Aesthetics Philosophy Essay Outline

Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and appreciation of art, beauty and good taste. It has also been defined as "critical reflection on art, culture and nature". The word "aesthetics" derives from the Greek "aisthetikos", meaning "of sense perception". Along with Ethics, aesthetics is part of axiology (the study of values and value judgements).

In practise we distinguish between aesthetic judgements (the appreciation of any object, not necessarily an art object) and artistic judgements (the appreciation or criticism of a work of art). Thus aesthetics is broader in scope than the philosophy of art. It is also broader than the philosophy of beauty, in that it applies to any of the responses we might expect works of art or entertainment to elicit, whether positive or negative.

Aestheticians ask questions like "What is a work of art?", "What makes a work of art successful?", "Why do we find certain things beautiful?", "How can things of very different categories be considered equally beautiful?", "Is there a connection between art and morality?", "Can art be a vehicle of truth?", "Are aesthetic judgements objective statements or purely subjective expressions of personal attitudes?", "Can aesthetic judgements be improved or trained?"

In very general terms, it examines what makes something beautiful, sublime, disgusting, fun, cute, silly, entertaining, pretentious, discordant, harmonious, boring, humorous or tragic.

Judgements of aesthetic value rely on our ability to discriminate at a sensory level, but they usually go beyond that. Judgments of beauty are sensory, emotional, and intellectual all at once.

According to Immanuel Kant, beauty is objective and universal (i.e. certain things are beautiful to everyone). But there is a second concept involved in a viewer's interpretation of beauty, that of taste, which is subjective and varies according to class, cultural background and education.

In fact, it can be argued that all aesthetic judgements are culturally conditioned to some extent, and can change over time (e.g. Victorians in Britain often saw African sculpture as ugly, but just a few decades later, Edwardian audiences saw the same sculptures as being beautiful).

Judgments of aesthetic value can also become linked to judgements of economic, political or moral value (e.g. we might judge an expensive car to be beautiful partly because it is desirable as a status symbol, or we might judge it to be repulsive partly because it signifies for us over-consumption and offends our political or moral values.)

Aestheticians question how aesthetic judgements can be unified across art forms (e.g. we can call a person, a house, a symphony, a fragrance and a mathematical proof beautiful, but what characteristics do they share which give them that status?)

It should also be borne in kind that the imprecision and ambiguity arising from the use of language in aesthetic judgements can lead to much confusion (e.g. two completely different feelings derived from two different people can be represented by an identical expression, and conversely a very similar response can be articulated by very different language).

In recent years, the word �art� is roughly used as an abbreviation for creative art or fine art, where some skill is being used to express the artist�s creativity, or to engage the audience�s aesthetic sensibilities, or to draw the audience towards consideration of the �finer� things. If the skill being used is more lowbrow or practical, the word "craft" is often used instead of art. Similarly, if the skill is being used in a commercial or industrial way, it may be considered "design" (or "applied art"). Some have argued, though, that the difference between fine art and applied art or crafts has more to do with value judgments made about the art than any clear definitional difference.

Since the Dadaist art movement of the early 20th Century, it can no longer even be assumed that all art aims at beauty. Some have argued that whatever art schools and museums and artists get away with should be considered art, regardless of formal definitions (the so-called institutional definition of art).

Some commentators (including John Dewey) suggest that it is the process by which a work of art is created or viewed that makes it art, not any inherent feature of an object or how well received it is by the institutions of the art world (e.g. if a writer intended a piece to be a poem, it is one whether other poets acknowledge it or not, whereas if exactly the same set of words was written by a journalist as notes, these would not constitute a poem).

Others, including Leo Tolstoy (1828 - 1910), claim that what makes something art (or not) is how it is experienced by its audience, not the intention of its creator.

Functionalists like Monroe Beardsley (1915 - 1985) argue that whether or not a piece counts as art depends on what function it plays in a particular context (e.g. the same Greek vase may play a non-artistic function in one context - carrying wine - and an artistic function in another context).

