Please respond to one of the following questions:
A. Why are flowers consistently considered beautiful and laden with such heavy meanings? (e.g. Roses are often associated with love). Are we born with a disposition to love flowers?
B. What similarities do you see between Pollan's view of the human-nature relationship and that of Oates?
C. What is the relationship among the garden, the forest, nature, wild for Pollan as he tries "to pin down exactly what distinguishes the garden in bloom from an ordinary patch of nature?" (73). And where do humans and civilization fit into Pollan's schema?
To answer any of these questions please hit the "comment" link below.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Flowers, in my opinion, are one of nature’s most aesthetically beautiful creations. Just looking at them elicits some sort of emotion; whether positive or negative. I haven’t always felt this way, so I don’t believe we are born with a disposition to love flowers, rather it is learned. However, I do believe with have a predisposition to things of beauty and we learn that flowers are a thing of beauty at a young age. Flowers have been considered beautiful for centuries. As she stated in the book, almost every major civilization in history, from the Egyptians to the Romans to modern day society has placed some significance on the flower. The meanings that are associated with flowers have always fascinated me. Every time I have purchased flowers for someone, I look up the perceived meanings and send them the appropriate flowers. Although some flowers have been associated with different meanings throughout history, I try to find the most widely accepted and traditional meaning. Most of the meanings we associate with a certain type of flower today came from the Victorian age and what they called “Floriography”; the language of flowers. Flowers, in my opinion, are a way to express ourselves in a creative manner when we cannot find the words to say how we feel. I always make sure the flowers I send come with an accompaniment on their perceived meaning. It makes the gift more special. On the other hand, many people form their own opinions on the meanings of flowers based on their previous experiences with that particular type of flower. If you grew up and your mother always had Tulips around and you found them to symbolize love, security, and a feeling of home and someone else knew this and sent you a gift of Tulips it would be much more special than them sending you roses. Flowers to me are one of the many non verbal languages of love and will always play an important role in my relationships.
ReplyDeleteA.) When I think of a flower, I automatically think of symbolization towards love, beauty, passion and even forgiveness. However, it is not so much the actual appearance or site of the flower that brings me to these ideas, but more so just an ingrained association with the word to those meanings from my environment. I believe this is because, in my case, I was not born with the disposition to love flowers, but taught to enjoy them. When I was growing up, flowers were always associated with beauty starting from elementary school gifts that teachers encouraged us to buy for our mothers, to profound poems in high school reflecting on the beauty that spring flowers bring to a gardener; flowers were always a delight. Why is this so? To me, it is because, once taken the time to examine the actual appearance of a flower, the beauty is visible and evident on its own, without the ingrained idea of beauty in my mind. As Pollan mentions, the beauty of the flower is popular in every culture, and has been for years and years. This proves that regardless of location or culture or the environment that I grew up in, flower’s beauty speaks for itself and creates its own universal symbol.
ReplyDeleteQuestion C.
ReplyDeleteFor Pollan the distinctions of Garden, Nature, Forest, and Wild are rather artificial. The key distinction that he makes and focuses on is that the action is far more visible in the garden. The reproduction of trees and ferns is nearly unnoticeable when compared to the vibrancy of the reproductive dance between humans, bees, and flowers in a garden. Flowers have evolved, with human assistance, to use beauty as a reproductive tool. The rest of nature has beauty in Pollan’s view, but only in an incidental way.
Humans and civilization fill the same role in Pollan’s narrative as any other part of nature. They are exceptional only in that the human influence has become the most powerful of evolutionary forces. Those species that adapt to use and be used by humans are far more likely to be evolutionarily successful than those that don’t. Pollan cites the example of dogs versus wolves. Wolves are generally more admired by human culture than dogs, but there are millions of dogs and only thousands of wolves in the U.S. Dogs have outcompeted wolves by using humans. When Pollan turns the lens of anthropocentrism around, civilization becomes just another part of nature to be exploited by plants and animals to their own evolutionary advantage.
