The disappearance of nature from art (or at least literature)

Path

Snow

Icicles

Moon

Markus and Cedric commented yesterday's posting on the topic of "seeing art in nature". The original question was "Do you have the natural ability to see art in nature?", and Markus proposed a very short version: "Do you have the ability to see?"

Cedric had a strong view on the matter: "I accept that technical expertise comes from repetitive work and practice but there is no amount of practice or process or method that will make you see art in nature or anything else for that matter. Art will reveal itself to whomever it wants as often or as rarely as it wants."

I started to think about this from a different direction, namely what is art and what is nature?

I'm currently reading a book by Pertti Lassila on the topic of nature in Finnish literature between 1700 and 1950. (Metsän autuus - luonto suomalaisessa kirjallisuudessa 1700-1950, SKS, 2011.)

This provides interesting to background in "seeing art in nature", and it may demolish the whole idea of such a phrase.

But lets start from the concept of culture vs. nature. Here Lassila uses a rather loose definition for culture, meaning everything created by man, such as art, science, technology, agriculture, earthworks, etc.

The concept of nature has changed a lot. Originally, nature meant the fundamental characteristic of something, such as the smell of a flower or the sting of the bee. And then there was the religious interpretation, saying that whatever man creates is small compared to God's works.

In Finnish literature during 1700 and 1950 the religious interpretation of nature became more and more diluted. Topics such as a human being experiencing nature, or explaining his/her feelings through nature became prominent. And often nature was also seen as an opposing force, destroying crops and otherwise making life difficult.

But what was interesting is that according to Lassila there isn't any point in looking at nature in Finnish literature after 1950, because at that point culture took over. There isn't any more such a thing as nature, because humans have taken over, packaged and parcelled it, and no separate "nature" exists, at least in literature.

So, proposing that there is a skill in seeing art in nature is moot, as there isn't nature, just culture. And thus the issue becomes a general one of just "seeing", exactly as Markus proposed.

Also, I find myself here in a difficult position, as I very much dislike "nature photography" which crops and post-processes the subject in such a way that there is nothing resembling the real thing left.

But if there is no nature, then there isn't the real thing either, just culture, and I shouldn't have any objections to such manipulations, should I?