At the metaphysical and ontological level, when we watch, for example, a play being performed, are we judging one work of art (the whole performance), or are we judging separately the writing of the play, the direction and setting, the performances of the various actors, the costumes, etc? Similar considerations also apply to music, painting, etc. Since the rise of conceptual art in the 20th Century, the problem is even more acute (e.g. what exactly are we judging when we look at Andy Warhol's Brillo Boxes?)

Aestheticians also question what the value of art is. Is art a means of gaining some kind of knowledge? Is it a tool of education or indoctrination or enculturation? Is it perhaps just politics by other means? Does art give us an insight into the human condition? Does it make us more moral? Can it uplift us spiritually? Might the value of art for the artist be quite different than its value for the audience? Might the value of art to society be different than its value to individuals?

The contemporary American philosopher Denis Dutton (1944 - ) has identified seven universal signatures in human aesthetics. Although there are possible exceptions and objections to many of them, they represent a useful starting point for the consideration of aesthetics:

  • Expertise or Virtuosity (technical artistic skills are cultivated, recognized and admired)
  • Non-Utilitarian Pleasure (people enjoy art for art's sake, and don't demand practical value of it)
  • Style (artistic objects and performances satisfy rules of composition that place them in recognizable styles)
  • Criticism (people make a point of judging, appreciating and interpreting works of art)
  • Imitation (with a few important exceptions (e.g. music, abstract painting), works of art simulate experiences of the world)
  • Special Focus (art is set aside from ordinary life and made a dramatic focus of experience)
  • Imagination (artists and their audiences entertain hypothetical worlds in the theatre of the imagination)

The Ancient Greek philosophers initially felt that aesthetically appealing objects were beautiful in and of themselves. Plato felt that beautiful objects incorporated proportion, harmony and unity among their parts. Aristotle found that the universal elements of beauty were order, symmetry and definiteness.

According to Islam, human works of art are inherently flawed compared to the work of Allah, and to attempt to depict in a realistic form any animal or person is insolence to Allah. This has had the effect of narrowing the field of Muslim artistic possibility to such forms as mosaics, calligraphy, architecture and geometric and floral patterns.

Indian art evolved with an emphasis on inducing special spiritual or philosophical states in the audience, or with representing them symbolically.

As long as go as the 5th Century , Chinese philosophers were already arguing about aesthetics. Confucius (551 - 479 ) emphasized the role of the arts and humanities (especially music and poetry) in broadening human nature. His near contemporary Mozi (470 - 391 ), however, argued that music and fine arts were classist and wasteful, benefiting the rich but not the common people.

Western Medieval art (at least until the revival of classical ideals during the Renaissance) was highly religious in focus, and was typically funded by the Church, powerful ecclesiastical individuals, or wealthy secular patrons. A religiously uplifting message was considered more important than figurative accuracy or inspired composition. The skills of the artisan were considered gifts from God for the sole purpose of disclosing God to mankind.

With the shift in Western philosophy from the late 17th Century onwards, German and British thinkers in particular emphasized beauty as the key component of art and of the aesthetic experience, and saw art as necessarily aiming at beauty. For Friedrich Schiller (1759 - 1805), aesthetic appreciation of beauty is the most perfect reconciliation of the sensual and rational parts of human nature. Hegel held that art is the first stage in which the absolute spirit is immediately manifest to sense-perception, and is thus an objective rather than a subjective revelation of beauty. For Schopenhauer, aesthetic contemplation of beauty is the most free that the pure intellect can be from the dictates of will.

British Intuitionists like the 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury (1671 - 1713) claimed that beauty is just the sensory equivalent of moral goodness. More analytic theorists like Lord Kames (1696 - 1782), William Hogarth (1697 - 1764) and Edmund Burke hoped to reduce beauty to some list of attributes, while others like James Mill (1773 - 1836) and Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903) strove to link beauty to some scientific theory of psychology or biology.

