They are very striking, but a bit regimented. I should think the sight would pall quite quickly. Whereas a work of art can be looked at in depth and new things found.
If it was a choice between a wild flower meadow and a work of art, I would have more trouble deciding.
A beautiful garden is living art. So is one that's been allowed to go a bit wild. Nothing more lovely to look at than a wildflower meadow. I don't like the parks and gardens look either.
I can imagine a bare canvas coming to life as the artist works on it but it doesn't fill me with the same wonderment as, especially in spring, what appears to be a bare piece of earth gradually comes to life with beautiful blooms and shrubs.
I appreciate the artists work but nature can take my breath away.
I came across this somewhere on Gransnet, and I have been wondering. Is it possible?
I mean, can you appreciate any beauty in anything at all if you fail to recognise that which is in the living world? Can appreciation of beauty be divided into two camps so categorically? Is it not the case that if you don't see the amazing beauty in one, you will be blind to the beauty in the other? I can't believe it is possible.