people to like it. Saito quotes a writer who gives examples

of this style: "plain brown biodegradable dresses and unbleached 'Eco-Tees' made of stiff,

cardboard panels of recycled cotton tinted with environmentally sensitive dyes; lip sticks

made of beet juice and face powder of brown oat flour; non-toxic, formaldehyde-free

woolen pajamas." 13 Such products are good from the point of environmental preservation ,

but not very many find them aesthetically rewarding, and that is one re~son why they will

II Ibid., 85.

12 Ibid., 86.

13 Ibid., 87.


not become mainstream. As they remain marginal to the majority of consumption, they

cannot help much in changing the big picture for the better.

Thirdly, especially when Saito deals with green aesthetics in the context of artifacts or

consumer goods, she has interesting suggestions. She asks: "How can the environmental

value be expressed, embodied, or revealed through the object's sensuous surface in an

aesthetically positive manner so that we will be attracted not only by its environmental

value but alst> by its aesthetic manifestations?" 14 This is important because often

"environmental value" alone is not enough to change our attitudes and actions. In Saito's

words: " ... promotion of environmentalism will be much more effective if our aesthetic

attraction can be aligned with those structures, spaces, and objects that are environmentally

sound." 15 In the end, the point would be to create objects, events and processes that are

simultaneously more "eco-friendly" and "better looking" (attractive, rewarding) than less

sustainable ones. If this is achieved then consumers will choose them simply because

they look good (are attractive, rewarding) and this would help the environment even if

consumers would concentrate on aesthetics alone. But before that happens they would need

to learn to value "sensuous surfaces" that embody "environmental value." They would

need to feel that things that "embody environmental value" also do it in an "aesthetically

positive manner" or are aesthetically good. What would this mean if not maintaining

popular taste with new technical solutions or educating people in eco-style?

Saito provides a list of values that, when emphasized and applied to an actual

consumer goods context, could help create "greener" aesthetics and, through that, greener

behavior. These are: minimalism; durability and longevity; fittingness, appropriateness and

site-specificity; valuing the contrast between past and present; perceivability of nature's

function; health; caring and sensitive attitude. 16 Put shortly, minimalism means appreciating

minimum materials use and showing that. Durability and longevity refer to "ageing well"

and to the opposite of short-life-span products. Fittingness, appropriateness and site

specificity emphasize local solutions and diversity and reject universal monoculture.

Valuing the contrast between past and present means letting history and its different stages

be seen. The principle of "perceivability of nature's function" encourages us to find, e.g.,

building structures that let people see how natural forces actually work as regards reacting

14 Ibid., 88.

15 Yuriko Saito, "The Role of Aesthetics in Civic Environmentalism," in The Aesthetics of Human Environments,

eds. Arnold Berleant and Allen Carlson (Peterborough, Canada: Broadview Press , 2007), 207.

16 Saito, Everyday Aesthetics, 88-96.

100 Ossi Naukkarinen

to wind or water streams. Health, too, is often best understood in architectural contexts

as healthy buildings using natural ventilation, lightning and temperature control systems.

According to Saito, a caring and sensitive attitude can also be seen as an aesthetic issue

when they are perceived from an object's sensuous surfaces.

If I have understood Saito correctly, all this means that if we learn to aesthetically

appreciate things that embody minimalism and other values just mentioned it would give

us a strong emotional motivation for preserving them. And if this happens, we are closer to

a more sustainable, environmentally friendly life. It is a practical problem how such values

might be introduced and "taught" to the majority, but if we leave this problem aside there

are also more philosophical issues to deal with.

One important question is whether the points that Saito takes up are really aesthetic?

It is quite clear that the issues she introduces are worth serious attention. I agree that

consumer goods that are minimalistic, durable, etc. would be apt to promote more

sustainable life and that is why they are very welcome . But I am not sure whether the list

Saito provides is aesthetic enough to emphasize her own starting point, i.e., the "power of

the aesthetic," the notion that often it is exactly the aesthetic values that make us use the

environment in certain ways. This is because minimalism and durability, for example, can

be conceived of as purely measurable, non-aesthetic things. Yes, our aesthetic choices often

create environmental ( or ecological) problems or even crises because of materials use ,

pollution, and other reasons, but they may also create local and remote aesthetic problems

- as well as local and remote aesthetic success. However, environmental problems and

success are not identical to their aesthetic counterparts, and the latter should not be reduced

to the former. What is the uniquely aesthetic in this case?