Author's Introduction

Traditionally, analytic philosophers writing on aesthetics have given short shrift to nature. The last thirty years, however, have seen a steady growth of interest in this area. The essays and books now available cover central philosophical issues concerning the nature of the aesthetic and the existence of norms for aesthetic judgement. They also intersect with important issues in environmental philosophy. More recent contributions have opened up new topics, such as the relationship between natural sound and music, the beauty of animals, and the aesthetics of gardens. Using these materials, it is now easy to include a module on the aesthetics of nature as one part of an introductory course on aesthetics, or even to design an entire upper-level undergraduate or graduate seminar around the topic.

Author Recommends:

Don Mannison, ‘Comments Stimulated by Reinhardt's Remarks: A Prolegomenon to a Human Chauvinistic Aesthetic’. Environmental Philosophy. Eds. Don Mannison, Michael McRobbie, and Richard Routley (Canberra: Australian National University, 1980), 212–16.

Readers coming fresh to contemporary debates may find the lack of attention to natural beauty in twentieth-century philosophy somewhat puzzling. This paper, which defends the view that nature cannot be aesthetically appreciated as such, presents this attitude in a particularly pure form.

Ronald Hepburn, ‘Contemporary Aesthetics and the Neglect of Natural Beauty’. British Analytical Philosophy. Eds. Bernard Williams and Alan Montefiore (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966), 285–310. Reprinted in The Aesthetics of Natural Environments. Eds. Allen Carlson and Arnold Berleant (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2004).

This seminal essay marks the beginning of contemporary discussion of the aesthetics of nature. Many of its ideas and themes continue to reverberate in contemporary debates.

Allen Carlson, Aesthetics and the Environment: The Appreciation of Nature, Art and Architecture (London: Routledge, 2000).

This volume is a collection of Carlson's influential essays on environmental aesthetics. Chapters 4 and 5, ‘Appreciation and the Natural Environment’ and ‘Nature, Aesthetic Judgment, and Objectivity’, set the agenda for much subsequent discussion in the aesthetics of nature. Chapter 6, ‘Nature and Positive Aesthetics’, develops and defends the controversial idea that nature, unlike art, is always aesthetically good.

Arnold Berleant, ‘The Aesthetics of Art and Nature’. Landscape, Natural Beauty and the Arts. Eds. Salim Kemal and Ivan Gaskell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 228–43. Reprinted in The Aesthetics of Natural Environments. Eds. Allen Carlson and Arnold Berleant (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2004).

In this paper, Berleant presents his influential idea of an ‘engaged aesthetics’ for nature.

Yuriko Saito, ‘The Aesthetics of Unscenic Nature’. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56 (1998): 101–11.

This article develops Saito's idea that ethical considerations play a critical role in the aesthetics of nature, and presents a novel argument for Positive Aesthetics for nature.

Malcolm Budd, The Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature: Essays on the Aesthetics of Nature (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

This book collects Budd's papers on the aesthetics of nature, which contain important criticisms of Carlson's natural environmental model and the notion of Positive Aesthetics for nature.

Noël Carroll, ‘On Being Moved by Nature: Between Religion and Natural History’. Landscape, Natural Beauty and the Arts. Eds. Salim Kemal and Ivan Gaskell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 244–66. Reprinted in The Aesthetics of Natural Environments. Eds. Allen Carlson and Arnold Berleant (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2004).

This paper argues for the importance of aesthetic appreciation that emphasizes emotional responses to nature. A philosophically sophisticated and influential treatment by a leading aesthetician.

Ned Hettinger, ‘Allen Carlson's Environmental Aesthetics and Protection of the Environment’. Environmental Ethics 27 (2005): 57–76.

In this essay, an environmental philosopher gives careful and thorough consideration to the place of aesthetic considerations in environmental protection, focusing on Carlson's work.

John Andrew Fisher, ‘What the Hills are Alive With: In Defense of the Sounds of Nature’. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56 (1998): 167–79. Reprinted in The Aesthetics of Natural Environments. Eds. Allen Carlson and Arnold Berleant (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2004).

