Is Nature Ever Unaesthetic?

in Chicago, Illinois, April, 1989. C ontemporary philosophers have won­ dered: Do virgin landscapes always possess beauty? Unsullied by human nature, is the natural world invariably aesthetic? Examples in support of a negative reply are not wanting; when lightning causes a ground fIre, the burned out, blackened forest may be experienced as an aesthetic liability, for the expected sights, aromas and flavors of the woods, the creatures, the sounds and bird song are now gone. Again, a natu­ ralist such as John James Audubon belittles one segment of nature in relation to another when he speaks of "the scrubbiness of the timber here, and the lofty and majestic trees of my dear country. nl Moreover, as was demonstrated recently in the community of Ducktown, Tennessee, even an undefIled and unscrubby forest can be aesthetically criticized. Copper smelters destroyed trees and veg­ etation in the area, thereby creating a "desert."2 Curiously enough, efforts at reforestation were attacked on the grounds that it would turn the "beautiful" landscape "into a dull, boring pine forest."3