IV

The Aesthetic

Unlike points taken up through Green Aesthetics that are not actually strictly aesthetic

but refer to combinations of aesthetic, ecological and other values that can be embodied

by products' surface qualities , Aesthetic Footprint is more straightforwardly an aesthetic

concept. Saito's welcome message is: use Jess materials, respect nature, take care of things

you have, Jet all this be perceived in the surface qualities of products and activities - and

learn to like that aesthetically. Aesthetic Footprint, in turn , reminds us of the importance

of the aesthetic in particular and of the possibility that the aesthetic aspect in itself can

be useful in the search for more favorable ways of living if we just conceive the aesthetic


broadly enough ; both temporally and geographically. Saito in fact refers to this direction in

some paragraphs of her book 17 but does not develop the idea in the same terms as I do.

When mapping what the aesthetic is, Saito refers to the sensuous approach to things :

"In the realm. of 'the aesthetic,' I am including any reactions we form toward the sensuous

and/or design qualities of any object, phenomenon, or activity." And again: "However , if

we judge that something functions well (or poorly) from our firsthand experience through

our senses and bodily sensations , I maintain that it qualifies as an aesthetic judgment." 18

She also emphasizes that such reactions and sensations often take place in everyday

situations and are not restricted to art, and that they are not necessarily very exceptional or

always positive but can be negative, rather insignificant and even automatic. Thus, Saito's

aesthetic is close to the classical use of the Greek term aisthetikos . This is understandable

because the main focus of Saito's book is on everyday aesthetics as contrasted to art

centered aesthetics. Saito identifies the aesthetic with any kind of personal sense perception

or sensuous reaction. A positive side of this choice is that is emphasizes aesthetics' close

relation with other spheres of human life ; it is spread everywhere and it is not detached

from ecology, economy, ethics or of any other field .

A more problematic side of the choice is that it may make the aesthetic a bit too

wide and unclear. The conception might work well when we try to understand everyday

aesthetics from a certain perspective: it emphasizes the notion that often in everyday life

we necessarily have a sensuous approach to the things we live with, that this approach is

important for our well-being and motivates our behavior, and that it need not be described

in the way that is typical for the art discussions. But when we discuss the role of the

aesthetic approach as compared to, for example, the scientific or measuring approach or

to the concept of Ecological Footprint something more is needed. We do perceive things

with our senses all the time , in everyday life, in scientific and also in artistic contexts ,

everywhere . But in some contexts some sorts of sensual approach might be disparaged

or simply left unnoticed. Why is that? There is no reason to disparage sense perceptions

as such; without them we cannot do anything. It must be some aspects of them that are

problematic.

I suggested that certain general notions about the aesthetic can be useful in clarifying

this issue. These notions include the following points : aesthetic approach is typically related

to personal sense perception of things (as Saito also says), it is evaluative (Saito says it

17 Ibid., 98.

18 lbid. , 9,211.


does not have to be but can be), there are no strict and universal rules for such evaluations

(she does not comment on this directly but her ideas about appreciating each object "for

what it is" 19 suggest that she could agree), it is emotionally colored (as I think Saito would

agree) and often uses certain historically and culturally determined terms like beautiful

and ugly (Saito agrees). So, Saito does not necessarily disagree on these points, but I don't

think that she emphasizes them as preconditions of the aesthetic either. However, I do think

that this emphasis could be useful for making the nature of the aesthetic clearer, at least in

multi-perspective environmental discussion. Especially, I believe that that some notions by

Frank Sibley and Nelson Goodman can be used to clarify this issue.

