Flaws of the Object Model

"It is clear that in addition to being historically important, the landscape model, like the object model, gives us at least initial guidelines as to what and how to appreciate in regard to nature" (Carlson, 541).

While Carlson reminds us that both models are still helpful in our understanding of nature, they are also incomplete.  It was interesting to see the logic behind his dismissal of both models, as they were indeed different.

As far as the object model goes, Carlson uses the basic premise that humans know art because we made it;  it follows that an intentionally made work of art may contain a point of focus, or foci, that humans observe, and objectify, in order to appreciate it aesthetically.  In this way, humans manipulate an object of nature to form sculptures, paintings and the like.  These objects usually represent themes metaphorically, as he states in his example of the Bird in Space, which radiates balance and grace.  However, if one were to do the same with a piece of driftwood (a part of natural landscape) Carlson states that we have lost the indeterminate beauty of nature.  "...if the attention is directed specifically to them, we have no longer what, by a curious limitation of the word, is called the love of nature" (Carlson, 539).

Carlson emphasizes the fact that upon using the object model to appreciate a natural item, the aesthetics behind one's observations shifts to the artworld, and away from the natural landscape.  He uses the examples of "found art," discussed by Danto, and "artistic enfranchisement" that makes Warhol's Brillo Box different from the other millions of boxes.  Carlson ends up putting a rather dichotomic spin on the object model; either do not use it to fully appreciate nature, or use it, and have the focal point of your observation drag the natural object into the artworld, thus rendering the original goal of observing natural landscape null.

"Questions of what and how to aesthetically appreciate are answered, of course, but in respect to art rather than nature; the appreciation of nature is lost in the shuffle" (Carlson, 540).