First Question on Carlson

So does nature provide a greater aesthetic experience than art?


I think this once again boils down to varying degrees of experience and the like.  Some people get more aesthetic pleasure from nature than from art, or vice versa, or they get it from doing math, or cleaning a house, or running, etc. As usual, it all boils down to the individual and the different tastes that everyone has.  Who's to say that a person can't get an aesthetic experience form this or that?  Nature is one thing, and art is another, and while some people try to make the two synonymous, the two are not so.  Some try to say that nature is art, but all that nature is is just another subject of aesthetics, as is art.  Aesthetics exists above these two, and they within, so it would be nonsensical to say that one is the other.  Therefore, it is also nonsensical to say that one can provide a greater aesthetic experience on a whole than the other, for the two should not be compared in such a way.  It is not for us to determine some rule as to what should be more aesthetically pleasing and why, but for us to determine which gives us the greater aesthetic experience.