Frank Sibley is best known for his classic article "Aesthetic Concepts" but he develops

similar ideas in several other essays. 20 He is interested in how we use aesthetic concepts ( or

terms) and how they differ from other concepts. One of the central points is that aesthetic

concepts such as serene, gaudy, and balanced are not rule-governed. It means, according

to Sibley that even if aesthetic features necessarily emerge from non-aesthetic ones

and cannot exist without them "there are no nonaesthetic features which service in any

circumstances as logically sufficient conditions for applying aesthetic terms." 21 Why? Take

the word "serene." There are countless individual ways a thing can be serene. We can try to

list features of serenity, but they don't guarantee anything on the level of individual cases.

A monochromatic object may be serene - because it does not have disturbingly many

features - or dull. Objects have non-aesthetic features that anyone with normal sense

capacities can perceive such as their size, form, and color but one cannot infer from these

that an object must be serene, gaudy or aesthetically of some other kind. Moreover, it can

happen that a person sees those non-aesthetic features but simply cannot see the object's

serenity or gaudiness. This is a reason why aesthetic features cannot be measured either:

the relation between perceivable stimuli, measurable electronic or chemical reactions in

our bodies, and the terminology that we may use in describing the relation between the

19 Ibid., 129-48.

20 Frank Sibley, "Aesthetic Concepts," in Philosophy Looks at the Arts: Contemporary Readings in Aesthetics ,

ed. Joseph Margolis, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1987), 29-52. Originally in The Philosophical Review LXVII (1959), 421-50. For other related essays see Frank Sibley, Approach to

Aesthetics: Collected Papers on Philosophical Aesthetics, eds. John Benson, Betty Redfern, and Jeremy

Roxbee Cox (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 2001 ). I do not take a stand on Sibley's conception about whether aesthetic concepts are descriptive, evaluative , or something else. A recent analysis about this issue is Roman Bonzon, "Thick Aesthetic Concepts ," The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 67, no. 2 (2009), 191-9.

21 Sibley, "Aesthetic Concepts," 31-2.


stimuli and reactiorts is not fixed. No one has been able to invent tools or standard units for

aesthetic qualities that could be compared to the ones used in the SI system.

If we compare the aesthetic approach with cases where exact measurement is possible,

this becomes more evident. First, in measuring, the right solution will be found if the

measuring system is understood and the 'instruments and procedures work properly. A

professional land surveyor can tell the exact size of a lot, and the size of an Ecological

Footprint can be measured. Sometimes it is not even important whether the measurement

is based on a representation of the object (a map) or on the actual object (the Jot). Nothing

like this is possible in aesthetic judgments. Second, changing the measurer does not affect

the result of measuring - unlike in the case of aesthetic judgments, which can vary to a

great extent if the evaluator is changed. Third, the result of a measurement only informs us

about certain features of the object, and similar objects that are on the same level and the

same scale are equal from the point of view of measuring. Aesthetic judgments, contra wise,

may tell us about very many different features of the object (colors, forms, stories, etc.).

Fourth, the result of a measurement does not change if one gets new information about

some other aspect of the object. The size of the Jot remains the same despite what might

happen on it, and our understanding of the size of someone's Ecological Footprint does

not alter if we learn something new of their political or religious background; on the other

hand, the aesthetic quality of a lot may well change according to associated actions and

knowledge. For instance, a yard that at first looks good may suddenly tum gloomy and

sad if one hears that poisonous substances have been used when fighting unwanted weeds.

Fifth, the unit or characteristic of an object being measured is normally clear (size, weight,

etc.), while it is often somewhat unclear whether one is discussing aesthetic or other

features of an object in conversation. For example, one may use terminology that does

not make it sure whether one is making an aesthetic or some other kind of judgment -

the much used term "awesome" can mean practically anything positive, not only aesthetic

success. And lastly, in measuring one normally uses an evenly divided and hierarchical

scale. The numbers tell us if something is bigger, stronger, warmer, etc., compared to

something else, and also reveal by how much it is different. No such scale nor instruments

based upon it exist for aesthetic judgments. 22

All this also has to do with the fact that because "aesthetic character of something

may be said to result from the totality of its relevant non-aesthetic characteristics .... by

22 For a more detailed comparison of measuring and aesthetic approach , related to the so called evolutionary aesthetics and its attempts to generalize aesthetic values, see Ossi Naukkarinen , "Why Beauty Still Cannot Be Measured," Contempora,y Aesthetics 8 (2010), http://www.contempaesthetics.org /newvolume /pages/article. php?article!D=603.


some relatively small change in line or color in a picture, a note in music, or a word in a

poem, the aesthetic character may be lost or quite transformed .. . "23 Even if features like

slow tempo in music might , in some cases, contribute to its serenity, they are not enough

to universally create serenity , and serene pieces can easily turn boring or pallid when

some features of the totality are altered only a little. Moreover, one should also notice how

the contexts of such totalities affect their aesthetic features ; the same totality may look

aesthetically very different when put in another kind of surroundings.

