In “A Shark in the Mind of One Contemplating Wilderness,” author Terry Tempest Williams considers the idea of wilderness as it is represented in art. The problem that the author identifies is the correlation between art and wilderness and the representation of animal species in various artists’ works. Williams argues that the process of preserving dead animals’ bodies involves no actual preservation. In the discussion, the author notes the irony of killing animals for the sake of keeping them in museums and calling the whole procedure preservation. In her words, “To preserve. What do we choose to preserve?”, Williams posits that it is impossible to make a quick shift between perceiving such animals as art and viewing them in terms of science (3).
The question raised by Williams provokes contemplation of the issues of wilderness and art, real life and how it might be retained after death. Indeed, the speculation arises as to the existence of a magic line that divides emotional and artistic perception from cold and detached factual observation. Even should such a line exist, locating where to draw it would be a challenge. As a naturalist, Williams finds it inconceivable to think of the shark she is observing “in the context of art, not science” (3).
However, it seems that it should be possible to do both: see the shark as an object of natural history and as an object of art. The individual may need to take more than one look. Undoubtedly, once people have set their minds at something, it can be complicated to refocus their cognition from the set direction. Still, as long as the necessity remains for individuals to question the nature of things, they should seek to make these inquiries. After all, through inquiries, no matter how preposterous they may look at first, answers are eventually born.
Williams suggests the idea of designating wilderness “as an installation of art” (6). This suggestion commingles sincere love for nature and a peculiar intention to view it as a framework of “interspecies dialogues” (Williams 6). While at first it may sound absurd to treat creatures living in the wilderness as “a painting in motion,” it then becomes clear that such a scenario can actually take place (Williams 6). In fact, a keen observer can interpret animal behavior as the movements of exquisite dances or performances.
Meanwhile, plants and natural elements may serve as the setting for these unusual actors. The transition between day and night will be the curtain of this extraordinary theater in which every actor knows its role without a written script or a prompter’s help. Thus, it is possible to “answer with a resounding yes” that wilderness “is our received idea as artists” (Williams 6).
Two people looking at the same thing have no guarantee that they see it similarly. Moreover, chances are that one of them will notice exquisite details that the other might fail to observe, and vice versa. Williams’s article testifies to the universal truth existing within every element of the universe. The results of contemplating something, whether nature, art, or neither this nor that, will always depend on the beholder. In the end, while the atmosphere may have some effect on the observer’s attitude toward what is observed, the inner feeling of the beholder is what decides the kind of emotional trace, if any, the inspected object will leave in the individual’s consciousness.
Work Cited
Williams, Terry Tempest. “A Shark in the Mind of One Contemplating Wilderness.” The Nation. 1999. Web.