In
Ralph Waldo Emerson’s introduction to Nature,
the speaker asserts that contemporary humans tend to agree with previous
philosophers’ thoughts on the formation and perception of the natural world.
However, as Emerson points out, “The sun shines to-day also. There is more wool
and flax in the fields. There are new men, new thoughts” (214). The speaker
goes on to encourage the reader to form his or her own thoughts and beliefs on
nature, and goes into much in depth analysis throughout this piece.
What I personally find interesting
about the beginning of this piece is how Emerson describes nature almost
exclusively in a positive light. However, he does argue that nature brings more
beauty to those who appreciate it and that very few adults truly appreciate
nature. I enjoy Emerson’s description of those who appreciates nature and agree
with the claims he makes. I believe the speaker is on point hen he assets, “the
lover of nature is he whose inward and outward senses are still truly adjusted
to each other; who has retained the spirit of infancy even into the era of
manhood” (217). This description is exactly how I feel when I am outside on a
beautiful summer day, or in the glen when it is fall and the wooded area is
filled with activity. In these moments, I do feel a certain happiness that I
did in infancy, even as an adult. I also feel as if not many humans appreciate
the beauty of nature, hence the increased deforestation.
While he does note in his chapter labeled “Commodity” that
nature is necessary to humans due to the food, water and shelter it gives,
these byproducts are not nearly as important as other byproducts that nature
brings. Emerson believes that the most important thing that nature brings is
beauty, and with beauty comes art. The speaker describes different aspects of
nature in an extremely rich manner in order to encapsulate a moment. For
example, a January sunset is described as, “The western clouds divided and
subdivided themselves into pink flakes modulated with tints of unspeakable
softness; and the air had so much life and sweetness, that it was a pain to
come within doors” (220). This rich detail is telling of not only how beautiful
Emerson perceives nature to be, but it also displays how influential nature is
on his life. After all, the nature that he describes in rich detail is the same
nature he devotes time to in this piece in order to hypothesize its importance.
Inevitably, Emerson comes to the conclusion that art is a
byproduct of nature’s beauty. I would have to agree with this claim as well. As
can be seen in art, poetry and prose, various artists try to replicate the
beauty of nature. This is even seen multiple times throughout Emerson’s piece.
However, as the speaker explains, using a river as an example, “Art cannot
rival this pomp of purple and gold” (220). Using this example, the speaker
makes his main contention: the beauty of nature is unparalleled, but is the
inspiration for art.
To build off of your thoughts, specifically at the end discussing how art is a byproduct of nature's beauty, I also think that Emerson's approach to nature in a territorial sense is really interesting. He spends a long time discussing the parts that create the whole of nature, and how so many things can be a part in making up the whole of nature. At one point Emerson tries to explain this by discussing a landscape: "The charming landscape which I saw this morning, is indubitably made up of some twenty or thirty farms. Miller owns this field, Locke that, and Manning the woodland beyond. But none of them owns the landscape." I like this idea that we are all a part of the art that goes into creating beauty in nature. Emerson seems to argue that we can own parts of it but that nature in total is not fathomable to come from just one person or thing.
ReplyDelete