Nelson Goodman's notion of "symptoms of the aesthetic" can further illuminate the

nature of the aesthetic approach. Goodman relates such symptoms to art , but there is no

reason why they could not be made use of elsewhere . Actually, because Goodman asks

when is art and not what is art, the cases or situations in which symptoms of the aesthetic

are dominant tend to be art for him. However, the question of whether we always have art

when we notice symptoms of the aesthetic need not be dealt with here.

In Languages of Art Goodman elaborates four symptoms of the aesthetic: synta ctic

density, semantic density, syntactic repleteness, and exemplification. 24 In Way s of

Worldmaking, he adds a fifth symptom: multiple and complex reference. He summarizes :

That is more than I can undertake here, but I venture the tentative thought that there

are five symptoms of the aesthetic: (I) syntactic density, where the finest differences in

certain respects constitute a difference between symbols - for example, an ungraduated

mercury thermometer as contrasted with an electronic digital-read-out instrument; (2)

semantic density , where symbols are provided for things distinguished by the finest

differences in certain respects - for example , not only the ungraduated thermometer

again but also ordinary English, though it is not syntactically dense; (3) relative

repleteness, where comparatively many aspects of a symbol are significant - for

example, a single-line drawing of a mountain by Hokusai where every feature of shape ,

line, thickness, etc. counts, in contrast with perhaps the same line as a chart of daily

stockmarket averages , where all that counts is the height of the line above the base ; (4)

exemplification, where a symbol, whether or not it denotes , symbolizes by serving as

a sample of properties it literally or metaphorically possesses; and finally (5) multiple

23 Sibley, "Aesthetic and Non-aesthetic ," in Approa ch to Aesthetics: Collected Pap ers on Philosophi cal Aesthetics, 35.

24 Nelson Goodman , Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols (Indianapolis , IN: Hackett , 1976), 252-55.


and complex reference , where a symbol performs several integrated and interacting

referential functions, some direct and some mediated through other symbols. 25

In Goodman's theory, symptoms of the aesthetic are explicated in the context of

symbol systems . The system guides the way in which we use symbols , and even if

Goodman does not define what symbols are they can be understood as signs that have

a referential u·se such as pictures , numbers, words , maps, diagrams and the like . They

mean something and have cognitive importance. These are of many types : denotative,

exemplificative, literal , metaphorical, and so on.

If we approach our environments - our home , our city , a forest, a cafe - in an

aesthetic way we perhaps don't have to think as Goodman suggests, that we always

approach them as symbols. (In fact , his notions on exemplificative symbols seem to

make that possible but that is not important here.) . Independently of that, however, it

seems to be characteristic for the aesthetic that we approach environments in a dense and

replete way : we really pay or it is possible to pay attention to every possible detail (many

aspects are important, i.e., environments are replete), and all the differences between

different environments are important. This means paying attention to every environment's

particularity . Every environment is of its own kind . Moreover, in this kind of approach

environments are easily seen to exemplify some of their own properties 26 and to be

connected to several interpretational and experiential frameworks. All this, furthermore,

can be connected to Sibley 's and Saito's idea that the aesthetic approach is always bound

to the personal sense perception of things. Moreover , our aesthetic approaches often are

evaluative (have to do with our preferences, values, our judgments of good and bad) ,

emotional (they feel good, bad, exciting) and described by using historically developed

terms such as "beautiful" and "ugly" that , as such, refer to the notions just described .

