【リンク】
Environmental Art has often been discussed in the context of recent Anglo-American Environmental Aesthetics. Even though environmental art has developed too many different varieties of forms of expression for a half century to summarize them as an art movement, it is generally known as Land Art and Earthwork, large scale “artwork used natural environment itself as its material”, which emerged in late 1960’s in the USA. Because the earliest examples of Earthwork, especially such as Double Negative by Michael Heizer in 1969-70, excavated by bulldozers and dynamites, they were often criticized for the lack of environmental sensibility. In this paper, I will examine the recent environmental aesthetics’ debates about ethical issues surrounding environmental art, especially on Allen Carlson’s “Is Environmental Art an Aesthetic Affront to Nature?” and the following debates. I clarify that the appreciation of environmental art blurs boundaries between appreciation of nature as nature and that of art as art, and that environmental art expresses the very complicated contemporary natural environment where the dichotomy between nature and art or the natural and the artificial has already been annihilated. I will try to evaluate environmental art both aesthetically and ethically from the viewpoints of artistic and ethical value.
54「環境倫理学の議論の中で、しばしば自然の価値を道具的価値と内在的価値にわけて考え、その態度を人間中心主義と自然中心主義の、対立で捉えることがある。そこでは自然対人工の議論と同様に人間中心主義＝自然の道具的価値という単純な還元が行われている」