Most discussions of nature aesthetics focus on visual experiences; this essay is the first philosophical study of the aesthetics of natural sounds. A nuanced and original paper.

Allen Carlson and Arnold Berleant. ‘Introduction: The Aesthetics of Nature’. The Aesthetics of Natural Environments. Eds. Allen Carlson and Arnold Berleant (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2004), 11–42.

A comprehensive review of the literature, this essay contains the best available bibliography on the subject.

Online Materials:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/environmental-aesthetics/

Environmental Aesthetics:

Allen Carlson's entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

http://www.aesthetics-online.org/articles/index.php?articles_id=17

Teaching Environmental Aesthetics:

Allen Carlson's article on the American Society for Aesthetics Web site.

http://www.uqtr. uquebec.ca/AE/Vol_6/

Volume 6 of AE: Canadian Aesthetics Journal /Revue canadienne d’esthetique:

Papers by Thomas Heyd and Ira Newman on Allen Carlson's book Aesthetics and the Environment, along with a response from Carlson.

http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=400

Paradoxes and Puzzles: Appreciating Gardens and Urban Nature:

An essay by Stephanie Ross in the online journal Contemporary Aesthetics.

Sample Syllabus for a three-week module in an undergraduate aesthetics course:

This three week module can easily be adapted to fit shorter available class time or reduced reading expectations for students. A lighter two-week module, for instance, would drop the Hepburn reading and do either the Carroll essay or the Saito essay, but not both. Note that all readings for this module are reprinted in Allen Carlson and Arnold Berleant (eds.), The Aesthetics of Natural Environments (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2004).

Week 1: Introduction

Reading:

Ronald Hepburn, ‘Contemporary Aesthetics and the Neglect of Natural Beauty’. British Analytical Philosophy. Eds. Bernard Williams and Alan Montefiore (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966), 285–310.

Discussion of Hepburn's essay will allow the instructor to bring out the distinctive issues and themes of the aesthetics of nature.

Week 2: Objectivity or Subjectivity?

Readings:

Allen Carlson, ‘Appreciation and the Natural Environment’. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 37 (1979): 267–76.

Arnold Berleant, ‘The Aesthetics of Art and Nature’. Landscape, Natural Beauty and the Arts. Eds. Salim Kemal and Ivan Gaskell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 228–43.

This section covers two very different approaches to thinking about the aesthetic appreciation of nature. Consideration of these provides an opportunity for students to reflect on nature's relationship to art, and on the character of aesthetic experience itself.

Week 3: Pluralistic Approaches

Readings:

Yuriko Saito, ‘Appreciating Nature on its Own Terms’. Environmental Ethics 20 (1998): 135–49.

Noël Carroll, ‘On Being Moved by Nature: Between Religion and Natural History’. Landscape, Natural Beauty and the Arts. Eds. Salim Kemal and Ivan Gaskell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 244–66.

This section considers approaches that are motivated by perceived limitations of the two approaches mentioned above. In discussing these, students will focus on the significance, for the aesthetics of nature, of emotion and also of broader ethical considerations.

Sample Syllabus for an upper-level undergraduate or graduate seminar:

Books on Syllabus:

Glenn Parsons, Aesthetics and Nature [AN] (London: Continuum Press, forthcoming November 2008).

Allen Carlson, Aesthetics and the Environment: The Appreciation of Nature, Art and Architecture [AE] (London: Routledge, 2000).

Allen Carlson and Arnold Berleant (eds.), The Aesthetics of Natural Environments [ANE] (Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 2004).

Week 1: Introduction

Parsons, AN, ch. 1.

Allen Carlson, ‘Environmental Aesthetics’. The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics. Eds. Berys Gaut and Dominic Lopes (London: Routledge, 2001), 423–36.