We can compare this way of thinking to other types of approaches. Some of them are

able to notice the particularity of different environments but only pay attention to some of

their features and are thus not replete : the global system of locating places with the help

of longitude and latitude notices that every environment has it own particular location

but it doesn't tell us anything else . A statistical approach may pick out all the cities with

more than one million inhabitants but does not , as such , make any difference between

25 Nel son Goodman , Ways of Worldmaking (Indianapolis , IN: Hackett , 1978), 67-8.

26 To be precise, Goodman would probably not talk of prop erties becau se of his ontology , but I cannot go into

this problem in this essay.


them; in this sense the system does not notice the semantic density and loses particularity.

Measuring the size of Ecological Footprints also only focuses on the amount of physical

resources used. However, as soon as we start to discuss an environment's aesthetic

features the imperative of the semantic density of vocabulary is faced: we would need very

carefully chosen "symbols" to refer to particular referents. In a non-semantically dense

system it might not be of importance whether we call an environment nice, beautiful or

awesome, but in a dense system it is. Moreover, such words are related to the repleteness

of things we talk about. This does not mean that aesthetic approaches are always some kind

of problem solving tests in which we have to find all possible clues and unravel them. Such

approaches may be easy, too, but in principle there are almost endless variations.

Of course there are generally used aesthetic terms but there are no easy and

unambiguous rules we could follow when using them. Words like "beautiful" are mentioned

even in juridical texts but to what kinds of objects and situations they can be applied to

is totally particular and can be decided and negotiated every time anew. All the cases of

beauty we have experienced before help in this but don't change the basic fact that such

judgments are particular. This does not mean that people cannot agree about aesthetic issues

and in fact they often do so, however such agreement is based on context-sensitive sensual

experiences and discussion about them - as described above - and not on rule-governed

and generalizable argumentation. Or, as Sibley puts it, there might be "perceptual proofs"

or "support" but no "reasoning." 27 There are probably also generalizable restrictions for

uses of certain aesthetic descriptions - a pale colored and perfectly round object cannot

be called gaudy- but as Sibley says: "No non-aesthetic conditions or descriptions logically

require the application, though some may require the rejection, of an aesthetic term ."28

V

The Aesthetic and the Arts

When Saito asks, "How can the environmental value be expressed, embodied, or

revealed through the object's sensuous surface in an aesthetically positive manner so

that we will be attracted not only by its environmental value but also by its aesthetic

manifestations?", there are two different matters mixed together.

27 Sibley, "Aesthetic and Non-aesthetic ," 39.

28 Ibid., 46.


Some sides of the environmental value can be expressed through an object's sensuous

surface in a pretty simple manner, almost like an object's size or form. Saito's minimalism ,

durability and longevity, valuing the contrast between past and present, perceivability

of nature's function, and health could belong to this category. Such aspects can often be

measured and thus they can easily be dealt with in environmental discussions . It is not

clear that eyeryone appreciates them but at least it can be shown, for example , that an

object is more or less minimalistic as regards its materials use than another. Actually ,

many of these things could be related to our Ecological Footprints. They are vital things,

but it is important to realize that knowledge of them does not necessarily lead to any

specific aesthetic valuation. The cognitive approach in environmental aesthetics is

right in emphasizing that accurate (scientific) knowledge of the environment often and

understandably affects our aesthetic evaluations (e.g., we may value a yard less ifwe know

that poisonous substances have been used on it) but is wrong if it unilaterally states that

some particular knowledge necessarily leads to a certain aesthetic judgment. Although we

might hope that everyone would appreciate things that are good for the environment in

both the ecological and aesthetic sense, this is clearly not the case in reality . Aesthetic and

other values do not necessarily go hand-in-hand, and in fact are often in conflict with each

other. Ecological values may well be of primary importance for our very existence, but

they are not the only ones that affect our behavior.

If we talk about aesthetic evaluation we have quite another type of issue at hand. It is

not self-evident at all that any aesthetic feature can be expressed, embodied, or revealed in

a simple and indisputable manner and we cannot be sure to whom it may be, say, attractive

if it is perceived. Saito's fittingness, appropriateness and site-specificity, as well as a caring

and sensitive attitude could belong to this category. Saito, as I understand her text , would

also include such rather simple sensually perceivable features like size, form and color in

her aesthetic realm , but Sibley and I do not. In Goodman's terms, many sensual features

of environments can be dealt with by not paying attention to their density and repleteness ,

whereas aesthetic features are related to approaches that notice them. Or better: there are

symbol systems that don't lead us to ponder density and repleteness but in other symbol

systems (art, aesthetics) they cannot be ignored. The concept of Aesthetic Footprint urges

us to notice such systems and ponder what the world looks like through their lense .

