Art & Nature

“An artist must possess Nature. He must identify himself with her rhythm, by efforts that will prepare the
mastery which will later enable him to express himself in his own language.”
Henry Matisse

For as long as there has been art, artists have been enthused by nature. Apart from providing endless inspiration,
many of the mediums that artists use to create their masterpieces such as wood, charcoal, clay, graphite, and water
are all products of nature. The theme of nature in art has almost always been present whether in American art,
Korean art, or art from any other culture. Sometimes its depiction can be literal or even abstract, narrowing it down
to just colors of the natural world. Nature can be a simple add-on to a painting to convey a sense of depth, or
perspective. However, it can also be the main focus of a work of art. Just like nature can be recreated through art, it
can also be used as a stand-in for greater thought. A realistic depiction of a mountain for example can symbolize not
only the sublime but also a curiosity for the unknown. Depictions of nature can also be about intellectual thought
and spirituality. Art involving nature can be done simply to display the beauty of the natural world around us, to
make scientific observations in an environment, or to open our minds to philosophical ideas about our own
connection to nature and beyond. The philosopher Aristotle once wrote that "Art not only imitates nature, but it also
completes its deficiencies." This can be interpreted as art not only recreating the natural world but also creating new
ways in which to see it in another light. In other words, art is the missing voice of what nature lacks to speak.
The relationship between art and nature is the central concept of aesthetic development: the kind of cognition that grows
through exposure to art, interaction, reflection, and time. It’s the trajectory of artists, the territories of risk and love, and it’s
deeply intertwined with wisdom. “Aesthetic” is one of those Wiley words that have a lot of different definitions, but arts
educators know it as a “cognitive mode of perceiving” or “critical reflection on art or nature”.

The relationship between art and reality is one of the most widely discussed subjects in the history of aesthetics. The thing is,
that the work of art seems to have a somewhat elusive character that makes its ontological end epistemological
characteristics a bit blurry. It is namely obvious that it does not consist in direct copying of reality, but rather seems to
involve both the imagination of the artist and the perceiver in coming into being. Having this spirit of fantasy, how is it then
possible that art can make us gain any kind of knowledge or meaningful experience about the world?

Nature and art have the power to reframe perspectives and offer moments of release during times of uncertainty. Sometimes
art turns to nature for inspiration to help explain what it means to be human in a world that is increasingly chaotic and
detached from the physical landscape. On a macro and micro scale, they reflect a heightened ecological awareness that stems
from a desire to commune with and advocate for the natural world. Working in a wide range of craft media, from fiber and
mosaic to metal and glass, the artists examine the long history of art’s power to engage with the natural world through
unconventional and highly personal perspectives.
Art does not represent the purely external aspect of an object or event, but the impressions produced upon the
mind of the artist by them. Art is, therefore, an imaginative representation of nature or reality.

Nature or reality has countless aspects, and no single work of art can represent all of them at a time. Secondly,
all that we see in the external world is not necessarily beautiful or attractive enough for the artist. A work of art,
be it a poem, a painting or a melody is essentially a thing of beauty. The artist creates beauty even where he
does not find it or, to be more precise. He opens a new angle of vision through which one sees beauty where
formerly one did not find it. The artist thus exercises the liberty of selection and omission. He selects what is
and can be beautiful, and rejects what, in his opinion, cannot produce the impression of beauty. A painter would
omit unattractive details in a landscape and may even invent new ones to make it ideally beautiful This liberty
exercised by the artist is known as idealization, i.e., the unconscious criticism of nature by the human mind.
Hence, works of art are often more effective than naked, unvarnished nature.

There is, however, a limit to the process of idealization enjoyed and exercised by the artist. In the early stages
of human art and literature, idealization reigned supreme. Poetic justice, for instance, governed the theme of
most plays and stories. The virtuous were always rewarded and the wicked punished. In other words, literature
was too romantic. However, as time passed, it was felt that art should outlive the stage of the fairy tale and the
poet should come out of his isolated ivory tower and see drab reality as well. Reality will be reflected through
the idealizing vision of the poet and thus art will continue to be a presentation of nature: through the colors of
human imagination.
Claude Monet
The Seine at Vétheuil, 1880.
Claude Monet
The Manneporte (Étretat), 1883.
Auguste Rodin
Triton and Nereid, ca. 1886–93.
Ranjani Shettar
Seven ponds and a few
raindrops
2017
Anish Kapoor
Sky Mirror, 2010
Kensington Gardens, London
Rattle in the Form of a Crouching Yaksha (Male Nature
Spirit)
1st century B.C.
Samadishwara Temple, Chittorgarh Fort,
circa 11th century