Don Mannison, ‘Comments Stimulated by Reinhardt's Remarks: A Prolegomenon to a Human Chauvinistic Aesthetic’. Environmental Philosophy. Eds. Don Mannison, Michael McRobbie, and Richard Routley (Canberra: Australian National University, 1980), 212–16.

Ronald Hepburn, ‘Contemporary Aesthetics and the Neglect of Natural Beauty’. British Analytical Philosophy. Eds. Bernard Williams and Alan Montefiore (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966), 285–310. Reprinted in ANE.

Week 2: Imagination

Parsons, AN, ch. 2.

Thomas Heyd, ‘Aesthetic Appreciation and the Many Stories About Nature’. British Journal of Aesthetics 41 (2001): 125–37. Reprinted in ANE.

Emily Brady, ‘Imagination and the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature’. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56 (1998): 139–47. Reprinted in ANE.

Marcia Eaton, ‘Fact and Fiction in the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature’. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56 (1998): 149–56. Reprinted in ANE.

Week 3: Formalism

Parsons, AN, ch. 3.

Carlson, ‘Formal Qualities and the Natural Environment’, AE, ch. 3.

Allen Carlson, ‘On the Possibility of Quantifying Scenic Beauty’. Landscape Planning 4 (1977): 131–72.

Ira Newman, ‘Reflections on Allen Carlson's Aesthetics and the Environment’. AE: Canadian Aesthetics Journal /Revue canadienne d’esthetique 6 (2001) <http://www.uqtr.uquebec.ca/AE/Vol_6/Carlson/newman.html>.

Nick Zangwill, ‘Formal Natural Beauty’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 21 (2001): 209–24.

Week 4: Science and Nature Aesthetics

Parsons, AN, ch. 4.

Aldo Leopold, ‘Country’. A Sand County Almanac, with Essays on Conservation from Round River (New York, NY: Ballantine Books, 1966), 177–80.

Carlson, ‘Appreciation and the Natural Environment’, AE, ch. 4.

Carlson, ‘Nature, Aesthetic Judgment, and Objectivity’, AE, ch. 5.

Glenn Parsons, ‘The Aesthetics of Nature’. Philosophy Compass 2 (2007): 358–72.

Week 5: Positive Aesthetics

Carlson, ‘Nature and Positive Aesthetics’, AE, ch. 6.

Eugene Hargrove, Foundations of Environmental Ethics (Denton, TX: Environmental Ethics Books, 1996), ch. 6.

Yuriko Saito, ‘The Aesthetics of Unscenic Nature’. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56 (1998): 101–11.

Malcolm Budd, ‘The Aesthetics of Nature’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100 (2000): 137–57.

Glenn Parsons, ‘Nature Appreciation, Science and Positive Aesthetics’. British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (2002): 279–95.

Week 6: Animals

Edmund Burke, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. Ed. James T. Boulton (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968 [1757]), Pt. III, sec. VI.

Holmes Rolston III, ‘Beauty and the Beast: Aesthetic Experience of Wildlife’. Valuing Wildlife: Economic and Social Perspectives. Eds. Daniel J. Decker and Gary R. Goff (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1987), 187–96.

Glenn Parsons, ‘The Aesthetic Value of Animals’. Environmental Ethics 27 (2007): 151–69.

Week 7: Pluralism

Parsons, AN, ch. 5.

Noël Carroll, ‘On Being Moved by Nature: Between Religion and Natural History’. Landscape, Natural Beauty and the Arts. Eds. Salim Kemal and Ivan Gaskell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 244–66. Reprinted in ANE.

Yuriko Saito, ‘Appreciating Nature on its Own Terms’. Environmental Ethics 20 (1998): 135–49. Reprinted in ANE.

Ronald Hepburn, ‘Nature Humanized: Nature Respected’. Environmental Values 7 (1998): 267–79.

Ronald Hepburn, ‘Trivial and Serious in Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature’. Landscape, Natural Beauty and the Arts. Eds. Salim Kemal and Ivan Gaskell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 65–80.