Still, what we value is not entirely a matter of chance. We learn this little by little as

we grow up in our cultures. Sibley takes up some ways in which critics typically help other


people see aesthetic features. 29 They can simply point out certain non-aesthetic features

that are important for the aesthetic ones to emerge. "Look at these lines here!" Or mention

the aesthetic features they have noticed. "I think this is really serene." Or link these

two levels. "See those lines? How serene they are." They can use similes, comparisons,

contrast, repetitions, metaphors etc. in discussions. "The piece is like a calm pond on a

spring morning." Basically, these kinds of notions are all we have when talking about the

aesthetic and we have to use them with every new case anew. There is no way to prove

that something is serene or aesthetically attractive even if it can be shown that something

has a big Ecological Footprint or that something is minimalistic as regards its materials

use. Some people are more sensitive and can articulate their aesthetics notions better that

others; this can be learned and it does not require any mystic powers.

Saito quite correctly emphasizes that in everyday life aesthetics adopted from the

arts can be restrictive. For example, ideas about clear framing, demands of high degree of

individuality, expectations of stable identity of objects, and emphasizing only the "higher"

senses are problematic. 30 But I would still think that certain other features - the ones just

explicated through Sibley and Goodman - are illuminating for both (institutional) art and

wider environmental and aesthetic discourse. Aesthetics is not about just perceiving or

sensing things but about perceiving and sensing things in a way that emphasizes sensitive

particularity.

This sensitive and particular way of perceiving is very well developed in the art world.

It is not restricted to it but is at least very often articulated and discussed there. That is

probably why it is something many other contemporary writers than Saito would like to

spread from the arts to elsewhere. Thomas Leddy has defended arts-based appreciation of

nature in his essays.31 Danish scholar Lotte Dars0 presents another currently typical way of

"artifying" non-art things. She writes about using artistic skills in business. 32 According to

her line of thinking aesthetic sensitivity can be learned from the arts, and she emphasizes

emotionally colored and evaluative approaches that are not measurable but nevertheless

29 Sibley, "Aesthetic Concepts," 45-46.

30 Saito, "Everyday Aesthetics," I 8-28.

31 Thomas Leddy, "A Defense of Arts-Based Appreciation of Nature," Environmental Ethics 27 (2005), 299-

315. In fact, some sort of comparison of art and environment is done by many environmental aestheticians ;

see books mentioned in the footnotes I, 2, and 3. However, the sensitivity side of art is not necessarily emphasized.

32 Lotte Dars0, Artful Creation: Learning-Tales of Arts-in-Business (Frederiksberg, Denmark: Samfundslitteratur , 2004).


highly motivating; in Dars0's case the importance of inventing new solutions is especially

accentuated. Martha C. Nussbaum's and Wayne C. Booth's well-known ideas about the

relevance of literature to ethics refer to a similar conception: art is an important source

of aesthetic "literacy" that is also useful elsewhere 33 even if these elsewheres are not

considered as art and even if some other issues important in institutionalized art can be put

aside. One could easily list a number of other examples ofrelated ideas.

VI

Applying the Concept

It is typical for environmental discussions to meander in many directions where

various different values and points of view are introduced, but often approaches that

can provide tools for measuring environmental issues dominate. Measuring produces

numerical and quantitative information that is easy to use in decision making. For example,

if one can show that a technical solution consumes only 5,000 kilowatt hours of energy a

month and another takes more than 7,000 it is easy to argue that the first one is better for

the environment if both are similar in other respects. Also, Ecological Footprint can be

measured in hectares, and many political goals having to do with carbon dioxide reduction

are expressed in percentages.

Aesthetic issues cannot be measured and proved in a similar way for reasons

specified above, but aesthetic concepts can have a somewhat similar role in environmental

discussions as easy-to-remember and universal numbers have. In order to work that way

they must be simple, something people can remember and react to easily. At the same time

they need to emphasize a non-measurable and qualitative approach to the environment.