Judging by the fact that flowers are revered the world over, I feel that humans are born with a disposition to love them. Pollan describes two speculations as to why this could be true. The first being that under natural selection, our brains developed in such a way as to make us good foragers. The most successful foragers, of course, would be the individuals who “were drawn to flowers, and who further could distinguish among them and remember where in the landscape they’d seen them” (68). Second, Pollan proposes that we are so enamored with flowers because they are intertwined with our sense of time; we cannot so much as look at a flower without thinking of the past or the future. By means of artificial selection, species of flowers have evolved so as to catch the attention of the human eye, even if it is to the disadvantage of getting themselves pollinated. As flowers have reinvented themselves to coincide with mankind’s ever-changing ideals of beauty, Pollan suggests that they are very much for humans (an idea that goes hand in hand with Oates’ view of the human-nature relationship). However, Pollan argues that not all aspects of nature are necessarily for mankind. In the forests and fields, for example, “nature’s routine factory work takes place” and the beauty that does exist there is “in large part inadvertent, purposeless, and unadvertised” (73, 74). Gardens, on the other hand, are typically more of a social, public area that is associated with playfulness and romance. Here there is beauty by design, whereas in forests and fields, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
ReplyDelete“The other kind, flowers for flowers’ sake, seemed to me the flimsiest of things, barely a step up from leaves, which I also deemed of little value... (pg. 65)” Here Pollan is expressing his initial considerations of flowers, before he learned to appreciate them later on as he grew older. He raises an interesting question which he later examines in comparing a garden or wildflower patch with a green acre of forest; why do flowers seem so revered in comparison to shrubs, trees, or other verdant plants. I think it has to do with the psychological and logical notion that which is rare, is desirable in its rarity. Whether for status or simple appreciation of the extraordinary, from diamonds to Semper Augustus, we tend to stick values on things that come in limited quantities. While the garden variety rose is still prized, and still considerably more expensive to order than a dozen carnations, it is a flower known to take a lot of effort. There is an art in its cultivation. There is beauty in its protection, thorns supposed to ward of predators, are considered not grotesque, but wither unnecessary or ornamentation, but rarely are they considered defense mechanisms. Considering there are not many natural predators of roses besides aphids and smaller insects, the thorns seem counterproductive in keeping anything larger away that is attracted to the vibrant hues or the rich scent of the flower itself. Pollan makes the point that seeing a very lush patch of forest pales in comparison to just a few brightly lit spots of color found in a meadow. Perhaps it is our very first instinct that first attracts us to colors that can warn danger, produce food, medicine or a rich source of fertile soil. Colors are indicators we are trained to pay attention to, even if it is subconscious instinct to look further, dig deeper. Bright colors are very expensive for a plant to produce in terms of energy, they are an extra commodity, at first not inherent to survival, attracting insects regularly is a result of experimentation but not a guarantee for success. I’d like to think the most primitive part of ourselves, still in touch with nature is the source of appreciation for the beauty of flowers. As we marvel the grandeur of very large and old trees because we inherently understand that it is a specimen of success and immense effort and it should be acknowledged in the magnificence of it’s struggle to not only survive, but to be able to manipulate insects, humans, other plants to care for it, to stop and smell the flowers.
ReplyDeleteFor Question C
ReplyDeleteAccording to Pollan, the difference between the garden and “any ordinary patch of nature” has to do with human involvement, but not in the most obvious sense. Of course a garden is fully planned and maintained by people, while it is assumed that humans are not influencing the patch of nature. But in a very literal description, both areas are just places where plants grow and where there is sometimes animal or insect interactions. The differences appear when people get involved, or just notice either area. When someone sees a garden, they expect to get something out of it, because a garden is “thick with information.” There are few, if any, gardens that are intentionally grown and maintained to look unappealing. They are made by people and for people. As Pollan states, gardens are expected to be beautiful, and therefore are doing something worthwhile: doing good by making beauty. In the eyes of people, the flowers are working for us.
The wild patch of nature however, is not a part of most peoples’ lives. It has its own type of beauty, but only in certain people’s eyes. The majority of the plants have not had to evolve to work with humans or even bees, so there is no need for “traditional” beauty with bright colors and shapes. The plants have evolved in just the ways they needed to, and that includes little human interaction. It’s not hard to see why people are less interested or feel detached from nature. While people try and create civilizations to be separate from nature, they appreciate the nature that works for them.
A.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was young my father would always give my mother flowers on their anniversary and other special occasions. I guess it was a token that showed his affection for her. I have grown up thinking that flowers are beautiful and represent many types of emotions. I feel that we are born in a way to love flowers, but also taught at a young age to appreciate them. Flowers are considered special because of their beauty. I also feel that its a universal understanding that flowers are beautiful because for centuries so many different cultures as mentioned in the book have praised flowers for their beauty. I was just looking up different flowers meanings because so much of the time I never know what they mean, I only assume love. I was astonished at how many different flowers have different meanings and don;t just mean love. I feel like American culture, being so close to Valentines day we look at flowers and think love, when flowers mean so much more. Why do we associate flowers a lot of the time with love?
A.
ReplyDeleteWe grew up being taught that flowers are beautiful. We see lovers send flowers to each other, a child giving his mother a flower, or even friends exchanging flowers in some occasions. Their look and scent are beautiful as well. I would think that anyone who sees I flower for the first time would admire its beauty. Flowers play an important role in relationships we pursue. If you can not express your passionate lover to your partner then a flower would explain it all. Different flowers might mean different things, to some a flower is beautiful no matter what it means; to others the meaning makes it more stunning. Anyone who gives out a flower to someone should express its meaning if it has one. For example, a rose expresses one’s love to another; velvet might express one’s sorrow to another. Flowers have been around since the beginning of history and showed us its effects when it comes to man expressing his emotions.