!

!
!

ON THE BEAUTY OF NATURE (FUKADA YASUKAZU ZENSH: 3: 4043)

Those who academically study phenomena that we call beautiful generally divide
the phenomenon of beauty into two categories, i.e., the beauty of nature and the
beauty of art, and contend that the beauty of art manifests the true nature of beauty far
better than the beauty of nature. They are thinking that what we call aesthetics is
simply the study that examines art (i.e., literature and fine arts). Natural things or
things called landscapes (fkei
) are seen as unimportant with respect to beauty.
The beauty of hills and rivers (sansui
) is found only in their depiction in
painting, while the actual landscape is not thought to be beautiful at all. So, the
enjoyment of beauty consists in watching plays, looking at paintings, looking at
sculptures or reading novels, while the enjoyment of wandering through hills and
among rivers is not thought to be a form of aesthetic enjoyment, but simply the
amusement of taking a walk or of traveling.
But is the beauty of nature really as worthless as they say that it is? Can we
really say that the pleasures of looking at flowers in spring, colored leaves in autumn,
water in summer and mountains in winter are not aesthetic enjoyment? On the
contrary, we could say that natural scenery (fkei) is far more beautiful than a
painting of a landscape (sansui-ga
) and that wandering through a scenic area
by tracing ones walking stick through the hills and by the water is a truer
appreciation of beauty than looking at a painting. I think that discovering the beauty
of nature is, in a certain sense, the most appropriate way for understanding the
phenomenon of beauty. || There are various arguments for and against the superiority
of the beauty of art over the beauty of nature, but we cannot simply assume that art is
superior to nature. If we were to say that art is superior to nature, of course, one could
make an excellent argument for this. Art is not a reproduction of nature, but the result
of taking nature and refining it. For instance, in the case of a landscape painting, since
a painter has to choose from various landscapes (fkei), measure them with some
degree of sensitivity and compose a single framed picture, it presents something as if
it were cut out [of nature]. In this respect, it seems that the painting would have to be
better than the original scene (keshiki
). Those who look at this particular aspect
[of art] cannot help but think that art provides something that goes one step beyond
nature. However, if we take the same issue from another point of view, we could also
say that art is artificial, while the actual landscape (fkei) is natural. An artificial
object can be biased, and show some habit [of the artist]. But, there is nothing biased
about nature, nor is there any habit [of the artist] in it. Since art is, in essence, bound
by the characteristics of its maker, it is often the case that the audience can sense these
constraints in observing the work. There may be exceptions, of course, when
confronted by a work of artistic genius. Contrariwise, there is no problem for saying
that natural landscapes (fkei) are all beautiful no matter what kind of landscapes they
are.
But why do we think that all natural objects or natural landscapes (fkei) are
beautiful? A fkei still has a kind of beauty even if it does not possess the beauty that
it would have when being painted into a picture. Since time immemorial, we have
said that something unpleasant looking can be beautified once turned into art. On the
contrary, though, even when a natural landscape (fkei) is not particularly interesting,
there are times when we experience a kind of aesthetic feeling in simply encountering
that place. We often say that that landscape cannot be a picture, but even if no one

decides to paint it, it is normal that the natural scenery (keshiki) is beautiful just as it
is. I think that this is simply the way that humans experience nature in general. With
respect to our experiences, there is no problem for concluding that there is nothing in
nature that is not beautiful. However, this does not mean that paintings that copy the
actual views (jikkei
) [of nature] are all beautiful. || It could be the case that
someone turns a natural view into an interesting painting, but there are some actual
natural scenes (jikkei) that are simply unsuitable for painting. But when we face
nature as an actual landscape (jikkei), when we ourselves are in it, every view
(keshiki) can be experienced as beautiful. This gives rise to the problem of why all
landscapes (keshiki) are beautiful and interesting even though we come to distinguish
between interesting and uninteresting landscapes (sansui) with respect to paintings.
It is clear that all landscapes (keshiki) are equally beautiful, but not that they
are all beautiful for everyone in the same manner. In other words, even though natural
landscapes (keshiki) invite us to appreciate their beauty, there are certainly those who
cannot enter into the proper state [of mind and being] to enjoy this beauty. Sometimes,
we simply do not have time for it. When we are taking a walk in the countryside on a
Sunday, we think that all landscapes (keshiki) that we see are beautiful, but it seems
that a farmer who cultivates his field everyday while looking at the same views would
not necessarily feel the same way about the landscapes beauty. Likewise, in a case
where we are, say, heading home after receiving a telegraph that our mother or father
is seriously ill, it would be normal that the natural beauty (fk
) [of the
landscapes] that we pass on our way would not catch our eye. However, this
limitation is not only applicable to natural beauty, but also to the beauty of art.
Needless to say, we cannot distinguish between the beauty of nature and the beauty of
art in accordance with the presence or absence of this limitation. The main point of
this is that even though we cannot say that art works are all beautiful, natural
landscapes and objects equally give us the sense of beauty. This is an important
problem in terms of aesthetics. Those who recognize this fact would probably refrain
from making the premature conclusion that aesthetics is simply the study of art.
Why then can all natural landscapes and objects be equally seen as beautiful
unlike works of art? If we are to answer in a single phrase, there is no other way but
to say: because it is nature. The reason why natural sceneries (keshiki) are beautiful
lies in the fact that they are not at all artificial or, at least, that they do not show any
trace of added artificiality. || Even if we say that all landscapes (keshiki) are beautiful,
when we see western-style buildings constructed alongside them or when rails are laid
down through them, our feelings of natural beauty are severely tainted (kizutukerareru
). An artificial object can be seen as beautiful only when it
meets a certain condition and no artificial product ever gives the feeling of being
beautiful as it is. In contrast, natural sceneries (keshiki) immediately give rise to the
feeling of beauty simply insofar as they are what they are in nature. Thus, it does not
seem wrong to say that the feeling of beauty is the feeling generated on the basis of
what a thing is in nature [when considered] from the side of the thing and of a
persons natural activity (hito-no jizen-no hataraki
)[when
considered] from the side of the person. There are many senses of the term nature
and it is a rather ambiguous term. But if we advance our thinking from what is most
closely at hand, we will see that nature is that which is contrary to intelligence. In one
sense, it opposes all that is artificial and constructed. In another sense, it opposes all
that is intellectual and analytical. Given that the sense of beauty is the feeling that we
experience in relation to the appearance of nature, we can clearly see why natural

landscapes and objects are beautiful as they are. For the same reason, a work of art
needs to be natural in order for it to be seen as beautiful. Here also lies the ground
upon which we can think of, what we call, civilization as injuring the sense of
beauty.
Thus, there is no problem in saying that natural beauty is the purest of all
feelings of the beautiful. Nature is not beautified when we look at it with the eyes of
art. Rather, art becomes beautiful when it is seen with a heart that turns toward nature.
Beauty does not preserve its existence through art, but rather takes its roots in the
midst of nature. Those who strive to appreciate beauty must return to nature. Those
who wish to touch the very foundation of art must return to nature. Natural beauty is
the first thing that aestheticians must study and [for this reason,] it must also be the
last.