Climate Change as an Aesthetic Problem

 

The need to understand climate change as an aesthetic problem

According to Emily Brady, climate change poses certain threats against natural landscapes and species. It also effects our appreciation of the nature and species as well (Brady, 2014, p. 552). In this sense, we can understand that climate change is not only an ecological or political issue but it is also a matter of aesthetic. More precisely, when we consider upon climate change through arguing uponthe very fact in related to how can we keep certain degree of greenhouse gases emissions and its possible effects towards the future global warming by considering possible changes of global warming (Randall, 2016, p. 249). Indeed, climate change can be interpreted as a total disequilibrium around the globe.

On that account, if we remember Plato’s account of aesthetics, we can develop a better understanding about climate change and its relationship to aesthetics. Here, I claim that, Platonic point of view can help us to grasp climate change as an aesthetic problem. In this regard, according to Plato, art should reveal itself as “the pure charm of truth (Badiou, 2004, p. 2).” For Plato, in this context, the main problem of art is its deceptive character which can seduce people’s perception about what truth is (Plato, 1991, p. 55). In considering climate change in this context, we can understand that climate change reveals itself through the semblance of truth about the globe.

But, what kind of truth is that? In other words, how does climate change reveal an aesthetic problem? Though, in order to perceive that, I believe that, first of all, in this chapter we should briefly concentrate upon general discussions of climate change literature and by doing so, we can conceive that why can we regard it as an aesthetic problem. Here, should we embrace climate change as a problem of environmental nature or does it occur problems beyond nature?

In according to this, as it is stated above, the issue of climate change mainly argued by climate change scholars addresses to different experiences. For instance, some of them argue about problems of unequal distribution of harms and benefits in related to climate change, lack of recognition against certain social groups, and misfunctioning of political community and social institutions (Coventry, Okereke, 2018, p. 336). On the other hand, some scholars examine ill-effects of climate change and its impact on desertification, raised sea-levels, crop failure (Caney, 2006, p. 261). In this sense, climate change scholars by doing so, show us that climate change is not only a struggle of natural environment but beyond the nature it poses certain threats towards our social and political lives. Therefore, when we examine climate change as an aesthetic problem, we have to be aware of the fact that it is an aesthetic problem of natural environment and an aesthetic problem of everyday life. On that account, in regards to the relationship between climate change and aesthetics, let me elaborate that how some climate change scholars have evaluated this issue. Although it is a very limited concern in climate change literature for the sake of our discussion within this paper it is essential for us to argue about this relationship.

First of all, considering Jenni Niemela-Nyrhinen and NiinaUusitalo’s paper on “aesthetic practices in climate change”, they regard climate change as an aesthetic problem due to the “image problem” of climate change in the mass media (Niemela-Nyrhinen, Uusitalo, 2021, p. 166). This means that while they are arguing climate change as an aesthetic problem, for them, through visualization practices, we can develop a human-centred perspective by including their real stories in related to climate change. Though, depicting climate change as an image makes it possible to recognise the place of human agency in climate change and also its connectedness with environmental nature (p. 168). At the end, in their paper, both authors criticize the overlooking of climate change in art-related works and they claim that the representation of climate change with media portrayals is insufficient to embrace climate change as a real threat though they propose us to argue climate change with aesthetic practices (p. 177).

However, both argues are fail to explain that why climate change is an aesthetic problem. The emphasis on the depiction of real people in the mass media is a criticism towards the insufficiency of mass media to attract attention in climate change related issues. Thus, in contrast to mass media, through applying aesthetic practices we can draw attention to climate change in public sphere. However, I do not convince that they provide us a plausible account of climate change as an aesthetic problem. Their evaluation of climate change as an aesthetic problem due to their insufficiency to give response to that question: how can we delineate climate change as an aesthetic problem? In this sense, there is no proper ground to understand climate change as an aesthetic problem.

Furthermore, as well as Niemela-Nyrhinen and Uusitalo, many climate change scholars examine the relationship between climate and aesthetics in practical discussions. For instance, Mia Bennett argues climate change as an aesthetic problem in reference to the problem of the Arctic melting. The melting of ice, according to Bennett, corresponds to an “aesthetic event”, and nature’s ruiniation by human beings causes to a picturesque problem. In this sense, the aesthetic value of natural environment, for Bennett, is merited through the way of debating visual decaying of the Arctic. Accordingly, certain artworks, for example, Ludovico Eiunadi’s “Elegy for the Arctic” will help to provoke people’s feeling towards the arctic melting and thus it will help to attract people’s attention to climate change. Thus, by emphasizing the picturesque and the sublime value of nature, the aesthetic understanding of climate change will also help the representation of the environmental nature as a radical political act (Bennett, 2020, pp. 1-9).

When we argue Bennett’s evaluation of arctic melting as an aesthetic event, I argue that unlike Niemela-Nyrhinen and Uusitalo’s discussion, she provides us an aesthetic view of environmental nature proposing the aesthetic value of nature trough its picturesque value. The picturesque value of nature will be discussed in the next chapter. However, in according to Bennett’s paper, I argue that we have two main problems and these problems are intertwined. In this sense, first of all, I argue that we can criticize Bennett’s in regards to its case-specific characteristic. By doing so, we have no fully-fledged account of climate change and its aesthetic evaluation. In related to this, even though we can appreciate the picturesque value of the Arctic, in the paper there is a partial evaluation of climate change as an aesthetic problem. On the other hand, the case-specificness of the paper erupts certain problems towards how to evaluate non-nature as an aesthetic issue since climate change is not an only the struggle of natural environment. Though, even though Bennett’s paper is useful for us to discuss climate change through the picturesque point of view, we have no detailed discussion of climate change within the paper as an aesthetic problem.

On that account, in a stark contrast to both papers, Emily Brady develops a fully-fledged account of climate change as an aesthetic problem. Firstly, before to discuss her views on climate change, I believe that she provides us an essential guideline to discuss climate change as an aesthetic problem. In her “The Ugly Truth: Negative Aesthetics and Natural Environment”, she argues to contemplate upon the aesthetic value of natural environment in regard to positive aesthetics and negative aesthetics. Here, for instance, according to Allen Carlson, the aesthetic value of environmental nature should be appreciated in regards to the view that all the natural world is beautiful and due to this we have to embrace it as beautiful intrinsically, we cannot regard the natural environment in company with negative aesthetics (Carlson, 2005, p. 73). Though, as Carlson pointed out that in arguing natural environment from an aesthetic point of view, we should embrace it as intrinsically beautiful, if we try to claim natural environment alongside of negative aesthetics, we have to regard that all the natural world is bad and thus we cannot develop a valid understanding towards the nature on the basis of aesthetics.

But Emily Brady suggests us a starting point to discuss natural environment in the context of negative aesthetics. Though, in contrast to Allen Carlson, Emily Brady claims that we can contemplate natural environment in related to negative aesthetics. By doing so, she offers us three distinctive points to argue natural environment through the point of view of negative aesthetics: in this regard, we can claim the natural world can be regarded as “ugly” in terms of arguing relative ugliness of nature, inherent ugliness of nature and as third the apparent ugliness of nature. To conceive the apparent ugliness of nature, for Brady, proposes us a form of the argument about to explain why ugliness might be a valid account of to think the aesthetic value of natural environment. On that account, in contrast to Carlson, she criticizes the over emphasis on the importance of knowledge in assessing the aesthetic appreciation of nature and thus she points out the significance of the apparent ugliness in nature through implying that juxtaposing ugliness in together with what is unpleasant and unattractive. In thinking on the matter of ugliness in nature, she claims that through fascination and curiosity towards what is ugly we are able to develop an understanding about natural environment alongside of negative aesthetics through expanding our emotional range in response to natural world. In this context, she also criticises positive aesthetics in accordance to the over emphasis of cognitivist approach towards nature that overlooks the story of the nature itself. Thus, according to Emily Brady we can with negative aesthetics we can develop care and concern for environmental nature (Brady, 2011, pp. 85-99).

When we consider Emily Brady’s evaluation of natural environment alongside of negative aesthetics, I argue that we are facing certain problems. Even though I agree with on the basis of we may discuss environmental nature in company of negative aesthetics, I do not believe that we can ascribe the apparent ugliness of environmental nature here. Because, in regarding all the natural world can essentially be regarded as ugly induces to regard all nature is intrinsically bad and it may direct us an invalid point to argue about the aesthetic value of nature. Though, in doing so, Brady presents us a vague point about the aesthetic value of nature, whether it should be regarded as beautiful or ugly. So, she fails to provide a proper account to discuss the aesthetic value of environmental nature. Thus, I suggest that in order to develop a proper account of climate change as an aesthetic problem, we have to develop a mixed account of concerning both Carlson’s and Brady’s accounts. In this sense, in reference to Allen Carlson, we can appreciate that all the natural world is intrinsically beautiful but in reference to Emily Brady, we can suggest that natural environment and negative aesthetics can be considered together. Because, even though nature is intrinsically beautiful it has a changeable form and its form can transform due to ill-effects of climate change and thus we can discuss climate change in terms of ugliness as well.

Further to that, Emily Brady also argues about the aesthetic and moral value of climate change.  In her discussion, she points out that we are able to appreciate climate change as an aesthetic problem due to its effects on nature, its effects to human structures in regards to the urbanisation. In arguing climate change as an aesthetic problem though paves the way for us to discuss the aesthetic experience of future generations as well and flourishing of human beings by aiming to protect the aesthetic value of climate spaces. Here, Brady claims that the aesthetic experience of climate change can be educative, it also enables us to engage with this issue (Brady, 2014, pp. 554-568). On that account, Brady’s paper is useful for us to develop a twofold analysis of climate change as an aesthetic problem, in referring to the environmental nature and artificial structures, as I have mentioned above. However, unlike her discussion about the aesthetic value of environmental nature, she fails us to draw a comprehensive point of view about aesthetics of climate change. Her discussion about the aesthetics of climate change is limited to the moral dilemma of climate change and aesthetics is a tool for us to engage with existing climate change problems.

Therefore, in order to develop a proper account of the aesthetics of climate change in the next chapter, I will present theories of aesthetics in related to our discussion.