How does Nehemas’ idea of beauty play into artworld in particular?


Alexander Nehemas' specificity of his opinions on beauty is sometimes unclear, although I tried to draw a few general conclusions of my own regarding this matter.  Namely, the possibility of the application of his theory to nature.


We established that "beauty" in the eyes of Nehemas is the promise of happiness; it exists the moment that the viewer suspects that the object of his admiration has more to offer, more meaning, and more to be discovered. One might think that this is mainly applicable to art, for the reason that our familiarity with art allows us to draw parameters, in which we can then tell the depth of an object we view.  Can one do that with nature or other non-art?


My answer would be yes.  The value that one takes from Nehemas' described "aesthetic judgment" is the beginning to realizing the beauty of the point of observation.  He is vague on describing or limiting this "value" and he also acknowledges the negativity of using the concept of the "depth" of meaning in an object, stating that it implies a concrete bottom.  Nature and other non-art can draw on all of these qualities.  Nehemas also states that even after thoroughly learning about a beautiful thing, we can still call it beautiful, even though technically, it no longer is beautiful for us.  We can also find beauty in an object, by willing it's powerful affects on others.  In this regard, nature falls under the description.  We constantly strive to become closer (well, some of us) to nature, to paint, record, study, and even blockbuster nature.  In this way, our bottomless interest in nature, and our need to share it with others makes nature, quite possibly Nehemas' thoughts, to be beautiful.