Glenn Parsons and Allen Carlson, ‘New Formalism and the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature’. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 62 (2004): 363–76.

Week 8: Engagement

Parsons, AN, ch. 6.

Arnold Berleant, ‘The Aesthetics of Art and Nature’. Landscape, Natural Beauty and the Arts. Eds. Salim Kemal and Ivan Gaskell (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 228–43. Reprinted in ANE.

Cheryl Foster, ‘The Narrative and the Ambient in Environmental Aesthetics’. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 56 (1998): 127–37. Reprinted in ANE.

Allen Carlson, ‘Aesthetics and Engagement’. British Journal of Aesthetics 33 (1993): 220–27.

Week 9: The Sublime

Immanuel Kant, Critique of the Power of Judgment. Trans. P. Guyer and E. Matthews (Cambridge University Press, 2000 [1790]). Excerpts from sections 23–9.

Edmund Burke, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. Ed. James T. Boulton (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968 [1757]). Excerpts from Pt. II, sections 1–8.

Ronald Hepburn, ‘The Concept of the Sublime: Has it any Relevance for Philosophy Today?’. Dialectics and Humanism 15 (1988): 137–55.

Stan Godlovitch, ‘Icebreakers: Environmentalism and Natural Aesthetics’. Journal of Applied Philosophy 11 (1994): 15–30. Reprinted in ANE.

Malcolm Budd, ‘Delight in the Natural World: Kant on the Aesthetic Appreciation of Nature. Part I: The Sublime in Nature’. British Journal of Aesthetics 38 (1998): 233–50.

Week 10: Aesthetic Preservation

Parsons, AN, ch. 7.

Janna Thompson, ‘Aesthetics and the Value of Nature’. Environmental Ethics 17 (1995): 291–305.

Holmes Rolston III, ‘From Beauty to Duty: Aesthetics of Nature and Environmental Ethics’. Environment and the Arts: Perspectives on Environmental Aesthetics. Ed. Arnold Berleant (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2002), 127–41.

Ned Hettinger, ‘Allen Carlson's Environmental Aesthetics and Protection of the Environment’. Environmental Ethics 27 (2005): 57–76.

Keekok Lee, ‘Beauty for Ever?’. Environmental Values 4 (1995): 213–25.

Week 11: Gardens

Parsons, AN, ch. 8.

Mara Miller, The Garden as an Art (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1993), ch. 1.

Mara Miller, ‘Gardens as Works of Art: The Problem of Uniqueness’. British Journal of Aesthetics 26 (1986): 252–6.

Stephanie Ross, What Gardens Mean (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1998), chs. 1, 7.

Tom Leddy, ‘Gardens in an Expanded Field’. British Journal of Aesthetics 28 (1988): 327–40.

David Cooper, ‘In Praise of Gardens’. British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (2003): 101–13.

Week 12: Art in Nature

Parsons, AN, ch. 9.

Carlson, ‘Is Environmental Art an Aesthetic Affront to Nature?’, AE, ch. 10.

Sheila Lintott, ‘Ethically Evaluating Land Art: Is It Worth It?’. Ethics, Place & Environment 10 (2007): 263–77.

Emily Brady, ‘Aesthetic Regard for Nature in Environmental and Land Art’. Ethics, Place & Environment 10 (2007): 287–300.

Focus Questions

  • 1Are there any important differences between the aesthetic appreciation of art and the aesthetic appreciation of nature? If so, what are they?
  • 2Is preserving nature for its aesthetic value a coherent idea?
  • 3What is the ugliest natural thing or place you can think of? How might proponents of Positive Aesthetics for nature deal with your example?
  • 4Does the concept of the sublime have any significance for our contemporary experience of nature? If it does, what relation does it bear to our aesthetic appreciation of nature?
  • 5Watch Rivers and Tides (2001), the documentary film about the British environmental artist Andy Goldsworthy. Ethically speaking, how do you think we ought to regard his art-making?

One thought on “Aesthetics Philosophy Essay Outline

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *