Now in paperback, Aesthetics and the Environment presents fresh and fascinating insights into our interpretation of the environment. Traditional aesthetics is often associated with the appreciation of art, but Allen Carlson shows how much of our aesthetic experience does not encompass art but nature--in our response to sunsets, mountains or horizons or more mundane surroundings, like gardens or the view from our window. Carlson argues that knowledge of what it is we are appreciating is essential to having an appropriate aesthetic experience and that a scientific understanding of nature can enhance our appreciation of it, rather than denigrate it.
Carlson is very good at taking apart other theories and seeing the problems with them than he is at describing and discussing his own theory. Nor, in the end, would I agree much towards his way of thinking. I understand the importance of a knowledge of period, artist, genre, etc. for artistic works, though I would not agree that scientific (or, as Carlson names it, "common sense") is necessary for an appreciation of nature. Nor is knowledge for either art or nature, in my opinion, the basis of an aesthetic appreciation of the object/scene/environment; knowledge is able to further appreciation, develop it and point to new ways of furthering the view into the piece. But to say that knowledge is integral, foundational, and/or primary is to suggest that only the learned have aesthetic experiences and appreciation for anything. And this, needless to say, is absurd.
Carlson argues for a scientific cognitive approach to environmental aesthetics... that is, to appreciate the wilderness, you need to first understand it.
I should probably finish digesting the rest of the book before commenting further.