This is what I have argued the concept of an Aesthetic Footprint can accomplish.

I work at a multidisciplinary university where architects, engineers, economists,

social scientists, humanists , designers and artists regularly meet not only each other but

also non-academic professionals in joint courses and research and planning projects.

Nowadays project discussions often focus on environmental issues that tend to boil down

to the question of how different types of specialists should use their knowledge and skills

to make the world a better place to live in. It is clear to everyone that well-being has

33 Martha Craven Nussbaum, Poetic Justi ce: The lit era,y Imagination and Public Life (Boston, MA: Beacon

Press , 1995); Wayne C. Booth, The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction (Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press , 1988).


various facets and they all need somewhat different tools to be dealt with even if we are

primarily talking about the overall quality of the environment. For example, if we discuss

the building of a new group of houses, everyone brings in their own special point of

view: economic, technical, ecological, or many others. I try to emphasize and open up the

aesthetic perspective. The concept of Aesthetic Footprint seems to be helpful here, and it

was deliberately developed for such discussion because no existing concept worked well

enough. In my experience, the most evident discursive benefit of the concept is that it makes

three important points clear and discussable, and thus helps us take note of and protect a

vital aspect of the environment. First, use of the Aesthetic Footprint makes it easy to point

out that everything we do always has an aesthetic impact on the world, and this is true

of such mundane activities as house building projects as well. We cannot build houses

that would only have, say, ecological or economic impacts. It is possible to try to ignore

the aesthetic dimensions, but that also means overlooking a crucial aspect of our well

being and the quality of the environment. Second, it reminds people of the fact that the

aesthetic impacts of building projects and other activities can be global, in contrast to what

the traditional aesthetic perspective with its on-site, here-and-now attitude may make us

think. Third, the concept immediately makes people compare Aesthetic and Ecological

Footprints. This very soon leads to a realization that they are very different but that both

are important: the latter is something measurable while the former is not, and aesthetic

evaluations are typically related to non-rule-governed, personal, particular and emotional

sense experiences with all the difficulties they create for decision making. Consequently,

this starts discussion about specifications and details - if possible in close contact with

concrete cases like certain houses whose particularity is now clearly stated. Agreement is

sometimes reached, sometimes not, which simply belongs to the nature of discussions on

aesthetics; completely undisputable conceptual definitions and other solutions are rarely

found but typically not necessarily needed either. Finally, artists and designers are often

particularly good at folding out such aesthetic issues to others and that is why they are

needed in multidisciplinary teams. They are able to use pictures, words and other means in

a way that helps others imagine how the environment would look and feel somewhere else

and at some other time if we decide to do a certain thing here and now.

Such discussions inevitably deal with different values and their relationships. It is

important to understand that one does not have to choose between them in the sense that

some specific value would be the dominant one and all the others should be subject to it.

Normally people are quite able to incorporate many values such as economic, ecological,


ethical, and aesthetic ones into their thinking, and they are accustomed to trying to find

a balance between them . Different value areas have different traditions, concepts and

approaches that all have a role to play in overall assessments. They need not be forced

into one single mode, and in this article I have tried to give one interpretation about how

aesthetics can be approached : an Aesthetic Footprint is the overall impact of any object or

action on the environment, here and everywhere, now and at other times, as evaluated in

the light of our (and other person's) personal and emotional sense experiences (real and

imagined) of various particular locations, making use of the non-rule-governed terminology

evolved in the tradition of aesthetic discussions (often related to art).

BIOGRAPHY

Ph.D . Ossi Naukkarinen is the Vice Dean of Aalto University School of Arts, Design

and Architecture (Helsinki and Espoo, Finland). His publications include the books

Aesthetics of the Unavoidable (1998), Art of the Environment (2007) and Arjen estetiikka

(Aesthetics of the Everyday, 2011), edited collections as well as journal articles in both

English and Finnish in journals such as Contemporary Aesthetics and The Nordic Journal

of Aesthetics.

aesthetic footprint - aalto · us adopt more sustainable behavior through "green...

Documents